Civil Law

Being an overseas worker, Salvador issued to Ronaldo a duly notarized Special Power of Attorney (SPA) authorizing the latter to enter into a contract of lease over Salvador's property covered by TCT No. 122433 for a period of three years with SISI Corp. Salvador entrusted to Ronaldo the owner's duplicate of the TCT in case SISI Corp. needed to verify the same. Hearing rumors that the subject property was sold, Salvador went to the Register of Deeds and was shocked to find out that TCT No. 122433 had been cancelled and TCT No. 334388 had been issued in Eduardo's name. To vindicate his property rights, Salvador filed a complaint for cancellation of title and reconveyance. Salvador was able to prove that he was out of the country when the purported sale was executed. On the other hand, Eduardo claims to be an innocent purchaser for value, stating that he paid the fair market value to Ronaldo and that he relied on the fact that Ronaldo presented the original owner's duplicate of Salvador's TCT. He likewise inspected the property and determined that Salvador was indeed the owner. If you were the judge, decide. Explain briefly. (5 points)

Jungkook, who owns a building, leases the same to Gel with the following terms: (i) the lease is for a period of ten years; (ii) the yearly rental is Php 1,200,000.00 payable within the first ten days of the current year; and (iii) in case of breach of any of the provisions of the lease, Gel is liable to pay Jungkook five monthly rentals and attorney's fees. Five years into the lease, Gel sends a notice to terminate the lease and offers to pay five monthly rentals. Despite Jungkook's objections, Gel vacates the premises. Jungkook sues Gel for the rentals due for the remaining five years of the lease. Gel takes the position that her liability should only be limited to five monthly rentals and attorney's fees. (a) Is there a penalty clause in the lease agreement? Explain briefly.

Eka, a Filipina, and Du-guil, a Korean, married in the Philippines. Thereafter, they moved to Seoul, South Korea. While there, Du-guil began to ignore Eka. He was always out with his friends and usually came home drunk. When Eka could not take their marital situation anymore, she asked for a divorce. Du-guil agreed on the condition that Eka would be the one to file for divorce, and that the ground should be "no fault", meaning, neither of them is at fault or neither would be accused of any wrongdoing. After the divorce, Eka went back to the Philippines and filed a case to have the judgment of divorce recognized. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied Eka's petition because she alone filed for divorce, in violation of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code. According to the RTC, Article 26 requires that either the foreign spouse alone initiates the filing of the divorce or, at the very least, Eka and Du-guil should have filed for divorce jointly. Is the RTC correct? Explain briefly. (5 points)

With the intent to develop a subdivision, Oliver bought a parcel of land adjacent to a subdivision owned by Phil. Oliver's land had no direct access to the highway, as it was blocked by a kamote plantation owned by Josh. Phil's subdivision, on the other hand, already has a direct access to the highway. To facilitate the release of the license from the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development, Oliver presented a contract to sell between him and Josh over the kamote plantation, on the representation that he would construct an access road thereon. Pending approval of the license, Oliver sought the consent of Phil to connect the road that would be built by him with the main road of Phil's subdivision. Phil allowed him to do this pending their negotiation on the compensation to be paid. With the eventual grant of the license, Oliver began the development of his subdivision. To preserve the right of way over Phil's subdivision, Oliver was able to cause an annotation of adverse claim on Phil's property. However, when Oliver's subdivision was already completed, and with the adverse claim annotated, Oliver believed that he no longer needed to buy the kamote plantation and accordingly rescinded the contract to sell with Josh. When Oliver and Phil failed to arrive at an agreement on the consideration for the easement, Phil built a wall blocking the road constructed by Oliver that connected Oliver's subdivision with his. Oliver filed a complaint seeking the establishment of an easement of right of way through Phil's subdivision which Oliver claimed to be the most adequate and convenient access to the highway. On the other hand, Phil filed a petition to have the adverse claim cancelled. (a) Is Oliver entitled to a right of way through Phil's subdivision? Explain briefly.

This case involves two competing titles: TCT No. 23456 in the name of Flor and TCT No. 65432 in the name of de Luna. Flor's title was derived from Rodrigo. Rodrigo's title was originally obtained through a judicial confirmation of title in 1950 based on a survey plan approved in 1931. On the other hand, de Luna derived her TCT No. 65432 from Diaz who obtained an original title through judicial confirmation of title at a much later date, in 1970, on the basis of a survey plan approved in 1921. It turned out that Flor's TCT No. 23456, although titled prior in time, was based on a survey plan that was marred with numerous blatant, obvious, and serious defects, to the point that the trial court found it dubious, irregularly approved and was therefore fake. (b) As between Flor and de Luna, whose title should be declared valid and whose title should be voided? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Jungkook, who owns a building, leases the same to Gel with the following terms: (i) the lease is for a period of ten years; (ii) the yearly rental is Php 1,200,000.00 payable within the first ten days of the current year; and (iii) in case of breach of any of the provisions of the lease, Gel is liable to pay Jungkook five monthly rentals and attorney's fees. Five years into the lease, Gel sends a notice to terminate the lease and offers to pay five monthly rentals. Despite Jungkook's objections, Gel vacates the premises. Jungkook sues Gel for the rentals due for the remaining five years of the lease. Gel takes the position that her liability should only be limited to five monthly rentals and attorney's fees. (b) As between Jungkook and Gel, who is correct? Explain briefly. (5 points)

In 2008, a fire razed the Register of Deeds of San Fernando, Pampanga (RD). Several titles on file were burned. Long before the fire, Tito, Vic, and Joey had been living in a 350-sq.m. lot covered by TCT No. 49933, which they inherited from their parents. The original of TCT No. 49933 on file with the RD was among the titles which were burned. To effect the partition agreed among them, the siblings filed a verified petition for reconstitution of the TCT before your court. To support the petition, the siblings presented: (i) a notarized affidavit of loss duly recorded and registered with the RD; (ii) a photocopy of TCT No. 49933; (iii) real property tax declarations and receipts to evidence payment of real property taxes, together with the sketch and subdivision plan; (iv) a Land Registration Authority (LRA) Report which states that the survey and subdivision plans and the technical description of the property may be used as a basis for inscription of the technical description of the reconstituted property; (v) a microfilm copy of the plans and technical description on file with the LRA; and (vi) the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate executed among them. The public prosecutor, duly deputized by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), prays for the denial of the petition, and argues that the foregoing documents are insufficient for reconstitution of TCT No. 49933. Should the petition for reconstitution be granted? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Pepe and Pilar are adjoining lot owners. Suppose Pepe's lot is titled and without his knowledge, it was encroached upon by Pilar whose lot is untitled but who honestly believed that the encroached portion, where she built a small bungalow house, is still within her property. (b) Suppose it is Pilar's lot that is titled, and Pepe's lot is untitled, would Pilar be a builder in good faith? Discuss Pepe's right as against Pilar. Explain briefly. (5 points)

Thea, Vanessa, and Sophia are siblings who are co-owners of a 600-sq. m. parcel of land covered by TCT No. 12345 situated along Bangkal Road, Makati City. Thea decided to sell her share, an undivided 200-sq.m. portion of the property, to Alyssa, a Filipino nurse who has been living in Canada for the last ten years. Alyssa, without the knowledge of Sophia and Vanessa, built a modest house on the 200-sq.m. portion abutting the road and leased it to Sell for Php 15,000.00 per month. (b) Can Vanessa and Sophia respectively legally demand from Alyssa a one-third share in the rentals? Explain briefly. (5 points)

This case involves two competing titles: TCT No. 23456 in the name of Flor and TCT No. 65432 in the name of de Luna. Flor's title was derived from Rodrigo. Rodrigo's title was originally obtained through a judicial confirmation of title in 1950 based on a survey plan approved in 1931. On the other hand, de Luna derived her TCT No. 65432 from Diaz who obtained an original title through judicial confirmation of title at a much later date, in 1970, on the basis of a survey plan approved in 1921. It turned out that Flor's TCT No. 23456, although titled prior in time, was based on a survey plan that was marred with numerous blatant, obvious, and serious defects, to the point that the trial court found it dubious, irregularly approved and was therefore fake. (a) Discuss the principle of "qui prior est tempore, prior est jure" in the torrens system of land registration.

The spouses Santos are the registered owners of Lot 2 located in Umaga Subdivision, Caramoan, Camarines Sur, covered by TCT No. 1369. Lot 2, which has been occupied by the spouses Santos for about 11 years, has a one-storey residential house which was already erected thereon when Lot 2 was purchased by them from the spouses Cruz in 2005. At the time of the acquisition of Lot 2, the adjoining lot, Lot 1, which was also owned by the spouses Cruz, was an idle land without any improvements. Lot 1 remained empty until the spouses Cruz started the construction of a two-storey residential house thereon in 2018. The house constructed on Lot 1 being taller than the spouses Santos' one-storey residential house, the spouses Cruz's two-storey residential house obstructed the light, air, and view of the spouses Santos' residential house. The spouses Santos bemoaned how, prior to the construction on Lot 1, they received enough bright and natural light from their windows. The construction rendered their house dark such that they are unable to do their normal activities in their house without switching on their lights. Have the spouses Santos acquired an easement of light and view with respect to Lot 1 owned by the spouses Cruz? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Luz is the owner of a parcel of land consisting of 500 square meters located in San Miguel, Bulacan and covered by TCT No. R-248016. Luz agreed to sell to Minda the land for Php 500,000.00 payable in ten monthly installments, with the first installment payable upon execution of the contract to sell, to which Minda acceded. They also agreed that the title to the land shall only transfer to Minda upon full payment of the considerations, and that any and all taxes, fees, and expenses incidental to the sale will be paid by Minda. Draft a notarized contract to sell between Luz and Minda. (5 points)

In 2013, Agaton, then 70 years old, executed a will wherein he bequeathed his entire estate to his acknowledged illegitimate son Karl. Agaton entrusted the original copy of the 2013 will to Karl. In 2014, Karl joined a group of mercenaries to fight in Crimea alongside the Russians. After Russia's annexation of Crimea, Karl did not return to the Philippines and was never heard of. Five years later, in 2019, Agaton executed a codicil which provided the following: "Because of the death of Karl, I revoke my 2013 will. I hereby recognize Gian as my other illegitimate son and hereby bequeath to him my entire estate." Agaton died in 2020. During the probate of Agaton's 2019 codicil, Karl appeared in court, presented the 2013 will, contested the validity of its revocation, opposed the probate of the 2019 codicil, and sought the probate of the 2013 will. Both the 2013 will and 2019 codicil were immaculate as to form. (a) Did the 2019 codicil revoke the 2013 will? Explain briefly.

Before they married in 2000, Nonoy and Daday signed a marriage settlement wherein they agreed that their property relations as husband and wife would be governed by the conjugal partnership of gains. While the marriage was subsisting, they acquired a parcel of land using conjugal funds. The Register of Deeds issued a Transfer certificate of title over the said land in the name of "Nonoy, married to Daday". Nonoy sold the parcel of land to Barby without Daday's consent. Daday was not aware of the sale and did not sign the contract of sale. A year after Nonoy and Barby signed the contract of sale, Daday died. When the children of Nonoy and Daday learned about the sale to Barby, they questioned its validity since Daday had not consented to the sale. Nonoy's position is that Daday's consent was not required because the property was registered in his name. Is the sale to Barby valid? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Leon is the owner of a condominium unit located directly above the condominium unit owned by Anj. In 2014, Leon undertook renovations in his unit's bathroom, which caused water to leak from his bathroom down to Anj's unit, and caused extensive damage to Anj's belongings. As Anj had obtained property insurance on her unit and its contents from Proverbial Insurance Co. (PIC), Anj was able to recover the value of the damage in September 2016. In October 2022, PIC, as subrogee of Anj, sued Leon to recover the insurance proceeds it paid to Anj. Leon interposed prescription to dismiss the suit of PIC. PIC counters that the payment of the insurance proceeds in 2016 created, by way of legal subrogation, a 10-year period within which to file the suit against Leon. Is PIC correct? Explain briefly. (5 points)

With the intent to develop a subdivision, Oliver bought a parcel of land adjacent to a subdivision owned by Phil. Oliver's land had no direct access to the highway, as it was blocked by a kamote plantation owned by Josh. Phil's subdivision, on the other hand, already has a direct access to the highway. To facilitate the release of the license from the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development, Oliver presented a contract to sell between him and Josh over the kamote plantation, on the representation that he would construct an access road thereon. Pending approval of the license, Oliver sought the consent of Phil to connect the road that would be built by him with the main road of Phil's subdivision. Phil allowed him to do this pending their negotiation on the compensation to be paid. With the eventual grant of the license, Oliver began the development of his subdivision. To preserve the right of way over Phil's subdivision, Oliver was able to cause an annotation of adverse claim on Phil's property. However, when Oliver's subdivision was already completed, and with the adverse claim annotated, Oliver believed that he no longer needed to buy the kamote plantation and accordingly rescinded the contract to sell with Josh. When Oliver and Phil failed to arrive at an agreement on the consideration for the easement, Phil built a wall blocking the road constructed by Oliver that connected Oliver's subdivision with his. Oliver filed a complaint seeking the establishment of an easement of right of way through Phil's subdivision which Oliver claimed to be the most adequate and convenient access to the highway. On the other hand, Phil filed a petition to have the adverse claim cancelled. (b) Is there basis to have the adverse claim cancelled? Explain briefly. (5 points)

During Remy's pregnancy, her father Gavin executed a will bequeathing his rest house in Calatagan, Batangas to Remy's unborn child. While Gavin and Remy, who was then seven months pregnant, were on their way to Calatagan, they figured in a car accident on December 1, 2021 which resulted in the instantaneous death of Gavin and the premature delivery of Remy on the same day. At 8:30 a.m. on December 3, 2021, the newborn baby died. Is the devise in favor of the baby valid? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Thea, Vanessa, and Sophia are siblings who are co-owners of a 600-sq. m. parcel of land covered by TCT No. 12345 situated along Bangkal Road, Makati City. Thea decided to sell her share, an undivided 200-sq.m. portion of the property, to Alyssa, a Filipino nurse who has been living in Canada for the last ten years. Alyssa, without the knowledge of Sophia and Vanessa, built a modest house on the 200-sq.m. portion abutting the road and leased it to Sell for Php 15,000.00 per month. (a) Could Thea legally transfer her share of the property to Alyssa without the consent of Vanessa and Sophia? Explain briefly.

Atoy is one of the five children of Jawo. Jawo was the registered owner of a four-hectare parcel of land in Sta. Cruz, Laguna covered by TCT No. 77347. When Jawo died, the owner's duplicate of the TCT was kept by Jawo's daughter, Akiko (sister of Atoy), who resided in the said property. Wanting to have the said four-hectare property registered under his name, Atoy got in touch with Franz who had special connections with the Register of Deeds of Sta. Cruz, Laguna. TCT No. 77347 was then cancelled and TCT No. 84660 was issued in Atoy's name on January 29, 2013. Atoy immediately mortgaged the property to the Rural Bank of Sta. Cruz (RBSC). Upon default and after being declared the winning bidder in the extrajudicial foreclosure sale, RBSC consolidated ownership with the issuance of TCT No. 94477 in its name. How will Akiko and the other heirs of Jawo be able to successfully argue that RBSC is not an innocent purchaser for value? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Gio, single, joined a marathon organized by Takbo Co. For lack of alternative routes, the marathon course included a public road which was not blocked-off from vehicles. Takbo Co. solicited the sponsorship of Kotse Corp. for added financial support. Gio was hit by a jeepney driven by JD on the public road and died. The parents of Gio sued Takbo Co. and Kotse Corp. for damages. The court ruled that Kotse Corp. is solidarily liable for damages with Takbo Co. for being one of the principal movers of the event due to its sponsorship. Is the court correct? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Joey was the legitimate son of Ron and May. Joey died intestate and was survived by his wife Kathy and their legitimate children, Luis and Clarisse. Several months after Joey died, Ron also died intestate. Ron was survived by his wife May, daughter Mercy (full-sibling of Joey), and the children of Joey (Luis and Clarisse). Distribute the estate of Ron. Explain briefly. (5 points)

How does the New Civil Code distinguish between immovable and movable properties? Explain briefly and give two examples for each. (5 points)

Miguel, who died single and childless, was survived by his two legitimate brothers Romy and Rolly, and his nephews Arno and Pabs, the legitimate sons of his predeceased legitimate brother Edgar. Before his death, Miguel executed a one-page notarial will, inclusive of an attestation clause and a notarial acknowledgement, with only one testamentary disposition bequeathing his entire estate to Romy and Rolly. The will was not paginated and was attested by four witnesses: Uno, Dos, Tres, and Quatro. It was the eve of Quatro's 17th birthday when the will was executed. The will was written in the Ilocano dialect which Miguel knew and understood, but the witnesses did not. Miguel and the witnesses signed at the end of the testamentary disposition. The attestation was also written in the Ilocano dialect which, when translated to the English language, read as follows: "This will of Miguel was written in ONE page. We, the attesting witnesses, signed at the end of the will and at the bottom of this attestation in the presence of Miguel and of each of us." Each of the four witnesses signed below the attestation clause. Because none of the witnesses knew and understood the Ilocano dialect, the attestation was interpreted to them by Miguel's lawyer who was present to notarize the will. (a) Does the fact that the will was written in a dialect known only to Miguel invalidate the will? What about the absence of the marginal signatures of the testator and the witnesses? Explain briefly.

In 2014, a wealthy young couple, the spouses Tan, moved by the spirit of generosity and love for their hometown in Siquijor, decided to donate a one-hectare lot in favor of the province of Siquijor. The Deed of Donation pertinently provides: "The herein DONORS hereby voluntarily and freely give, transfer and convey, by way of unconditional donation, unto said DONEE, all of the rights, title and interest which the aforesaid DONORS have or which pertain to them and which they owned exclusively in the above-described real property over a one hectare portion of the same, solely for hospital site only and for no other purpose, where a provincial government hospital shall be constructed." The donation was recorded in the Registry of Deeds, and a certificate of title to the property was transferred to the province of Siquijor. In accordance with the Deed of Donation, the construction of a hospital building was started in the following year. However, for reasons unknown, only the foundation of the hospital building has, to this day, been completed. Do the spouses Tan have valid grounds to revoke the donation? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Laica and Jessica, who are best friends, are both engaged in money lending at predatory interest rates. Running out of funds, Laica borrows Php 2,000,000.00 from Jessica for two months at a monthly interest rate of 10%. Jessica releases the borrowed amount after Laica signs a promissory note. Laica then relends to Monica the borrowed amount of Php 2,000,000.00 for two months, at an interest rate of 30%. After two months, Laica fails to pay Jessica, prompting Jessica to file a collection suit against the former, for the Php 2,000,000.00 principal and 10% interest per month pursuant to their agreement. Laica counters that the monthly interest rate of 10% is exorbitant and should be reduced to the legal rate of interest at 6% per annum. Which between the positions of Laica and Jessica is tenable? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Ely borrows Php 2,000,000.00 from Mia and mortgages a parcel of land to secure the loan. The mortgage provides for a 5% monthly interest, a five-year maturity period, a default provision in case of non-payment of interest or principal, and an extrajudicial foreclosure provision. On the fourth year, Ely fails to pay interest for three consecutive months. After sending a demand letter, Mia declares Ely in default and extrajudicially forecloses the mortgage. Mia is the highest bidder in the foreclosure sale and consolidates ownership upon the lapse of the redemption period. Can Ely have the foreclosure annulled and recover the property? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Brenda saw the online advertisement of Evelyn, who sells limited edition sneakers. Through an exchange of text messages, Evelyn and Brenda agreed that: (i) Evelyn will sell to Brenda a pair of brand-new sneakers for Php 25,000.00; (ii) Brenda will deposit the purchase price in Evelyn's bank account; and (iii) Evelyn will deliver the sneakers within ten days from deposit. Brenda deposited the purchase price and Evelyn acknowledged receipt thereof. Before the delivery of the sneakers, Evelyn received an offer from Rosela to buy the same sneakers for Php 35,000.00. Evelyn candidly tells Brenda that she is selling the sneakers at a higher price to another buyer, and sends this next message to Brenda: "Sis, may iba pala akong buyer na mas malaki yung offer, sorry! Balik ko nalang bayad mo, keri?" Evelyn claims that since the sneakers have not yet been delivered to Brenda, she can still withdraw the offer. Is Evelyn's contention tenable? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Aida, for the consideration of Php 5,000,000.00, sold her parcel of land to Lorna, as evidenced by a notarized Deed of Sale. Lorna, however, failed to deliver the amount in full, paying only Php 500,000.00 as down payment. Because of the non-payment of the balance, Aida simply sold the same parcel of land to Fe with the intention of returning to Lorna the Php 500,000.00 down payment. Who among Aida, Lorna, and Fe owns the property? Explain briefly. (5 points)

In 2013, Agaton, then 70 years old, executed a will wherein he bequeathed his entire estate to his acknowledged illegitimate son Karl. Agaton entrusted the original copy of the 2013 will to Karl. In 2014, Karl joined a group of mercenaries to fight in Crimea alongside the Russians. After Russia's annexation of Crimea, Karl did not return to the Philippines and was never heard of. Five years later, in 2019, Agaton executed a codicil which provided the following: "Because of the death of Karl, I revoke my 2013 will. I hereby recognize Gian as my other illegitimate son and hereby bequeath to him my entire estate." Agaton died in 2020. During the probate of Agaton's 2019 codicil, Karl appeared in court, presented the 2013 will, contested the validity of its revocation, opposed the probate of the 2019 codicil, and sought the probate of the 2013 will. Both the 2013 will and 2019 codicil were immaculate as to form. (b) Distribute the estate of Agaton. Explain briefly. (5 points)

In 2017, Alma orally sold a parcel of unregistered land to the spouses Ray and Shane for Php 500,000.00. Upon receipt of the initial payment of Php 350,000.00, Alma delivered possession of the land to the spouses. Shortly thereafter, Alma died. In order to formalize the sale, Ray and Shane convinced Josie, one of Alma's children, to sign a notarized deed of confirmation of sale. In consideration thereof, Josie received Php 150,000.00 representing the balance of the purchase price. On the strength of the notarized confirmation of sale, the spouses were able to transfer the tax declaration of the property in their names. Later, Josie died. In 2020, the surviving children of Alma discovered the oral sale of the land to Ray and Shane. They demanded the return of the property on the following grounds: (i) the oral contract of sale is void because it does not appear in a public instrument; and (ii) assuming the sale is not void, it is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. Ray and Shane insisted that the sale of the land to them was both valid and enforceable. Are the contentions of the heirs of Alma tenable? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Noel is the son of spouses Marie and Benedict. Benedict has passed away. For Noel's 7th birthday, his paternal grandparents offered to organize and pay for his birthday party. In coordination with Marie, the grandparents booked the party venue, signed the contracts with the caterer and the entertainers, finalized the guest list, and paid all amount due. Marie promised them to bring Noel to the party. A week before the scheduled birthday party, Marie decided that she would not bring Noel to the party, and that she would instead take him on an out-of-town trip on the day of the party. Marie could not forget that her parents-in-law initially opposed Benedict's marriage to her because she was a former burlesque dancer. Marie did not notify the grandparents of her plan to skip the birthday party. During the party, the grandparents kept trying to get in touch with her but she ignored all their calls. The grandparents and the guests who went to the party were very dismayed that Noel was not present. When the grandparents asked Marie why she did not bring Noel to the party, she simply replied, "I am his mother, and I decide where he goes!". To which, Noel's grandmother retorted, "Anak mo lang s'ya! Hindi mo s'ya pag-aari!". The grandparents seek your advice on whether there is legal basis to hold Marie liable for the damages that they have suffered as a result of her acts. What is your advice? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Miguel, who died single and childless, was survived by his two legitimate brothers Romy and Rolly, and his nephews Arno and Pabs, the legitimate sons of his predeceased legitimate brother Edgar. Before his death, Miguel executed a one-page notarial will, inclusive of an attestation clause and a notarial acknowledgement, with only one testamentary disposition bequeathing his entire estate to Romy and Rolly. The will was not paginated and was attested by four witnesses: Uno, Dos, Tres, and Quatro. It was the eve of Quatro's 17th birthday when the will was executed. The will was written in the Ilocano dialect which Miguel knew and understood, but the witnesses did not. Miguel and the witnesses signed at the end of the testamentary disposition. The attestation was also written in the Ilocano dialect which, when translated to the English language, read as follows: "This will of Miguel was written in ONE page. We, the attesting witnesses, signed at the end of the will and at the bottom of this attestation in the presence of Miguel and of each of us." Each of the four witnesses signed below the attestation clause. Because none of the witnesses knew and understood the Ilocano dialect, the attestation was interpreted to them by Miguel's lawyer who was present to notarize the will. (b) May the will nonetheless be admitted to probate? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Ranza and Junsi got married in 2015 and were blessed with two children, Zarah and Mica. In 2020, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the entire family had to spend 24 hours together every day in their small house. Ranza observed that although Junsi continued to work from home to support the family, he began to exhibit paranoia, and constantly kept making sure that they always washed their hands and rubbed them with alcohol ten times before eating. Junsi also always wore a face mask, face shield and hazmat in the house, except when he was alone in the room. Junsi began sleeping separately from Ranza and their children. He believed that other people who wanted to meet him in person were actively trying to harm him by exposing him to the virus. In early 2022, Ranza filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Junsi on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code, citing his atypical behavior. She presented the testimony of a doctor, who proved that Junsi was suffering from psychotic paranoia due to intense stress, which accounted for his belief in things that are not real. Should Ranza's petition be granted? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Pepe and Pilar are adjoining lot owners. Suppose Pepe's lot is titled and without his knowledge, it was encroached upon by Pilar whose lot is untitled but who honestly believed that the encroached portion, where she built a small bungalow house, is still within her property. (a) Is Pilar a builder in good faith? Discuss Pepe's right as against Pilar. Explain briefly.

A corporation which owns a hospital was sued along with a physician for medical malpractice. The corporation moved to dismiss the case, arguing that it was only the physician, as the natural person, who could be the subject of any kind of suit. In other words, the corporation argued that it was not a legal person. Is the position of the corporation owning the hospital legally tenable? Explain briefly.

Four siblings co-own a two-hectare, commercially viable property located next to a major road. The siblings have equal shares but none of them have exerted any effort to partition the property. A large retail conglomerate then offered to purchase the entire property. Three of the siblings were willing to sell, but one refused, wanting to hold on to the land in memory of their departed parents. The three willing siblings proceeded to sell their respective shares in the property to the large retail conglomerate. After the sale, the conglomerate filed a case in court to partition the property. Should the court allow the partition? Explain briefly.

Your significant other shows you a laptop screen on which a mandatory question for the installation of an app appears. The question reads: "Do you agree to the terms and conditions of use?" There are two buttons indicating alternative responses: one is labeled "Agree"; the other is labeled "Disagree." The terms and conditions of use are not shown on the screen. Neither is there a hyperlink that can be clicked that would reveal the terms and conditions of use of the app being installed. Curious why the terms and conditions of use are not available, you search the internet and come across media articles revealing that the terms and conditions of use allow the app provider to access a user's contact list, emails, and browsing history. These pieces of information are sold to advertisers who, in turn, tailor their emails to users so that they can engage in targeted advertising based on the users' profiles. Your significant other asks you this legal question: By clicking on "Agree", will there be a "meeting of the minds" between the user and the app provider enabling access to the user's contact list, emails, and browsing history? Explain briefly.

A couple executes a prenuptial agreement which principally provides that their marriage shall be valid for only five years but that it can be renewed through mutual consent negotiated at least six months before its expiration. Is this contract valid? Explain briefly.

Believing that a parcel of land was public land, a farmer built a two-story concrete house on it. Five years later, a person showed up bearing an original certificate of title over the lot which had been registered for more than 10 years. The person asked the farmer to vacate the parcel of land. The farmer refused to vacate unless the titled owner pays the fair market value of the house built on the parcel of land. Does the farmer have legal ground to demand payment for the house before vacating the parcel of land? Explain briefly.

A seller posted an online advertisement for a "4-volume set of Tolentino's Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, 100 pesos only." A Bar candidate excitedly ordered it and paid through GCash. However, when the set was delivered, tears started to well in the Bar candidate's eyes. Much to the Bar candidate's bewilderment, the author was not Arturo Tolentino, the legal luminary as the candidate was made to expect, but Lorna Tolentino, the noted actor. The Bar candidate believes that the contract of sale should be rescinded and that damages are also proper. Is the Bar candidate's position legally sound? Explain briefly.

A wife was able to validly obtain a judicial declaration of her husband's presumptive death after he had disappeared for 10 years. She then remarried in accordance with law. To her surprise, a few years after her remarriage, her first husband reappeared. Does the first husband's reappearance automatically, without need of any further act, terminate the second marriage? Explain briefly.

Two college sweethearts were married inside a Roman Catholic church in the Philippines with a Supreme Court Justice serving as solemnizing officer. A few years following the ceremony, one of the two filed an action for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground that the marriage was void ab initio because it was solemnized inside a Roman Catholic church by a Supreme Court Justice, and not by a Roman Catholic priest. Is the position legally tenable? Explain briefly.

A Japanese national was able to obtain a divorce decree concerning his marriage with his Filipino wife. The decree capacitated the Japanese national to remarry. Can the Filipino wife now avail of Article 26 of the Family Code and then remarry? Explain briefly.

A bride declined to appear on her wedding day. Instead, she sent a note to her prospective groom, saying that she needed to be honest to herself by admitting that the institution of marriage was not for her. The bride wrote that she came to this conclusion after contemplating on the tweets of the #LabGuru. She also wrote that to atone for her non-appearance, she would post a glowing recommendation of the prospective groom as a partner on her Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Tiktok accounts. The couple had previously dated for almost eight years. The whole time, the prospective groom had been loyal and caring. It was the bride who covered all the wedding expenses. Heartbroken and embarrassed, the prospective groom sued the prospective bride for moral damages, alleging that she had breached her promise to marry him. Will the suit prosper? Explain briefly.

A 12-year-old seventh grade student living in the company of their parents brought a gun owned by the father to school. With it, the student shot a classmate who had been a bully. The student missed, sparing the bully. The bully's parents, incensed by the event, sued the parents of the 12-year-old seventh grade student for damages. The defendant parents moved to dismiss the suit, claiming that they could never be held liable for damages since they did not shoot the bully themselves. Should the motion to dismiss be granted on this ground? Explain briefly.

A 100-year-old tree inside a university was uprooted by strong winds caused by a super typhoon. This was despite the university's prior efforts to maintain the strength of the tree's roots. The tree was blown away until it hit a nearby fast-food restaurant where a Bar candidate was reviewing for the Bar Examinations. The Bar candidate, who was then the only person dining inside the fast-food restaurant, suffered physical injuries. The super typhoon was enabled by climate change. Can the university be held liable for the physical injuries suffered by the Bar candidate? Explain briefly.

X and Y were in a live-in relationship for the longest time, and were already blessed with a child, Z. They finally decided to get married on March 15, 2020. When X's parents found about the news, they were thrilled and thus, donated in favor of Z, the family heirloom, particularly, a gold ring valued at P250,000.00, which X and Y orally accepted on behalf of their minor child. One day, X and Y got into a serious quarrel, which resulted in them setting aside their marriage plans. (b) Assuming that the donation to Z is valid, may X's parents revoke the donation on the ground that the marriage of X with Y did not push through? Explain. (3%)

Prior to his death, H, married to W, with children X, Y, and Z, executed a holographic will entirely written, dated, and signed by him. In his will, H instituted W, X, and Y as his heirs, and consequently, made testamentary dispositions in their favor. H, however, expressly disinherited Z on the ground that the latter once filed a civil case against him in order to collect a particular sum of money he previously owed Z. (b) Assuming that the disinheritance of Z was improper, how will it affect the institution of heirs and testamentary dispositions made in H's will? Explain. (3%)

In light of a new business venture, Mr. A entered into a lease contract with Mr. B involving one of the latter's warehouses. One day, Mr. B, who was then encountering financial difficulties, approached Mr. A and sought for a loan, which Mr. A readily granted to him. In order to secure the loan obligation, Mr. B mortgaged the leased warehouse in favor of Mr. A. In addition, Mr. B executed a promissory note in favor of A, wherein prior demand was waived by him. When Mr. B defaulted on his loan obligation, Mr. A simply stopped paying rentals due to Mr. B on the ground that legal compensation had already set in up to the concurrent amount. Furthermore, since there was still a balance due on the promissory note, Mr. A foreclosed the real estate mortgage over Mr. B's property, without any prior demand furnished to Mr. B. Aggrieved, Mr. B opposed the foreclosure due to the lack of prior demand, contending that the waiver of prior demand was stipulated in the promissory note and not in the mortgage instrument. Mr. B likewise argued that when Mr. A invoked legal compensation between the unpaid rentals and the loan arrearages, it amounted to a novation that resulted in the extinguishment of the loan contract between them. As such, the real estate mortgage, being a mere accessory contract to the principal loan, was necessarily extinguished. (a) May Mr. A validly claim legal compensation? Explain. (2%)

Mr. Reyes is legally married to Mrs. Reyes. During the subsistence of their marriage, Mr. Reyes cohabited with another woman, Ms. Cruz. Out of Mr. Reyes and Ms. Cruz's illicit relationship, a child named C was born. In C's birth certificate, "Cruz" appears as the child's surname, although Mr. Reyes expressly acknowledged C as his child. In 2018, Mr. Reyes and Ms. Cruz ended their relationship. Mr. Reyes thereafter lodged a petition in court for parental custody and change or correction of C's surname in the child's birth certificate from "Cruz" to "Reyes." At that time, C was only ten (10) years old. (a) Should Mr. Reyes be granted custody of C? Explain. (2.5%)

In January 2018, Mrs. A, a married woman on her sixth (6th) month of pregnancy, was crossing a street when she was suddenly hit by a car being recklessly driven by Mr. X. As a result, Mrs. A sustained serious injuries and further, suffered an unintentional abortion. Mrs. A was hospitalized for two (2) months, during which she incurred P400,000.00 in medical fees. Her expenses were all duly substantiated by official receipts. During the two (2)-month period of her confinement, she was unable to report for work and earn any salary, which was established at the rate of P50,000.00 per month. Mrs. A then filed a civil case for damages against Mr. X. (e) Assuming that Mrs. A is awarded actual and moral damages by the trial court, may she also claim interest if the final and executory judgment award remains unpaid by Mr. X? If so, when should the interests be reckoned and what is the rate of interest? Explain. (3%)

Mr. R is the registered owner of a parcel of land located in Cebu City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 1234 issued in 1955. Since his acquisition of the lot, Mr. R and his family had been in continuous, open, and peaceful possession thereof. Mr. R died in 1980, resulting in the land being transferred in the names of his heirs, i.e., A, B, and C, who became registered owners thereof as per TCT No. 5678. During the entire time, said land had never been encumbered or disposed, and that its possession always remained with them. Sometime in 1999, A, B, and C wanted to build a concrete fence around the parcel of land, but they were opposed by Mrs. X, who started claiming ownership over the same property on the strength of a Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly entered into by her with Mr. R during the time that he was still alive. Aggrieved, A, B, and C intend to file a complaint for quieting of title against Mrs. X. (c) Assuming that B and C are residing abroad, may A, without the knowledge of B and C, file the complaint for quieting of title on behalf of all the heirs? Explain. (2%)

In January 2018, Mrs. A, a married woman on her sixth (6th) month of pregnancy, was crossing a street when she was suddenly hit by a car being recklessly driven by Mr. X. As a result, Mrs. A sustained serious injuries and further, suffered an unintentional abortion. Mrs. A was hospitalized for two (2) months, during which she incurred P400,000.00 in medical fees. Her expenses were all duly substantiated by official receipts. During the two (2)-month period of her confinement, she was unable to report for work and earn any salary, which was established at the rate of P50,000.00 per month. Mrs. A then filed a civil case for damages against Mr. X. (c) May Mrs. A claim damages on behalf of her unborn baby? Explain. (3%)

In 2015, O, the original registered owner of a 300-square meter property covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. O-1234, appointed F as its caretaker. A year after, while O was abroad, F surreptitiously broke open O's safe and stole the duplicate copy of the said OCT. F then forged a Deed of Absolute Sale and made it appear that O sold the property to him. Consequently, F was able to have OCT No. O-1234 cancelled and in lieu thereof, a new title, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-4321, was issued in his name. A few months after, F offered the property for sale to X. After conducting the required due diligence to verify the title of F, and finding no occupant in the property during ocular inspection, X signed the contract of sale, and thereupon, fully paid the purchase price. A few days later, X was able to obtain TCT No. T-5678 under his name. When O discovered F's fraudulent acts upon his return in 2017, O immediately filed a complaint for reconveyance against F and X, principally pointing out that F merely forged his signature in the Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly made in F's favor and thus, F could not have validly transferred the title thereof to X. Consequently, he sought the return of the subject property to him. (b) Assuming that O could no longer recover the subject property in view of X's registration thereof in his name, may a claim against the Assurance Fund pursuant to the provisions of the Property Registration Decree be instituted? Explain. (3%)

Mr. R is the registered owner of a parcel of land located in Cebu City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 1234 issued in 1955. Since his acquisition of the lot, Mr. R and his family had been in continuous, open, and peaceful possession thereof. Mr. R died in 1980, resulting in the land being transferred in the names of his heirs, i.e., A, B, and C, who became registered owners thereof as per TCT No. 5678. During the entire time, said land had never been encumbered or disposed, and that its possession always remained with them. Sometime in 1999, A, B, and C wanted to build a concrete fence around the parcel of land, but they were opposed by Mrs. X, who started claiming ownership over the same property on the strength of a Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly entered into by her with Mr. R during the time that he was still alive. Aggrieved, A, B, and C intend to file a complaint for quieting of title against Mrs. X. (a) What are the substantive requisites for the action to prosper? Do they obtain in this case? Explain. (3%)

Believing that he owned a certain parcel of land and completely unaware of any defect in his title thereto, Mr. A started to build a house thereon. When Mr. P, the real owner of the land learned of Mr. A's actions, Mr. P immediately demanded Mr. A to leave the premises. However, Mr. A refused to leave, and instead, asserted that as a builder in good faith, Mr. P is obliged to sell the land to him. (a) Is the claim of Mr. A correct? Explain. (3%)

Distinguish the following: (b) Interruption and tolling of prescription of actions (2%)

In light of a new business venture, Mr. A entered into a lease contract with Mr. B involving one of the latter's warehouses. One day, Mr. B, who was then encountering financial difficulties, approached Mr. A and sought for a loan, which Mr. A readily granted to him. In order to secure the loan obligation, Mr. B mortgaged the leased warehouse in favor of Mr. A. In addition, Mr. B executed a promissory note in favor of A, wherein prior demand was waived by him. When Mr. B defaulted on his loan obligation, Mr. A simply stopped paying rentals due to Mr. B on the ground that legal compensation had already set in up to the concurrent amount. Furthermore, since there was still a balance due on the promissory note, Mr. A foreclosed the real estate mortgage over Mr. B's property, without any prior demand furnished to Mr. B. Aggrieved, Mr. B opposed the foreclosure due to the lack of prior demand, contending that the waiver of prior demand was stipulated in the promissory note and not in the mortgage instrument. Mr. B likewise argued that when Mr. A invoked legal compensation between the unpaid rentals and the loan arrearages, it amounted to a novation that resulted in the extinguishment of the loan contract between them. As such, the real estate mortgage, being a mere accessory contract to the principal loan, was necessarily extinguished. (c) Is Mr. B's claim of novation correct? Explain. (2%)

In 2015, O, the original registered owner of a 300-square meter property covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. O-1234, appointed F as its caretaker. A year after, while O was abroad, F surreptitiously broke open O's safe and stole the duplicate copy of the said OCT. F then forged a Deed of Absolute Sale and made it appear that O sold the property to him. Consequently, F was able to have OCT No. O-1234 cancelled and in lieu thereof, a new title, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-4321, was issued in his name. A few months after, F offered the property for sale to X. After conducting the required due diligence to verify the title of F, and finding no occupant in the property during ocular inspection, X signed the contract of sale, and thereupon, fully paid the purchase price. A few days later, X was able to obtain TCT No. T-5678 under his name. When O discovered F's fraudulent acts upon his return in 2017, O immediately filed a complaint for reconveyance against F and X, principally pointing out that F merely forged his signature in the Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly made in F's favor and thus, F could not have validly transferred the title thereof to X. Consequently, he sought the return of the subject property to him. (a) Will the prayer of O for the return of the subject property prosper? Explain. (3%)

C Corp. entered into a contract with D, Inc. for the construction of the latter's production warehouse. In consideration thereof, D, Inc. was obliged to pay C Corp. the amount of P50,000,000.00 within a period of one (1) month from the time of the project's completion. To secure the payment of the said sum, D, Inc. entered into a surety agreement with S Company. After more than a month from the completion date of the project, C Corp. remained unpaid. Claiming that it was suffering from serious financial reverses, D, Inc. asked C Corp. for an extension of three (3) months to pay the P50,000,000.00 it still owed, to which C Corp. agreed. However, after more than three (3) months, D, Inc. still refused to pay. Hence, C Corp. proceeded to collect the above sum from the surety, S Company. For its part, S Company refused the claim and raised the defense that the extension of time granted by C Corp. to D, Inc. without its consent released it from liability. (b) Assuming that S Company instead refused the claim on the ground that C Corp. has yet to exhaust D, Inc.'s property to satisfy the claim before proceeding against it, will this defense prosper? Explain. (2%)

Distinguish the following: (a) Contract of sale and contract to sell (2%)

In light of a new business venture, Mr. A entered into a lease contract with Mr. B involving one of the latter's warehouses. One day, Mr. B, who was then encountering financial difficulties, approached Mr. A and sought for a loan, which Mr. A readily granted to him. In order to secure the loan obligation, Mr. B mortgaged the leased warehouse in favor of Mr. A. In addition, Mr. B executed a promissory note in favor of A, wherein prior demand was waived by him. When Mr. B defaulted on his loan obligation, Mr. A simply stopped paying rentals due to Mr. B on the ground that legal compensation had already set in up to the concurrent amount. Furthermore, since there was still a balance due on the promissory note, Mr. A foreclosed the real estate mortgage over Mr. B's property, without any prior demand furnished to Mr. B. Aggrieved, Mr. B opposed the foreclosure due to the lack of prior demand, contending that the waiver of prior demand was stipulated in the promissory note and not in the mortgage instrument. Mr. B likewise argued that when Mr. A invoked legal compensation between the unpaid rentals and the loan arrearages, it amounted to a novation that resulted in the extinguishment of the loan contract between them. As such, the real estate mortgage, being a mere accessory contract to the principal loan, was necessarily extinguished. (b) May Mr. A validly foreclose on the real estate mortgage even without prior demand to Mr. B? Explain. (2%)

C Corp. entered into a contract with D, Inc. for the construction of the latter's production warehouse. In consideration thereof, D, Inc. was obliged to pay C Corp. the amount of P50,000,000.00 within a period of one (1) month from the time of the project's completion. To secure the payment of the said sum, D, Inc. entered into a surety agreement with S Company. After more than a month from the completion date of the project, C Corp. remained unpaid. Claiming that it was suffering from serious financial reverses, D, Inc. asked C Corp. for an extension of three (3) months to pay the P50,000,000.00 it still owed, to which C Corp. agreed. However, after more than three (3) months, D, Inc. still refused to pay. Hence, C Corp. proceeded to collect the above sum from the surety, S Company. For its part, S Company refused the claim and raised the defense that the extension of time granted by C Corp. to D, Inc. without its consent released it from liability. (a) Will the defense of S Company against the claim hold water? Explain. (3%)

Mr. R is the registered owner of a parcel of land located in Cebu City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 1234 issued in 1955. Since his acquisition of the lot, Mr. R and his family had been in continuous, open, and peaceful possession thereof. Mr. R died in 1980, resulting in the land being transferred in the names of his heirs, i.e., A, B, and C, who became registered owners thereof as per TCT No. 5678. During the entire time, said land had never been encumbered or disposed, and that its possession always remained with them. Sometime in 1999, A, B, and C wanted to build a concrete fence around the parcel of land, but they were opposed by Mrs. X, who started claiming ownership over the same property on the strength of a Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly entered into by her with Mr. R during the time that he was still alive. Aggrieved, A, B, and C intend to file a complaint for quieting of title against Mrs. X. (b) Within what period should A, B, and C file the complaint for quieting of title? Explain. (2%)

Ms. U is a usufructuary of a piece of land owned by Mr. L. During the existence of the usufruct, Ms. U introduced various useful improvements on the land. Upon termination of the usufruct, Mr. L requested Ms. U to remove the said improvements, but Ms. U refused, demanding instead that Mr. L reimburse her the value of the same. (b) Is Ms. U's demand proper? Explain. (3%)

Mr. Reyes is legally married to Mrs. Reyes. During the subsistence of their marriage, Mr. Reyes cohabited with another woman, Ms. Cruz. Out of Mr. Reyes and Ms. Cruz's illicit relationship, a child named C was born. In C's birth certificate, "Cruz" appears as the child's surname, although Mr. Reyes expressly acknowledged C as his child. In 2018, Mr. Reyes and Ms. Cruz ended their relationship. Mr. Reyes thereafter lodged a petition in court for parental custody and change or correction of C's surname in the child's birth certificate from "Cruz" to "Reyes." At that time, C was only ten (10) years old. (b) Can Mr. Reyes validly compel the change or correction of C's surname from "Cruz" to "Reyes"? Explain. (2.5%)

M, single, named his sister N in his will, as a devisee over a certain parcel of land that he owned, with the obligation of preserving the land and transferring it, upon N's death, to her illegitimate daughter O, who was then only a year old. Is the condition imposed on N to preserve the land and to transmit it upon her death to O a valid case of fideicommissary substitution? Explain. (3%)

X and Y were in a live-in relationship for the longest time, and were already blessed with a child, Z. They finally decided to get married on March 15, 2020. When X's parents found about the news, they were thrilled and thus, donated in favor of Z, the family heirloom, particularly, a gold ring valued at P250,000.00, which X and Y orally accepted on behalf of their minor child. One day, X and Y got into a serious quarrel, which resulted in them setting aside their marriage plans. (a) Is the donation to Z valid? Explain. (3%)

Name at least two (2) exclusions from the following property regimes as enumerated under the Family Code: (b) Conjugal partnership of gains (2%)

Prior to his death, H, married to W, with children X, Y, and Z, executed a holographic will entirely written, dated, and signed by him. In his will, H instituted W, X, and Y as his heirs, and consequently, made testamentary dispositions in their favor. H, however, expressly disinherited Z on the ground that the latter once filed a civil case against him in order to collect a particular sum of money he previously owed Z. (a) Was the disinheritance of Z proper? Explain. (3%)

Ms. U is a usufructuary of a piece of land owned by Mr. L. During the existence of the usufruct, Ms. U introduced various useful improvements on the land. Upon termination of the usufruct, Mr. L requested Ms. U to remove the said improvements, but Ms. U refused, demanding instead that Mr. L reimburse her the value of the same. (a) What is a usufruct? (2%)

Name at least two (2) exclusions from the following property regimes as enumerated under the Family Code: (a) Absolute community of property (2%)

In January 2018, Mrs. A, a married woman on her sixth (6th) month of pregnancy, was crossing a street when she was suddenly hit by a car being recklessly driven by Mr. X. As a result, Mrs. A sustained serious injuries and further, suffered an unintentional abortion. Mrs. A was hospitalized for two (2) months, during which she incurred P400,000.00 in medical fees. Her expenses were all duly substantiated by official receipts. During the two (2)-month period of her confinement, she was unable to report for work and earn any salary, which was established at the rate of P50,000.00 per month. Mrs. A then filed a civil case for damages against Mr. X. (b) May Mrs. A claim actual damages from Mr. X? If so, how much can Mrs. A claim? Explain. (2%)

Mr. A entered into a lease contract covering one of his commercial buildings with XYZ Company, a partnership composed of X, Y, and Z, as lessee, for use as an office space. Upon failure to receive the rental payments when they fell due, Mr. A immediately sought payment of the same from X, Y, and Z, asserting that the individual partners are solidarily liable together with the partnership for its debts. X, Y, and Z disagreed with Mr. A's contention, arguing further that in any event, rentals should not be paid up until Mr. A makes the necessary arrangements for the repair of the defective electrical wirings in the office that caused power outages and hence, made it difficult, if not impossible, for them to conduct their usual business operations. Rule on the parties' respective arguments. (5%)

F, a Filipina, married J, a Japanese, in the Philippines. After three (3) years, they had a falling out and thus, separated. Soon after, F initiated a divorce petition in Japan which was not opposed by J because under Japanese law, a grant of divorce will capacitate him to remarry. F's divorce petition was then granted by the Japanese court with finality. May the legal effects of the divorce decree be recognized in the Philippines, and consequently, capacitate F to remarry here? Explain. (3%)

H and W were married in 1990. H, being a member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), was deployed to a rebel-infested area in 1992. Since then, W has not heard from her husband, H. One day, the AFP informed W that H had been declared missing since 1995. In consequence, W diligently pursued all available means to ascertain her husband's whereabouts, but to no avail. Firmly believing that H had already died, W filed a claim before the AFP in 2008 for the death benefits of the missing serviceman. However, the AFP, despite being cognizant of H's status, would not act on the claim, contending that H could not be presumed dead unless a judicial declaration to this effect is issued by the proper court. In what instance/s is a judicial declaration of presumptive death necessary? In this case, is the contention of the AFP correct? Explain. (3%)

In January 2018, Mrs. A, a married woman on her sixth (6th) month of pregnancy, was crossing a street when she was suddenly hit by a car being recklessly driven by Mr. X. As a result, Mrs. A sustained serious injuries and further, suffered an unintentional abortion. Mrs. A was hospitalized for two (2) months, during which she incurred P400,000.00 in medical fees. Her expenses were all duly substantiated by official receipts. During the two (2)-month period of her confinement, she was unable to report for work and earn any salary, which was established at the rate of P50,000.00 per month. Mrs. A then filed a civil case for damages against Mr. X. (d) What must Mrs. A prove if she wants to recover moral damages from Mr. X? (2%)

Mr. P offered to sell his Manila Polo Club shares to Ms. Q for P2,500,000.00. Ms. Q accepted on the condition that their agreement will not take effect until after one (1) year. Mr. P then acceded and both of them shook hands. Excited about the prospect of acquiring Mr. P's shares, Ms. Q approached the former and offered to pay him an earnest money equivalent to 1% of the purchase price, which Mr. P accepted. After one (1) year, Ms. Q approached Mr. P seeking the enforcement of their agreement for Mr. P to sell his shares to her. Mr. P refused to honor their agreement, claiming that the same was covered by the Statute of Frauds because it was not reduced into writing and hence, unenforceable. Is the position of Mr. P correct? Explain. (3%)

Village H and Village L are adjoining residential villages in a mountainous portion of Antipolo City, Rizal, with Village L being lower in elevation than Village H. In an effort to beautify Village H, its developer, X, Inc., constructed a clubhouse which included an Olympic-sized swimming pool and an artificial lagoon on a portion of land overlooking Village L. During the monsoon season, the continuous heavy rains caused Village H's swimming pool and artificial lagoon to overflow, resulting into a massive spillover that damaged various properties in Village L. Aggrieved, the homeowners of Village L filed a complaint for damages against X, Inc. In defense, X, Inc. contended that pursuant to the Civil Code, Village L, as the lower estate, was obliged to receive the waters descending from Village H, the higher estate. Hence, it cannot be held liable for damages. Is X, Inc.'s position tenable? Explain. (3%)

D, an Overseas Filipino Worker, was on his way home to the Philippines after working for so many years in the Middle East. He had saved P100,000.00 in his local savings account which he intended to use to start up a business in his home country. On his flight home, tragedy struck as a suicide bomber blew up the plane. All the passengers, including D, died. He left behind his widowed mother M; his common-law wife, W, who is the mother of his twin sons, T and S; and his brother, B. He left no will, no debts, no other relatives, and no other properties except the money in his savings account. Who are the heirs entitled to inherit from D and how much should each receive? Explain. (5%)

Believing that he owned a certain parcel of land and completely unaware of any defect in his title thereto, Mr. A started to build a house thereon. When Mr. P, the real owner of the land learned of Mr. A's actions, Mr. P immediately demanded Mr. A to leave the premises. However, Mr. A refused to leave, and instead, asserted that as a builder in good faith, Mr. P is obliged to sell the land to him. (b) Assuming that Mr. P all the while, knew but did not object to Mr. A's construction of the house on his property, may Mr. A compel Mr. P to purchase the said improvement due to Mr. P's bad faith? Explain. (3%)

Mr. E leased a piece of land from Mr. F to be used for his sawmill business for a period of ten (10) years. Consequently, Mr. E placed heavy machineries thereon to be used for his aforementioned business, with the intention of removing them after the expiration of the lease period. Are Mr. E's heavy machineries considered real properties under the Civil Code? Explain. (3%)

In January 2018, Mrs. A, a married woman on her sixth (6th) month of pregnancy, was crossing a street when she was suddenly hit by a car being recklessly driven by Mr. X. As a result, Mrs. A sustained serious injuries and further, suffered an unintentional abortion. Mrs. A was hospitalized for two (2) months, during which she incurred P400,000.00 in medical fees. Her expenses were all duly substantiated by official receipts. During the two (2)-month period of her confinement, she was unable to report for work and earn any salary, which was established at the rate of P50,000.00 per month. Mrs. A then filed a civil case for damages against Mr. X. (a) Based on the case filed by Mrs. A, what is the source of Mr. X's obligation to her as a result of his acts? Explain. (2%)

After finding out that his girlfriend Sandy was four (4) months pregnant, Sancho married Sandy. Both were single and had never been in any serious relationship in the past. Prior to the marriage, they agreed in a marriage settlement that the regime of conjugal partnership of gains shall govern their property relations during marriage. Shortly after the marriage, their daughter, Shalimar, was born. Before they met and got married, Sancho purchased a parcel of land on installment, under a Contract of Sale, with the full purchase price payable in equal annual amortizations over a period of ten (10) years, with no down payment, and secured by a mortgage on the land. The full purchase price was PhP1 million, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. After paying the fourth (4th) annual installment, Sancho and Sandy got married, and Sancho completed the payments in the subsequent years from his salary as an accountant. The previous payments were also paid out of his salary. During their marriage, Sandy also won PhP1 million in the lottery and used it to purchase jewelry. When things didn't work out for the couple, they filed an action for declaration of nullity of their marriage based on the psychological incapacity of both of them. When the petition was granted, the parcel of land and the jewelry bought by Sandy were found to be the only properties of the couple. (d) Is Shalimar entitled to payment of presumptive legitime? If yes, how much should be her share and from where should this be taken? (2.5%)

Silverio was a woman trapped in a man's body. He was born male and his birth certificate indicated his gender as male, and his name as Silverio Stalon. When he reached the age of 21, he had a sex reassignment surgery in Bangkok, and, from then on, he lived as a female. On the basis of his sex reassignment, he filed an action to have his first name changed to Shelley, and his gender, to female. While he was following up his case with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, he met Sharon Stan, who also filed a similar action to change her first name to Shariff, and her gender, from female to male. Sharon was registered as a female upon birth. While growing up, she developed male characteristics and was diagnosed to have congenital adrenal hyperplasia ("CAH") which is a condition where a person possesses both male and female characteristics. At puberty, tests revealed that her ovarian structures had greatly minimized, and she had no breast or menstrual development. Alleging that for all intents and appearances, as well as mind and emotion, she had become a male, she prayed that her birth certificate be corrected such that her gender should be changed from female to male, and that her first name should be changed from Sharon to Shariff. Silverio and Sharon fell in love and decided to marry. Realizing that their marriage will be frowned upon in the Philippines, they travelled to Las Vegas, USA where they got married based on the law of the place of celebration of the marriage. They, however, kept their Philippine citizenship. (a) Is there any legal basis for the court to approve Silverio's petition for correction of entries in his birth certificate? (2.5%)

Sofia and Semuel, both unmarried, lived together for many years in the Philippines and begot three children. While Sofia stayed in the Philippines with the children, Semuel went abroad to work and became a naturalized German citizen. He met someone in Germany whom he wanted to marry. Semuel thereafter came home and filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for partition of the common properties acquired during his union with Sofia in the Philippines. The properties acquired during the union consisted of a house and lot in Cavite worth PhP2 million, and some personal properties, including cash in bank amounting to PhP1 million. All these properties were acquired using Semuel's salaries and wages since Sofia was a stay-at-home mother. In retaliation, Sofia filed an action, on behalf of their minor children, for support. (b) Should Semuel be required to support the minor children? (2.5%)

Sofia and Semuel, both unmarried, lived together for many years in the Philippines and begot three children. While Sofia stayed in the Philippines with the children, Semuel went abroad to work and became a naturalized German citizen. He met someone in Germany whom he wanted to marry. Semuel thereafter came home and filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for partition of the common properties acquired during his union with Sofia in the Philippines. The properties acquired during the union consisted of a house and lot in Cavite worth PhP2 million, and some personal properties, including cash in bank amounting to PhP1 million. All these properties were acquired using Semuel's salaries and wages since Sofia was a stay-at-home mother. In retaliation, Sofia filed an action, on behalf of their minor children, for support. (a) How should the properties be partitioned? (2.5%)

Saachi opened a savings bank account with Shanghainese Bank. He made an initial deposit of PhP100,000. Part of the bank opening forms that he was required to sign when he opened the account was a Holdout Agreement which provided that, should he incur any liability or obligation to the bank, the bank shall have the right to immediately and automatically take over his savings account deposit. After he opened his deposit account, the Shanghainese Bank discovered a scam wherein the funds in the account of another depositor in the bank was withdrawn by an impostor. Shanghainese Bank suspected Saachi to be the impostor, and filed a criminal case of estafa against him. While the case was still pending with the Prosecutor's office, the bank took over Saachi's savings deposit on the basis of the Holdout Agreement. (b) In this case, did the bank have the right to take over Saachi's bank deposit? (2.5%)

Saachi opened a savings bank account with Shanghainese Bank. He made an initial deposit of PhP100,000. Part of the bank opening forms that he was required to sign when he opened the account was a Holdout Agreement which provided that, should he incur any liability or obligation to the bank, the bank shall have the right to immediately and automatically take over his savings account deposit. After he opened his deposit account, the Shanghainese Bank discovered a scam wherein the funds in the account of another depositor in the bank was withdrawn by an impostor. Shanghainese Bank suspected Saachi to be the impostor, and filed a criminal case of estafa against him. While the case was still pending with the Prosecutor's office, the bank took over Saachi's savings deposit on the basis of the Holdout Agreement. (a) What kind of contract is created when a depositor opens a deposit account with a bank? (2.5%)

Newlyweds Sam and Sienna had contracted with Sangria Hotel for their wedding reception. The couple was so unhappy with the service, claiming, among other things, that there was an unreasonable delay in the service of dinner and that certain items promised were unavailable. The hotel claims that, while there was a delay in the service of the meals, the same was occasioned by the sudden increase of guests to 450 from the guaranteed expected number of 350, as stated in the Banquet and Meeting Services Contract. In the action for damages for breach of contract instituted by the couple, they claimed that the Banquet and Meeting Services Contract was a contract of adhesion since they only provided the number of guests and chose the menu. On the other hand, the hotel's defense was that the proximate cause of the complainant's injury was the unexpected increase in their guests, and this was what set the chain of events that resulted in the alleged inconveniences. (b) Was the Banquet and Meeting Services Contract a contract of adhesion? If yes, is the contract void? (2.5%)

Socorro is the registered owner of Lot A while Segunda is the registered owner of the adjoining Lot B. Lot A is located at an elevated plateau of about 15 feet above the level of Lot B. Since Socorro was allegedly removing portions of the land and cement that supported the adjoining property, Segunda caused the annotation of an adverse claim against 50 sq. m. on Lot A's Transfer Certificate of Title, asserting the existence of a legal easement. (a) Does a legal easement in fact exist? If so, what kind? (2.5%)

After finding out that his girlfriend Sandy was four (4) months pregnant, Sancho married Sandy. Both were single and had never been in any serious relationship in the past. Prior to the marriage, they agreed in a marriage settlement that the regime of conjugal partnership of gains shall govern their property relations during marriage. Shortly after the marriage, their daughter, Shalimar, was born. Before they met and got married, Sancho purchased a parcel of land on installment, under a Contract of Sale, with the full purchase price payable in equal annual amortizations over a period of ten (10) years, with no down payment, and secured by a mortgage on the land. The full purchase price was PhP1 million, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. After paying the fourth (4th) annual installment, Sancho and Sandy got married, and Sancho completed the payments in the subsequent years from his salary as an accountant. The previous payments were also paid out of his salary. During their marriage, Sandy also won PhP1 million in the lottery and used it to purchase jewelry. When things didn't work out for the couple, they filed an action for declaration of nullity of their marriage based on the psychological incapacity of both of them. When the petition was granted, the parcel of land and the jewelry bought by Sandy were found to be the only properties of the couple. (a) What is the filiation status of Shalimar? (2.5%)

Socorro is the registered owner of Lot A while Segunda is the registered owner of the adjoining Lot B. Lot A is located at an elevated plateau of about 15 feet above the level of Lot B. Since Socorro was allegedly removing portions of the land and cement that supported the adjoining property, Segunda caused the annotation of an adverse claim against 50 sq. m. on Lot A's Transfer Certificate of Title, asserting the existence of a legal easement. (b) If a legal easement does in fact exist, is an annotation of an adverse claim on the title of the servient estate proper? (2.5%)

Sinclair and Steffi had an illicit relationship while Sinclair was married to another. The relationship produced a daughter Sabina, who grew up with her mother. For most parts of Sabina's youth, Steffi spent for her support and education. When Sabina was 21 years old, Sinclair's wife of many years died. Sinclair and Steffi lost no time in legitimizing their relationship. After the 40-day prayers for Sinclair's late wife, Sinclair and Steffi got married without a marriage license, claiming that they have been cohabiting for the last 20 years. After graduating from college, Sabina decided to enroll in law school. Sinclair said that he was not willing to pay for her school fees since she was no longer a minor. Sinclair claimed that, if Sabina wanted to be a lawyer, she had to work and spend for her law education. (b) Is Sinclair legally required to finance Sabina's law education? (2.5%)

After finding out that his girlfriend Sandy was four (4) months pregnant, Sancho married Sandy. Both were single and had never been in any serious relationship in the past. Prior to the marriage, they agreed in a marriage settlement that the regime of conjugal partnership of gains shall govern their property relations during marriage. Shortly after the marriage, their daughter, Shalimar, was born. Before they met and got married, Sancho purchased a parcel of land on installment, under a Contract of Sale, with the full purchase price payable in equal annual amortizations over a period of ten (10) years, with no down payment, and secured by a mortgage on the land. The full purchase price was PhP1 million, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. After paying the fourth (4th) annual installment, Sancho and Sandy got married, and Sancho completed the payments in the subsequent years from his salary as an accountant. The previous payments were also paid out of his salary. During their marriage, Sandy also won PhP1 million in the lottery and used it to purchase jewelry. When things didn't work out for the couple, they filed an action for declaration of nullity of their marriage based on the psychological incapacity of both of them. When the petition was granted, the parcel of land and the jewelry bought by Sandy were found to be the only properties of the couple. (b) What system of property relationship will be liquidated following the declaration of nullity of their marriage? (2.5%)

Simon owned a townhouse that he rented out to Shannon, a flight attendant with Soleil Philippine Airlines (SPA). They had no written contract but merely agreed on a three (3)-year lease. Shannon had been using the townhouse as her base in Manila and had been paying rentals for more than a year when she accepted a better job offer from Sing Airlines. This meant that Singapore was going to be her new base and so she decided, without informing Simon, to sublease the townhouse to Sylvia, an office clerk in SPA. (b) Does the sublease without Simon's knowledge and consent constitute a ground for terminating the lease? (2.5%)

Samantha sold all her business interest in a sole proprietorship to Sergio for the amount of PhP1 million. Under the sale agreement, Samantha was supposed to pay for all prior unpaid utility bills incurred by the sole proprietorship. A month after the Contract to Sell was executed, Samantha still had not paid the PhP50,000 electricity bills incurred prior to the sale. Since Sergio could not operate the business without electricity and the utility company refused to restore electricity services unless the unpaid bills were settled in full, Sergio had to pay the unpaid electricity bills. When the date for payment arrived, Sergio only tendered PhP950,000 representing the full purchase price, less the amount he paid for the unpaid utility bills. Samantha refused to accept the tender on the ground that she was the one supposed to pay the bills and Sergio did not have authorization to pay on her behalf. (b) Is Samantha guilty of mora accipiendi? (2.5%)

Sydney, during her lifetime, was a successful lawyer. By her own choice, she remained unmarried and devoted all her time to taking care of her nephew and two (2) nieces: Socrates, Saffinia, and Sophia. She wrote a will giving all her properties remaining upon her death to the three (3) of them. The will was admitted to probate during her lifetime. Later, she decided to make a new will giving all her remaining properties only to the two (2) girls, Saffinia and Sophia. She then tore up the previously probated will. The second will was presented for probate only after her death. However, the probate court found the second will to be void for failure to comply with formal requirements. (a) Will the doctrine of dependent relative revocation apply? (2.5%)

Selena was a single 18-year old when she got pregnant and gave birth to Suri. She then left to work as a caregiver in Canada, leaving Suri with her parents in the Philippines. Selena, now 34 years old and a permanent resident in Canada, met and married Sam who is a 24-year old Canadian citizen who works as a movie star in Canada. Sam's parents are of Filipino ancestry but had become Canadian citizens before Sam was born. Wanting Suri to have all the advantages of a legitimate child, Selena and Sam decided to adopt her. Sam's parents, already opposed to the marriage of their son to someone significantly older, vehemently objected to the adoption. They argued that Sam was not old enough and that the requisite age gap required by the Inter-Country Adoption Act between Sam as adopter and Suri as adoptee was not met. Are Sam's parents correct? (2.5%)

Sinclair and Steffi had an illicit relationship while Sinclair was married to another. The relationship produced a daughter Sabina, who grew up with her mother. For most parts of Sabina's youth, Steffi spent for her support and education. When Sabina was 21 years old, Sinclair's wife of many years died. Sinclair and Steffi lost no time in legitimizing their relationship. After the 40-day prayers for Sinclair's late wife, Sinclair and Steffi got married without a marriage license, claiming that they have been cohabiting for the last 20 years. After graduating from college, Sabina decided to enroll in law school. Sinclair said that he was not willing to pay for her school fees since she was no longer a minor. Sinclair claimed that, if Sabina wanted to be a lawyer, she had to work and spend for her law education. (a) What is Sabina's filiation status? (2.5%)

After finding out that his girlfriend Sandy was four (4) months pregnant, Sancho married Sandy. Both were single and had never been in any serious relationship in the past. Prior to the marriage, they agreed in a marriage settlement that the regime of conjugal partnership of gains shall govern their property relations during marriage. Shortly after the marriage, their daughter, Shalimar, was born. Before they met and got married, Sancho purchased a parcel of land on installment, under a Contract of Sale, with the full purchase price payable in equal annual amortizations over a period of ten (10) years, with no down payment, and secured by a mortgage on the land. The full purchase price was PhP1 million, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. After paying the fourth (4th) annual installment, Sancho and Sandy got married, and Sancho completed the payments in the subsequent years from his salary as an accountant. The previous payments were also paid out of his salary. During their marriage, Sandy also won PhP1 million in the lottery and used it to purchase jewelry. When things didn't work out for the couple, they filed an action for declaration of nullity of their marriage based on the psychological incapacity of both of them. When the petition was granted, the parcel of land and the jewelry bought by Sandy were found to be the only properties of the couple. (c) In the liquidation, who should get the parcel of land? The jewelry? (2.5%)

Sammy and Santi are cousins who separately inherited two (2) adjoining lots from their grandfather. Sammy is based overseas but wants to earn income from his inherited land, so he asked a local contractor to build a row of apartments on his property which he could rent out. The contractor sent him the plans and Sammy noticed that the construction encroached on a part of Santi's land but he said nothing and gave approval to construct based on the plans submitted by the local contractor. Santi, based locally, and who loved his cousin dearly, did not object even if he knew of the encroachment since he was privy to the plans and visited the property regularly. Later, the cousins had a falling out and Santi demanded that the portion of the apartments that encroached on his land be demolished. Can Santi successfully file legal action to require the demolition? (5%)

Sol Soldivino, widow, passed away, leaving two (2) legitimate children: a 25-year old son, Santino (whom she had not spoken to for five [5] years prior to her death since he attempted to kill her at that time), and a 20-year-old daughter, Sara. She left an estate worth PhP8 million and a will containing only one provision: that PhP1 million should be given to "the priest who officiated at my wedding to my children's late father." Sara, together with two (2) of her friends, acted as an attesting witness to the will. On the assumption that the will is admitted for probate and that there are no debts, divide the estate and indicate the heirs/legatees entitled to inherit, the amount that each of them will inherit, and where (i.e., legitime/free portion/intestate share) their shares should be charged. (5%)

Sidley and Sol were married with one (1) daughter, Solenn. Sedfrey and Sonia were another couple with one son, Sonny. Sol and Sedfrey both perished in the same plane accident. Sidley and Sonia met when the families of those who died sued the airlines and went through grief-counseling sessions. Years later, Sidley and Sonia got married. At that time, Solenn was four (4) years old and Sonny was five (5) years old. These two (2) were then brought up in the same household. Fifteen (15) years later, Solenn and Sonny developed romantic feelings towards each other, and eventually eloped. On their own and against their parents' wishes, they procured a marriage license and got married in church. (a) Is the marriage of Solenn and Sonny valid, voidable, or void? (2.5%)

Sidley and Sol were married with one (1) daughter, Solenn. Sedfrey and Sonia were another couple with one son, Sonny. Sol and Sedfrey both perished in the same plane accident. Sidley and Sonia met when the families of those who died sued the airlines and went through grief-counseling sessions. Years later, Sidley and Sonia got married. At that time, Solenn was four (4) years old and Sonny was five (5) years old. These two (2) were then brought up in the same household. Fifteen (15) years later, Solenn and Sonny developed romantic feelings towards each other, and eventually eloped. On their own and against their parents' wishes, they procured a marriage license and got married in church. (b) If the marriage is defective, can the marriage be ratified by free cohabitation of the parties? (2.5%)

Silverio was a woman trapped in a man's body. He was born male and his birth certificate indicated his gender as male, and his name as Silverio Stalon. When he reached the age of 21, he had a sex reassignment surgery in Bangkok, and, from then on, he lived as a female. On the basis of his sex reassignment, he filed an action to have his first name changed to Shelley, and his gender, to female. While he was following up his case with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, he met Sharon Stan, who also filed a similar action to change her first name to Shariff, and her gender, from female to male. Sharon was registered as a female upon birth. While growing up, she developed male characteristics and was diagnosed to have congenital adrenal hyperplasia ("CAH") which is a condition where a person possesses both male and female characteristics. At puberty, tests revealed that her ovarian structures had greatly minimized, and she had no breast or menstrual development. Alleging that for all intents and appearances, as well as mind and emotion, she had become a male, she prayed that her birth certificate be corrected such that her gender should be changed from female to male, and that her first name should be changed from Sharon to Shariff. Silverio and Sharon fell in love and decided to marry. Realizing that their marriage will be frowned upon in the Philippines, they travelled to Las Vegas, USA where they got married based on the law of the place of celebration of the marriage. They, however, kept their Philippine citizenship. (b) Will your answer be the same in the case of Sharon's petition? (2.5%)

Silverio was a woman trapped in a man's body. He was born male and his birth certificate indicated his gender as male, and his name as Silverio Stalon. When he reached the age of 21, he had a sex reassignment surgery in Bangkok, and, from then on, he lived as a female. On the basis of his sex reassignment, he filed an action to have his first name changed to Shelley, and his gender, to female. While he was following up his case with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, he met Sharon Stan, who also filed a similar action to change her first name to Shariff, and her gender, from female to male. Sharon was registered as a female upon birth. While growing up, she developed male characteristics and was diagnosed to have congenital adrenal hyperplasia ("CAH") which is a condition where a person possesses both male and female characteristics. At puberty, tests revealed that her ovarian structures had greatly minimized, and she had no breast or menstrual development. Alleging that for all intents and appearances, as well as mind and emotion, she had become a male, she prayed that her birth certificate be corrected such that her gender should be changed from female to male, and that her first name should be changed from Sharon to Shariff. Silverio and Sharon fell in love and decided to marry. Realizing that their marriage will be frowned upon in the Philippines, they travelled to Las Vegas, USA where they got married based on the law of the place of celebration of the marriage. They, however, kept their Philippine citizenship. (c) Can the marriage of Silverio (Shelley) and Sharon (Shariff) be legally recognized as valid in the Philippines? (2.5%)

Severino died intestate, survived by his wife Saturnina, and legitimate children Soler, Sulpicio, Segundo and the twins Sandro and Sandra. At the time of his death, the twins were only 11 years of age, while all the older children were of age. He left only one property: a 5,000 sq. m. parcel of land. After his death, the older siblings Soler, Sulpicio, and Segundo sold the land to Dr. Santos for PhP500,000 with a right to repurchase, at the same price, within five (5) years from the date of the sale. The deed of sale was signed only by the three (3) older siblings, and covered the entire property. Before the five (5) years expired, Soler and Sulpicio tendered their respective shares of PhP166,666 each to redeem the property. Since Segundo did not have the means because he was still unemployed, Saturnina paid the remaining PhP166,666 to redeem the property. After the property was redeemed from Dr. Santos, the three (3) older children and Saturnina, for herself and on behalf of the twins who were still minors, sold the property to Dr. Sazon, in an absolute sale, for PhP1 million. In representing the twins, Saturnina relied on the fact that she was the natural guardian of her minor children. (a) Was the first sale to Dr. Santos, and the subsequent repurchase, valid? (2.5%)

Severino died intestate, survived by his wife Saturnina, and legitimate children Soler, Sulpicio, Segundo and the twins Sandro and Sandra. At the time of his death, the twins were only 11 years of age, while all the older children were of age. He left only one property: a 5,000 sq. m. parcel of land. After his death, the older siblings Soler, Sulpicio, and Segundo sold the land to Dr. Santos for PhP500,000 with a right to repurchase, at the same price, within five (5) years from the date of the sale. The deed of sale was signed only by the three (3) older siblings, and covered the entire property. Before the five (5) years expired, Soler and Sulpicio tendered their respective shares of PhP166,666 each to redeem the property. Since Segundo did not have the means because he was still unemployed, Saturnina paid the remaining PhP166,666 to redeem the property. After the property was redeemed from Dr. Santos, the three (3) older children and Saturnina, for herself and on behalf of the twins who were still minors, sold the property to Dr. Sazon, in an absolute sale, for PhP1 million. In representing the twins, Saturnina relied on the fact that she was the natural guardian of her minor children. (b) Was the second sale to Dr. Sazon valid? May the twins redeem their share after they reach the age of majority? (2.5%)

Sydney, during her lifetime, was a successful lawyer. By her own choice, she remained unmarried and devoted all her time to taking care of her nephew and two (2) nieces: Socrates, Saffinia, and Sophia. She wrote a will giving all her properties remaining upon her death to the three (3) of them. The will was admitted to probate during her lifetime. Later, she decided to make a new will giving all her remaining properties only to the two (2) girls, Saffinia and Sophia. She then tore up the previously probated will. The second will was presented for probate only after her death. However, the probate court found the second will to be void for failure to comply with formal requirements. (b) Will your answer be the same if the second will was found to be valid but both Saffinia and Sophia renounce their inheritance? (2.5%)

Sofronio was a married father of two when he had a brief fling with Sabrina, resulting in her pregnancy and the birth of their son Sinforoso. Though his wife knew nothing of the affair, Sofronio regretted it, but secretly provided child support for Sinforoso. Unfortunately, when Sinforoso was 10 years old, Sofronio died. Only Sofronio's father, Salumbides, knew of Sabrina and Sinforoso. For the purpose of providing support to Sinforoso, Salumbides gave Sabrina usufructuary rights over one of his properties - a house and lot - to last until Sinforoso reaches the age of majority. Sabrina was given possession of the property on the basis of caucion juratoria. Two (2) years after the creation of the usufruct, the house accidentally burned down, and three (3) years thereafter, Sinforoso died before he could reach the age of 18. Will the usufruct continue after the house has burned down? If yes, will it continue after Sinforoso's death? (2.5%)

Newlyweds Sam and Sienna had contracted with Sangria Hotel for their wedding reception. The couple was so unhappy with the service, claiming, among other things, that there was an unreasonable delay in the service of dinner and that certain items promised were unavailable. The hotel claims that, while there was a delay in the service of the meals, the same was occasioned by the sudden increase of guests to 450 from the guaranteed expected number of 350, as stated in the Banquet and Meeting Services Contract. In the action for damages for breach of contract instituted by the couple, they claimed that the Banquet and Meeting Services Contract was a contract of adhesion since they only provided the number of guests and chose the menu. On the other hand, the hotel's defense was that the proximate cause of the complainant's injury was the unexpected increase in their guests, and this was what set the chain of events that resulted in the alleged inconveniences. (a) Does the doctrine of proximate cause apply in this case? (2.5%)

Simeon was returning to Manila after spending a weekend with his parents in Sariaya, Quezon. He boarded a bus operated by the Sabbit Bus Line (SBL) on August 30, 2013. In the middle of the journey, the bus collided with a truck coming from the opposite direction, which was overtaking the vehicle in front of the truck. Though the driver of the SBL bus tried to avoid the truck, a mishap occurred as the truck hit the left side of the bus. As a result of the accident, Simeon suffered a fractured leg and was unable to report for work for one week. He sued SBL for actual and moral damages. SBL raised the defense that it was the driver of the truck who was at fault, and that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its driver. (a) Is SBL liable for actual damages? Moral damages? (2.5%)

Samantha sold all her business interest in a sole proprietorship to Sergio for the amount of PhP1 million. Under the sale agreement, Samantha was supposed to pay for all prior unpaid utility bills incurred by the sole proprietorship. A month after the Contract to Sell was executed, Samantha still had not paid the PhP50,000 electricity bills incurred prior to the sale. Since Sergio could not operate the business without electricity and the utility company refused to restore electricity services unless the unpaid bills were settled in full, Sergio had to pay the unpaid electricity bills. When the date for payment arrived, Sergio only tendered PhP950,000 representing the full purchase price, less the amount he paid for the unpaid utility bills. Samantha refused to accept the tender on the ground that she was the one supposed to pay the bills and Sergio did not have authorization to pay on her behalf. (a) What is the effect of payment made by Sergio without the knowledge and consent of Samantha? (2.5%)

Sonny, Inc. (SI) purchased several heavy machineries from Single Equipment Philippines, Inc. (SEP) for PhP10 million, payable in 36 monthly installments. A chattel mortgage was constituted on the same machineries as security for the amount. As additional security, the President of SI, Stan Smith, mortgaged his house and lot. SI failed to pay the 16th and succeeding monthly installments. SEP then commenced a collection suit against SI, and in the course of the proceedings, a writ of attachment was issued against SI's properties, including the mortgaged machineries. The attached properties were subsequently sold at public auction, but the proceeds thereof were insufficient to satisfy the judgment credit. (a) Can SEP legally recover the deficiency? (2.5%)

Sonny, Inc. (SI) purchased several heavy machineries from Single Equipment Philippines, Inc. (SEP) for PhP10 million, payable in 36 monthly installments. A chattel mortgage was constituted on the same machineries as security for the amount. As additional security, the President of SI, Stan Smith, mortgaged his house and lot. SI failed to pay the 16th and succeeding monthly installments. SEP then commenced a collection suit against SI, and in the course of the proceedings, a writ of attachment was issued against SI's properties, including the mortgaged machineries. The attached properties were subsequently sold at public auction, but the proceeds thereof were insufficient to satisfy the judgment credit. (b) Instead of collecting the deficiency, can SEP commence extrajudicial proceedings to foreclose the mortgage on Stan's house and lot in order to recover the deficiency? (2.5%)

Simeon was returning to Manila after spending a weekend with his parents in Sariaya, Quezon. He boarded a bus operated by the Sabbit Bus Line (SBL) on August 30, 2013. In the middle of the journey, the bus collided with a truck coming from the opposite direction, which was overtaking the vehicle in front of the truck. Though the driver of the SBL bus tried to avoid the truck, a mishap occurred as the truck hit the left side of the bus. As a result of the accident, Simeon suffered a fractured leg and was unable to report for work for one week. He sued SBL for actual and moral damages. SBL raised the defense that it was the driver of the truck who was at fault, and that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its driver. (b) Will SBL be liable to pay interest if it is required to pay damages, and delays in the payment of the judgment award? What is the rate of interest, and from when should the interest start running? (2.5%)

Simon owned a townhouse that he rented out to Shannon, a flight attendant with Soleil Philippine Airlines (SPA). They had no written contract but merely agreed on a three (3)-year lease. Shannon had been using the townhouse as her base in Manila and had been paying rentals for more than a year when she accepted a better job offer from Sing Airlines. This meant that Singapore was going to be her new base and so she decided, without informing Simon, to sublease the townhouse to Sylvia, an office clerk in SPA. (a) Can Simon compel Shannon to reduce the lease agreement into writing? (2.5%)

Shasha purchased an airline ticket from Sea Airlines (SAL) covering Manila-Bangkok-Hanoi-Manila. The ticket was exclusively endorsable to Siam Airlines (SMA). The contract of air transportation was between Shasha and SAL, with the latter endorsing to SMA the Hanoi-Manila segment of the journey. All her flights were confirmed by SAL before she left Manila. Shasha took the flight from Manila to Bangkok on board SAL using the ticket. When she arrived in Bangkok, she went to the SAL ticket counter and confirmed her return trip from Hanoi to Manila on board SMA Flight No. SA 888. On the date of her return trip, she checked in for SMA Flight No. SA 888, boarded the plane, and before she could even settle in on her assigned seat, she was off-loaded and treated rudely by the crew. She lost her luggage and missed an important business meeting. She thereafter filed a complaint solely against SAL and argued that it was solidarily liable with SMA for the damages she suffered since the latter was only an agent of the former. (a) Should either, or both, SAL and SMA be held liable for damages that Shasha suffered? (2.5%)

Shasha purchased an airline ticket from Sea Airlines (SAL) covering Manila-Bangkok-Hanoi-Manila. The ticket was exclusively endorsable to Siam Airlines (SMA). The contract of air transportation was between Shasha and SAL, with the latter endorsing to SMA the Hanoi-Manila segment of the journey. All her flights were confirmed by SAL before she left Manila. Shasha took the flight from Manila to Bangkok on board SAL using the ticket. When she arrived in Bangkok, she went to the SAL ticket counter and confirmed her return trip from Hanoi to Manila on board SMA Flight No. SA 888. On the date of her return trip, she checked in for SMA Flight No. SA 888, boarded the plane, and before she could even settle in on her assigned seat, she was off-loaded and treated rudely by the crew. She lost her luggage and missed an important business meeting. She thereafter filed a complaint solely against SAL and argued that it was solidarily liable with SMA for the damages she suffered since the latter was only an agent of the former. (b) Assuming that one is an agent of the other, is the agency coupled with interest? (2.5%)

Sebastian, who has a pending assessment from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), was required to post a bond. He entered into an agreement with Solid Surety Company (SSC) for SSC to issue a bond in favor of the BIR to secure payment of his taxes, if found to be due. In consideration of the issuance of the bond, he executed an Indemnity Agreement with SSC whereby he agreed to indemnify the latter in the event that he was found liable to pay the tax. The BIR eventually decided against Sebastian, and judicially commenced action against both Sebastian and SSC to recover Sebastian's unpaid taxes. Simultaneously, BIR also initiated action to foreclose on the bond. Even before paying the BIR, SSC sought indemnity from Sebastian on the basis of the Indemnity Agreement. Sebastian refused to pay since SSC had not paid the BIR anything yet, and alleged that the provision in the Indemnity Agreement which allowed SSC to recover from him, by mere demand, even if it (SSC) had not yet paid the creditor, was void for being contrary to law and public policy. Can Sebastian legally refuse to pay SSC? (2.5%)

Briefly explain whether the following contracts are valid, rescissible, unenforceable, or void: (d) A sale entered by Barri and Garri, both minors, which their parents later ratified. (2%)

Briefly explain whether the following contracts are valid, rescissible, unenforceable, or void: (a) A contract of sale between Lana and Andy wherein 16-year old Lana agreed to sell her grand piano for P25,000.00. (2%)

Jovencio operated a school bus to ferry his two sons and five of their schoolmates from their houses to their school, and back. The parents of the five schoolmates paid for the service. One morning, Porfirio, the driver, took a short cut on the way to school because he was running late, and drove through an unmanned railway crossing. At the time, Porfirio was wearing earphones because he loved to hear loud music while driving. As he crossed the railway tracks, a speeding PNR train loudly blared its horn to warn Porfirio, but the latter did not hear the horn because of the loud music. The train inevitably rammed into the school bus. The strong impact of the collision resulted in the death of one of the classmates of Jovencio's younger son. The parents of the fatality sued Jovencio for damages based on culpa contractual, alleging that Jovencio was a common carrier; Porfirio for being negligent; and the PNR for damages based on culpa aquiliana. Jovencio denied being a common carrier and insisted that he had exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in supervising Porfirio, claiming the latter had no history of negligence or recklessness before the accident. (b) In accordance with your answer to the preceding question, state the degree of diligence to be observed by Jovencio and the consequences thereof. Explain your answer. (3%)

In 1960, Rigor and Mike occupied two separate but adjacent tracts of land in Mindoro. Rigor's tract was classified as timber land while Mike's was classified as agricultural land. Each of them fenced and cultivated his own tract continuously for 30 years. In 1991, the Government declared the land occupied by Mike as alienable and disposable, and the one cultivated by Rigor as no longer intended for public use or public service. Rigor and Mike now come to you today for legal advice in asserting their right of ownership of their respective lands based on their long possession and occupation since 1960. (b) Given that, according to Section 48 (b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141, in relation to Section 14 (1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529, the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain as basis for judicial confirmation of imperfect title must be from June 12, 1945, or earlier, may Mike nevertheless validly base his assertion of the right of ownership on prescription under the Civil Code? Explain your answer. (4%)

TRUE or FALSE. (e) Continuous non-apparent easements can be acquired either through title or by prescription. (2%)

State whether the following marital unions are valid, void, or voidable, and give the corresponding reason for your answer. (b) Carlos' marriage to Dina which took place after Dina had poisoned her previous husband Edu in order to free herself from any impediment in order to live with Carlos. (2%)

State whether the following marital unions are valid, void, or voidable, and give the corresponding reason for your answer. (c) Eli and Fely's marriage solemnized seven years after the disappearance of Chona, Eli's previous spouse, after the plane she had boarded crashed in the West Philippine Sea. (2%)

In 1960, Rigor and Mike occupied two separate but adjacent tracts of land in Mindoro. Rigor's tract was classified as timber land while Mike's was classified as agricultural land. Each of them fenced and cultivated his own tract continuously for 30 years. In 1991, the Government declared the land occupied by Mike as alienable and disposable, and the one cultivated by Rigor as no longer intended for public use or public service. Rigor and Mike now come to you today for legal advice in asserting their right of ownership of their respective lands based on their long possession and occupation since 1960. (c) Does Rigor have legal basis for his application for judicial confirmation of imperfect title based on prescription as defined by the Civil Code given that, like Mike, his open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation was not since June 12, 1945, or earlier, and his tract of land was timber land until the declaration in 1991? Explain your answer. (4%)

Tyler owns a lot that is enclosed by the lots of Riley to the North and East, of Dylan to the South, and of Reece to the West. The current route to the public highway is a kilometer's walk through the northern lot of Riley, but the route is a rough road that gets muddy during the rainy season, and is inconvenient because it is only 2.5 meters wide. Tyler's nearest access to the public highway would be through the southern lot of Dylan. May Dylan be legally required to afford to Tyler a right of way through his property? Explain your answer. (4%)

Pedro had worked for 15 years in Saudi Arabia when he finally decided to engage in farming in his home province where his 10-hectare farmland valued at P2,000,000 was located. He had already P3,000,000 savings from his long stint in Saudi Arabia. Eagerly awaiting Pedro's arrival at the NAIA were his aging parents Modesto and Jacinta, his common-law spouse Veneranda, their three children, and Alex, his child by Carol, his departed legal wife. Sadly for all of them, Pedro suffered a stroke because of his over-excitement just as the plane was about to land, and died without seeing any of them. The farmland and the savings were all the properties he left. (a) State who are Pedro's legal heirs, and the shares of each legal heir to the estate. Explain your answer. (4%)

Danny and Elsa were married in 2002. In 2012, Elsa left the conjugal home and her two minor children with Danny to live with her paramour. In 2015, Danny sold without Elsa's consent a parcel of land registered in his name that he had purchased prior to the marriage. Danny used the proceeds of the sale to pay for his children's tuition fees. Is the sale valid, void or voidable? Explain your answer. (3%)

Plutarco owned land that borders on a river. After several years the action of the water of the river caused the deposit of soil, and increased the area of Plutarco's property by 200 square meters. (b) On the other hand, if the river dries up, may Plutarco validly claim a right of ownership of the dried-up river bed? Explain your answer. (2%)

Briefly explain whether the following contracts are valid, rescissible, unenforceable, or void: (c) A barter of toys executed by 12-year old Clarence and 10-year old Czar. (2%)

Josef owns a piece of land in Pampanga. The National Housing Authority (NHA) sought to expropriate the property for its socialized housing project. The trial court fixed the just compensation for the property at P50 million. The NHA immediately deposited the same at the authorized depository bank and filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession with the trial court. Unfortunately, there was delay in the resolution of the motion. Meanwhile, the amount deposited earned interest. When Josef sought the release of the amount deposited, NHA argued that Josef should only be entitled to P50 million. Who owns the interest earned? (3%)

TRUE or FALSE. (c) Only the city or municipal mayor can file a civil action to abate a public nuisance. (2%)

Krystal owns a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 12345 in Angeles City. Due to severe financial constraints, Krystal was forced to sell the property to RBP Corporation, a foreign corporation based in South Korea. Subsequently, RBP Corporation sold the property to Gloria, one of its most valued clients. Wanting her property back, Krystal, learning of the transfer of the property from RBP Corporation to Gloria, sued both of them in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for annulment of sale and for reconveyance. She alleged that the sale by RBP Corporation to Gloria was void because RBP Corporation was a foreign corporation prohibited by the Constitution from acquiring and owning lands in the Philippines. Will Krystal's suit for annulment of sale and reconveyance prosper? Explain your answer. (4%)

TRUE or FALSE. (d) Possession of a movable property is lost when the location of the said movable is unknown to the owner. (2%)

Jovencio operated a school bus to ferry his two sons and five of their schoolmates from their houses to their school, and back. The parents of the five schoolmates paid for the service. One morning, Porfirio, the driver, took a short cut on the way to school because he was running late, and drove through an unmanned railway crossing. At the time, Porfirio was wearing earphones because he loved to hear loud music while driving. As he crossed the railway tracks, a speeding PNR train loudly blared its horn to warn Porfirio, but the latter did not hear the horn because of the loud music. The train inevitably rammed into the school bus. The strong impact of the collision resulted in the death of one of the classmates of Jovencio's younger son. The parents of the fatality sued Jovencio for damages based on culpa contractual, alleging that Jovencio was a common carrier; Porfirio for being negligent; and the PNR for damages based on culpa aquiliana. Jovencio denied being a common carrier and insisted that he had exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in supervising Porfirio, claiming the latter had no history of negligence or recklessness before the accident. (a) Did his operation of the school bus service for a limited clientele render Jovencio a common carrier? Explain your answer. (3%)

State whether the following marital unions are valid, void, or voidable, and give the corresponding reason for your answer. (a) Ador and Becky's marriage wherein Ador was afflicted with AIDS prior to the marriage. (2%)

State whether the following marital unions are valid, void, or voidable, and give the corresponding reason for your answer. (e) Marriage of Zoren and Carmina who did not secure a marriage license prior to their wedding, but lived together as husband and wife for 10 years without any legal impediment to marry. (2%)

In 1960, Rigor and Mike occupied two separate but adjacent tracts of land in Mindoro. Rigor's tract was classified as timber land while Mike's was classified as agricultural land. Each of them fenced and cultivated his own tract continuously for 30 years. In 1991, the Government declared the land occupied by Mike as alienable and disposable, and the one cultivated by Rigor as no longer intended for public use or public service. Rigor and Mike now come to you today for legal advice in asserting their right of ownership of their respective lands based on their long possession and occupation since 1960. (a) What are the legal consequences of the 1991 declarations of the Government respecting the lands? Explain your answer. (2%)

Jacob has owned a farm land in Ramos, Tarlac. In 2012, Liz surreptitiously entered and cultivated the property. In 2014, Jacob discovered Liz's presence in and cultivation of the property. Due to his being busy attending to his business in Cebu, he tolerated Liz's cultivation of the property. Subsequently, in December 2016, Jacob wanted to regain possession of the property; hence, he sent a letter to Liz demanding that she vacate the property. Liz did not vacate despite the demand. Jacob comes to enlist your legal assistance to bring an action against Liz to recover the possession of the property. What remedies are available to Jacob to recover possession of his property under the circumstance? Explain your answer. (4%)

Pedro had worked for 15 years in Saudi Arabia when he finally decided to engage in farming in his home province where his 10-hectare farmland valued at P2,000,000 was located. He had already P3,000,000 savings from his long stint in Saudi Arabia. Eagerly awaiting Pedro's arrival at the NAIA were his aging parents Modesto and Jacinta, his common-law spouse Veneranda, their three children, and Alex, his child by Carol, his departed legal wife. Sadly for all of them, Pedro suffered a stroke because of his over-excitement just as the plane was about to land, and died without seeing any of them. The farmland and the savings were all the properties he left. (b) Assuming that Pedro's will is discovered soon after his funeral. In the will, he disposed of half of his estate in favour of Veneranda, and the other half in favour of his children and his parents in equal shares. Assuming also that the will is admitted to probate by the proper court. Are the testamentary dispositions valid and effective under the law on succession? Explain your answer. (4%)

Briefly explain whether the following contracts are valid, rescissible, unenforceable, or void: (b) A contract of lease of the Philippine Sea entered by and between Mitoy and Elsa. (2%)

Briefly explain whether the following contracts are valid, rescissible, unenforceable, or void: (e) Jenny's sale of her car to Celestine in order to evade attachment by Jenny's creditors. (2%)

Zeny and Nolan were best friends for a long time already. Zeny borrowed P10,000.00 from Nolan, evidenced by a promissory note whereby Zeny promised to pay the loan “once his means permit.” Two months later, they had a quarrel that broke their long-standing friendship. Nolan seeks your advice on how to collect from Zeny despite the tenor of the promissory note. What will be your advice? Explain your answer. (3%)

Kevin signed a loan agreement with ABC Bank. To secure payment, Kevin requested his girlfriend Rosella to execute a document entitled “Continuing Guaranty Agreement”, whereby she expressly agreed to be solidarily liable for the obligation of Kevin. Can ABC Bank proceed directly against Rosella upon Kevin's default even without proceeding against Kevin first? Explain your answer. (3%)

Jovencio operated a school bus to ferry his two sons and five of their schoolmates from their houses to their school, and back. The parents of the five schoolmates paid for the service. One morning, Porfirio, the driver, took a short cut on the way to school because he was running late, and drove through an unmanned railway crossing. At the time, Porfirio was wearing earphones because he loved to hear loud music while driving. As he crossed the railway tracks, a speeding PNR train loudly blared its horn to warn Porfirio, but the latter did not hear the horn because of the loud music. The train inevitably rammed into the school bus. The strong impact of the collision resulted in the death of one of the classmates of Jovencio's younger son. The parents of the fatality sued Jovencio for damages based on culpa contractual, alleging that Jovencio was a common carrier; Porfirio for being negligent; and the PNR for damages based on culpa aquiliana. Jovencio denied being a common carrier and insisted that he had exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in supervising Porfirio, claiming the latter had no history of negligence or recklessness before the accident. (c) Assuming that the fatality was a minor of only 15 years of age who had no earning capacity at the time of his death because he was still a student in high school, and the trial court is minded to award indemnity, what may possibly be the legal and factual justifications for the award of loss of earning capacity? Explain your answer. (4%)

Alice agreed to sell a parcel of land with an area of 500 square meters registered in her name and covered by her TCT No. 12345 in favour of Bernadette for the amount of P900,000.00. Their agreement dated October 15, 2015 provided for payment of P100,000.00 upon signing and four P200,000.00 installments due November 15, 2015, December 15, 2015, January 15, 2016, and February 15, 2016, with title to be transferred upon full payment on or before February 15, 2016. After paying the P100,000.00 on October 15, 2015 and the P200,000.00 installment on November 15, 2015, Bernadette defaulted despite repeated demands. In December 2016, Bernadette offered to pay her balance but Alice refused and said the land was no longer for sale. Bernadette caused the annotation of her adverse claim on TCT No. 12345 on December 19, 2016. She later discovered that Alice had sold the property to Chona on February 5, 2016, and that TCT No. 12345 had been cancelled and TCT No. 67891 issued to Chona. Bernadette sued Alice and Chona for specific performance, annulment of sale and cancellation of TCT No. 67891, insisting she had a contract of sale with Alice and that Alice engaged in double sale. (b) Did Alice engage in double sale of the property? Explain your answer. (4%)

(b) Distinguish commodatum from mutuum. (3%)

Plutarco owned land that borders on a river. After several years the action of the water of the river caused the deposit of soil, and increased the area of Plutarco's property by 200 square meters. (a) If Plutarco wants to own the increase in area, what will be his legal basis for doing so? Explain your answer. (2%)

State whether the following marital unions are valid, void, or voidable, and give the corresponding reason for your answer. (d) David who married Lina immediately the day after obtaining a judicial decree annulling his prior marriage to Elisa. (2%)

(a) Distinguish antichresis from usufruct. (3%)

Alice agreed to sell a parcel of land with an area of 500 square meters registered in her name and covered by her TCT No. 12345 in favour of Bernadette for the amount of P900,000.00. Their agreement dated October 15, 2015 provided for payment of P100,000.00 upon signing and four P200,000.00 installments due November 15, 2015, December 15, 2015, January 15, 2016, and February 15, 2016, with title to be transferred upon full payment on or before February 15, 2016. After paying the P100,000.00 on October 15, 2015 and the P200,000.00 installment on November 15, 2015, Bernadette defaulted despite repeated demands. In December 2016, Bernadette offered to pay her balance but Alice refused and said the land was no longer for sale. Bernadette caused the annotation of her adverse claim on TCT No. 12345 on December 19, 2016. She later discovered that Alice had sold the property to Chona on February 5, 2016, and that TCT No. 12345 had been cancelled and TCT No. 67891 issued to Chona. Bernadette sued Alice and Chona for specific performance, annulment of sale and cancellation of TCT No. 67891, insisting she had a contract of sale with Alice and that Alice engaged in double sale. (a) Did Alice and Bernadette enter into a contract of sale of the lot covered by TCT No. 12345? Explain your answer. (4%)

TRUE or FALSE. (b) A lessee cannot bring a case for quieting of title respecting the property that he leases. (2%)

TRUE or FALSE. (a) All rights are considered as property. (2%)

Butch got a loan from Hagibis Corporation (Hagibis) but he defaulted in the payment. A case for collection of a sum of money was filed against him. As a defense, Butch claims that there was already an arrangement with Hagibis on the payment of the loan. To implement the same, Butch already surrendered five (5) service utility vehicles (SUVs) to the company for it to sell and the proceeds to be credited to the loan as payment. Was the obligation of Butch extinguished by reason of dacion en pago upon the surrender of the SUVs? Decide and explain. (5%)

Don Ricardo had 2 legitimate children—Tomas and Tristan. Tristan has 3 children. Meanwhile, Tomas had a relationship with Nancy, who was also single and had the legal capacity to marry. Nancy became pregnant and gave birth to Tomas, Jr. After the birth of Tomas, Jr., his father, Tomas, died. Later, Don Ricardo died without a will and Tristan opposed the motion of Tomas, Jr. to be declared an heir of the deceased since he is an illegitimate child. Tomas, Jr. countered that Article 992 of the Civil Code is unconstitutional for violation of the equal protection of the laws. He explained that an illegitimate child of an illegitimate parent is allowed to inherit under Articles 902, 982 and 990 of the Civil Code while he, an illegitimate child of a legitimate father, cannot. Civil Law commentator Arturo Tolentino opined that Article 992 created an absurdity and committed an injustice because while the illegitimate descendant of an illegitimate child can represent, the illegitimate descendant of a legitimate child cannot. Decide the case and explain. (5%)

Macario bought a titled lot from Ramon, got the title and took possession of the lot. Since Macario did not have the money to pay the taxes, fees and registration expenses, he was not able to register the Deed of Absolute Sale. Upon advice, he merely executed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim and had it annotated at the back of the title. A few years after, he received a Notice of Levy on Attachment and Writ of Execution in favour of Alex. The notice, writ and certificate of sale were annotated at the back of the title still in Ramon's name. Alex contends that since the Affidavit of Adverse Claim is effective only for 30 days from the date of its registration, then its validity has expired. Macario posits that the annotation of his adverse claim is notice to the whole world of his purchase of the lot in question. Who has the superior right over the disputed property, Macario or Alex? Explain. (5%)

Brad and Angelina had a secret marriage before a pastor whose office is located in Arroceros Street, City of Manila. They paid money to the pastor who took care of all the documentation. When Angelina wanted to go to the U.S., she found out that there was no marriage license issued to them before their marriage. Since their marriage was solemnized in 1995 after the effectivity of the Family Code, Angelina filed a petition for judicial declaration of nullity on the strength of a certification by the Civil Registrar of Manila that, after a diligent and exhaustive search, the alleged marriage license indicated in the marriage certificate does not appear in the records and cannot be found. (A) Decide the case and explain. (2.5%)

Bernard and Dorothy lived together as common-law spouses although they are both capacitated to marry. After one year of cohabitation, Dorothy went abroad to work in Dubai as a hair stylist and regularly sent money to Bernard. With the money, Bernard bought a lot. For a good price, Bernard sold the lot. Dorothy came to know about the acquisition and sale of the lot and filed a suit to nullify the sale because she did not give her consent to the sale. (A) Will Dorothy's suit prosper? Decide with reasons. (2.5%)

Peter and Paul entered into a Contract to Sell whereby Peter, the lot owner, agreed to sell to Paul his lot on November 6, 2016 for the price of P1,000,000.00 to be paid at the residence of Peter in Makati City at 1:00 p.m. If the full price is paid in cash at the specified time and place, then Peter will execute a Deed of Absolute Sale and deliver the title to Paul. On November 6, 2016, Paul did not show up and was not heard of from that date on. In view of the non-performance by Paul of his obligation, Peter sent a letter to Paul that he is expressly and extra-judicially declaring the Contract to Sell rescinded and of no legal and binding effect. Peter further stated that failure on the part of Paul to contest the rescission within thirty (30) days from receipt of said letter shall mean that the latter agreed to the rescission. Paul did not reply to this letter for five (5) years. Thus, Peter decided to sell his lot to Henry in 2021. After hearing that Henry bought the lot, Paul now questions the sale of the lot to Henry and files a complaint for nullification of the sale. (A) Is the exercise by Peter of his power to rescind extra-judicially the Contract to Sell the proper and legal way of rescinding said contract? Explain. (2.5%)

Jack, a surgeon, holds clinic at the St. Vincent's Hospital and pays rent to the hospital. The fees of Dr. Jack are paid directly to him by the patient or through the cashier of the hospital. The hospital publicly displays in the lobby the names and specializations of the doctors associated or accredited by it, including that of Dr. Jack. Marta engaged the services of Dr. Jack because of recurring stomach pain. It was diagnosed that she is suffering from cancer and had to be operated on. Before the operation, she was asked to sign a “consent for hospital care,” which reads: “Permission is hereby given to the medical, nursing and laboratory staff of the St. Vincent's Hospital to perform such procedures and to administer such medications and treatments as may be deemed necessary or advisable by the physicians of this hospital for and during the confinement.” After the surgery, the attending nurses reported that two (2) sponges were missing. Later, Marta died due to complications brought about by the sponges that were left in her stomach. The husband of Marta sued the hospital and Dr. Jack for damages arising from negligence in the medical procedure. The hospital raised the defense that Dr. Jack is not its employee as it did not hire Dr. Jack nor pay him any salary or compensation. It has absolutely no control over the medical services and treatment being provided by Dr. Jack who even signed an agreement that he holds the hospital free and harmless from any liability arising from his medical practice in the hospital. Is St. Vincent's Hospital liable for the negligence of Dr. Jack? Explain your answer. (5%)

Romeo and Juliet, both Filipinos, got married. After a few years, Juliet got word from her mother that she can go to the United States for naturalization. Juliet promised she will be back the moment she becomes an American. After sometime, Romeo learned from a friend that Juliet already became a U.S. citizen and even divorced him to marry a wealthy American businessman. Romeo filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court praying that an order be issued authorizing him to remarry pursuant to Article 26 of the Family Code. Decide the petition with reasons. (5%)

Ellen entrusted her title over the lot where she is residing to Patrick, her nephew, for safekeeping because of her poor eyesight. Patrick, a gambler, prepared a Special Power of Attorney empowering him to mortgage the lot. Ellen's signature was forged. With the help of Julia who represented herself as Ellen, Mega Bank granted a loan to Patrick secured by a mortgage on Ellen's lot. Due to non-payment, Mega Bank foreclosed the mortgage and was declared the highest bidder. Title was later registered in the name of the bank. When Ellen was notified that she should vacate the premises, she filed a complaint to nullify the loan with mortgage, the auction sale and the title of Mega Bank on the ground that the bank is not a mortgagee in good faith. Decide the case with reasons. (5%)

Brad and Angelina had a secret marriage before a pastor whose office is located in Arroceros Street, City of Manila. They paid money to the pastor who took care of all the documentation. When Angelina wanted to go to the U.S., she found out that there was no marriage license issued to them before their marriage. Since their marriage was solemnized in 1995 after the effectivity of the Family Code, Angelina filed a petition for judicial declaration of nullity on the strength of a certification by the Civil Registrar of Manila that, after a diligent and exhaustive search, the alleged marriage license indicated in the marriage certificate does not appear in the records and cannot be found. (B) In case the marriage was solemnized in 1980 before the effectivity of the Family Code, is it required that a judicial petition be filed to declare the marriage null and void? Explain. (2.5%)

Pedro bought a parcel of land described as Cadastral Lot No. 123 and the title was issued to his name. Juan also bought a lot in the same place, which is described as Cadastral Lot No. 124. Pedro hired a geodetic engineer to determine the actual location of Lot No. 123 but for some reason, the engineer pointed to Lot No. 124 by mistake. Pedro hired a contractor to construct his house and the latter put up a sign stating the name of the owner of the project and the construction permit number. It took more than a year before the house was constructed. When Pedro was already residing in his house, Juan told him to remove his house because it was built on his (Juan's) lot. Juan filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession and prayed that the house be removed because Pedro is a builder in bad faith. Pedro filed his Answer with Counterclaim that he is entitled to the payment of the value of the house plus damages because he is a builder in good faith and that Juan is guilty of estoppel and laches. (B) If Pedro is a builder in bad faith, what are the rights given to Juan under the law? Explain. (2.5%)

On February 28, 1998, Arthur filed an application for registration of title of a lot in Ternate, Cavite before the Regional Trial Court of Naic, Cavite under Section 48 (b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (CA 141) for judicial confirmation of imperfect title. Section 48 (b) of CA 141 requires possession counted from June 12, 1945. Arthur presented testimonial and documentary evidence that his possession and that of his predecessors-in-interest started in 1936. The lot was declared alienable and disposable (A and D) in 1993 based on a PENRO certification and a certified true copy of the original classification made by the DENR Secretary. The government opposed the application on the ground that the lot was certified A and D only in 1993 while the application was instituted only in 1998. Arthur's possession of five (5) years from the date of declaration does not comply with the 30-year period required under CA 141. Should the possession of Arthur be reckoned from the date when the lot was declared A and D or from the date of actual possession of the applicant? Explain. (5%)

With regard to an award of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages, please state the guidelines regarding the manner of computing legal interest in the following situations: (B) when the obligation does not constitute a loan or forbearance of money. (2.5%) Consider the issuance of BSP-MB Circular No. 799, which became effective on July 1, 2013.

Peter, a resident of Cebu City, sent through Reliable Pera Padala (RPP) the amount of P20,000.00 to his daughter, Paula, for the payment of her tuition fee. Paula went to an RPP branch but was informed that there was no money remitted to her name. Peter inquired from RPP and was informed that there was a computer glitch and the money was credited to another person. Peter and Paula sued RPP for actual damages, moral damages and exemplary damages. The trial court ruled that there was no proof of pecuniary loss to the plaintiffs but awarded moral damages of P20,000.00 and exemplary damages of P5,000.00. On appeal, RPP questioned the award of moral and exemplary damages. Is the trial court correct in awarding moral and exemplary damages? Explain. (5%)

Section 1 of P.D. No. 755 states: “Section 1. Declaration of National Policy. — It is hereby declared that the policy of the State is to provide readily available credit facilities to the coconut farmers at preferential rates; that this policy can be expeditiously and efficiently realized by the Commercial Bank for the Benefit of the Coconut Farmers' executed by the Philippine Coconut Authority, the terms of which Agreement are hereby incorporated by reference; x x x” A copy of the Agreement was not attached to the Presidential Decree. P.D. No. 755 was published in the Official Gazette but the text of the Agreement described in Section 1 was not published. Can the Agreement in question be accorded the status of a law? Explain. (5%)

Pedro bought a parcel of land described as Cadastral Lot No. 123 and the title was issued to his name. Juan also bought a lot in the same place, which is described as Cadastral Lot No. 124. Pedro hired a geodetic engineer to determine the actual location of Lot No. 123 but for some reason, the engineer pointed to Lot No. 124 by mistake. Pedro hired a contractor to construct his house and the latter put up a sign stating the name of the owner of the project and the construction permit number. It took more than a year before the house was constructed. When Pedro was already residing in his house, Juan told him to remove his house because it was built on his (Juan's) lot. Juan filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession and prayed that the house be removed because Pedro is a builder in bad faith. Pedro filed his Answer with Counterclaim that he is entitled to the payment of the value of the house plus damages because he is a builder in good faith and that Juan is guilty of estoppel and laches. (A) If Pedro is a builder in good faith, what are the rights given to Juan under the law? Explain. (2.5%)

On March 13, 2008, Ariel entered into a Deed of Absolute Sale (DAS) with Noel where the former sold his titled lot in Quezon City with an area of three hundred (300) square meters to the latter for the price of P300,000.00. The prevailing market value of the lot was P3,000.00 per square meter. On March 20, 2008, they executed another “Agreement to Buy Back/Redeem Property”, where Ariel was given an option to repurchase the property on or before March 20, 2010 for the same price. Ariel, however, remained in actual possession of the lot. Since Noel did not pay the taxes, Ariel paid the real property taxes to avoid a delinquency sale. On March 21, 2010, Ariel sent a letter to Noel, attaching thereto a manager's check for P300,000.00, manifesting that he is redeeming the property. Noel rejected the redemption claiming that the DAS was a true and valid sale representing the true intent of the parties. Ariel filed a suit for the nullification of the DAS or the reformation of said agreement to that of a Loan with Real Estate Mortgage. He claims the DAS and the redemption agreement constitute an equitable mortgage. Noel, however, claims it is a valid sale with pacto de retro and Ariel clearly failed to redeem the property. As the RTC judge, decide the case with reasons. (5%)

Leo married Lina and they begot a son. After the birth of their child, Lina exhibited unusual behaviour and started to neglect her son; she frequently went out with her friends and gambled in casinos. Lina later had extra-marital affairs with several men and eventually abandoned Leo and their son. Leo was able to talk to the psychiatrist of Lina who told him that Lina suffers from dementia praecox, a form of psychosis where the afflicted person is prone to commit homicidal attacks. Leo was once stabbed by Lina but fortunately he only suffered minor injuries. Will a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed with the court prosper? Explain. (5%)

Bernard and Dorothy lived together as common-law spouses although they are both capacitated to marry. After one year of cohabitation, Dorothy went abroad to work in Dubai as a hair stylist and regularly sent money to Bernard. With the money, Bernard bought a lot. For a good price, Bernard sold the lot. Dorothy came to know about the acquisition and sale of the lot and filed a suit to nullify the sale because she did not give her consent to the sale. (B) Suppose Dorothy was jobless and did not contribute money to the acquisition of the lot and her efforts consisted mainly in the care and maintenance of the family and household, is her consent to the sale a prerequisite to its validity? Explain. (2.5%)

Benjamin is the owner of a titled lot which is bounded on the north by the Maragondon River. An alluvial deposit of two (2) hectares was added to the registered area. Daniel took possession of the portion formed by accretion and claims that he has been in open continuous and undisturbed possession of said portion since 1923 as shown by a tax declaration. In 1958, Benjamin filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title and contends that the alluvium belongs to him as the riparian owner and that since the alluvium is, by law, part and parcel of the registered property, the same may be considered as registered property. Decide the case and explain. (5%)

Joven and Juliana are the owners of a 30-hectare plantation in Cotabato, covered by a title. One day, a group of armed men forcibly entered their house and, at gun point, forced them to sign a Deed of Absolute Sale in favour of Romeo. Romeo got the title from them and they were ejected from the house and threatened not to come back or else they will be killed. The spouses went to Manila and resided there for more than 35 years. They never went back to Cotabato for fear of their lives. Word came to them that peace and order have been restored in their former place of residence and they decided to reclaim their land for the benefit of their grandchildren. Joven and Juliana filed a suit for reconveyance of their property. This was opposed by the grandson of Romeo to whom the title was eventually transferred, on the ground of laches and prescription. Decide the case and rule on the defenses of laches and prescription. Explain your answer. (5%)

Princess married Roberto and bore a son, Onofre. Roberto died in a plane crash. Princess later married Mark and they also had a son - Pepito. Onofre donated to Pepito, his half-brother, a lot in Makati City worth P3,000,000.00. Pepito succumbed to an illness and died intestate. The lot given to Pepito by Onofre was inherited by his father, Mark. Mark also died intestate. Lonely, Princess followed Mark to the life beyond. The claimants to the subject lot emerged - Jojo, the father of Princess; Victor, the father of Mark; and Jerico, the father of Roberto. Who among the three (3) ascendants is entitled to the lot? Explain. (5%)

With regard to an award of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages, please state the guidelines regarding the manner of computing legal interest in the following situations: (A) when the obligation is breached and it consists in the payment of a sum of money like a loan or forbearance of money. (2.5%)

Jerico, the project owner, entered into a Construction Contract with Ivan for the latter to construct his house. Jojo executed a Surety undertaking to guarantee the performance of the work by Ivan. Jerico and Ivan later entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) revising the work schedule of Ivan and the subcontractors. The MOA stated that all the stipulations of the original contract not in conflict with said agreement shall remain valid and legally effective. Jojo filed a suit to declare him relieved of his undertaking as a result of the MOA because of the change in the work schedule. Jerico claims there is no novation of the Construction Contract. Decide the case and explain. (5%)

Peter and Paul entered into a Contract to Sell whereby Peter, the lot owner, agreed to sell to Paul his lot on November 6, 2016 for the price of P1,000,000.00 to be paid at the residence of Peter in Makati City at 1:00 p.m. If the full price is paid in cash at the specified time and place, then Peter will execute a Deed of Absolute Sale and deliver the title to Paul. On November 6, 2016, Paul did not show up and was not heard of from that date on. In view of the non-performance by Paul of his obligation, Peter sent a letter to Paul that he is expressly and extra-judicially declaring the Contract to Sell rescinded and of no legal and binding effect. Peter further stated that failure on the part of Paul to contest the rescission within thirty (30) days from receipt of said letter shall mean that the latter agreed to the rescission. Paul did not reply to this letter for five (5) years. Thus, Peter decided to sell his lot to Henry in 2021. After hearing that Henry bought the lot, Paul now questions the sale of the lot to Henry and files a complaint for nullification of the sale. (B) In case Paul made a down payment pursuant to a stipulation in the Contract to Sell, what is the legal remedy of Peter? (2.5%)

Julie had a relationship with a married man, and a son was born of that illicit relationship in 1981. The putative father did not recognize the child in his birth certificate but supported him; the man died in 2000 when the child was already 18, and the child sued for recognition as an illegitimate child and a share in the estate. (B) Wishing to keep the peace, the child during the pendency of the case decides to compromise with his putative father's family by abandoning his petition in exchange for ½ of what he would have received as inheritance if he were recognized as an illegitimate child. As the judge, would you approve such a compromise? (2%)

(B) Distinguish direct attack from a collateral attack on a title. (2%)

Alden and Stela were both former Filipino citizens. They were married in the Philippines but they later migrated to the United States where they were naturalized as American citizens. In their union they were able to accumulate several real properties both in the US and in the Philippines. Unfortunately, they were not blessed with children. In the US, they executed a joint will instituting as common heirs to divide their combined estate in equal shares, the five siblings of Alden and the seven siblings of Stela. Alden passed away in 2013 and a year later, Stela also died. (B) Can the joint will produce legal effect in the Philippines with respect to the properties of Alden and Stela found here? If so, how?

Julie had a relationship with a married man who had legitimate children. A son was born out of that illicit relationship in 1981. Although the putative father did not recognize the child in his certificate of birth, he nevertheless provided the child with all the support he needed and spent time regularly with the child and his mother. When the man died in 2000, the child was already 18 years old so he filed a petition to be recognized as an illegitimate child of the putative father and sought to be given a share in his putative father's estate. The legitimate family opposed, saying that under the Family Code his action cannot prosper because he did not bring the action for recognition during the lifetime of his putative father. (A) If you were the judge in this case, how would you rule? (4%)

Bert and Joe, both male and single, lived together as common law spouses for 20 years and raised the son of Bert's brother without legally adopting him, acquiring real estate registered as co-owners. Bert died intestate, survived by his biological siblings, Joe, and the boy. (B) What are the successional rights of the boy Bert and Joe raised as their son? (2%)

Bert and Joe, both male and single, lived together as common law spouses for 20 years and raised the son of Bert's brother without legally adopting him. (C) If Bert and Joe had decided in the early years of their cohabitation to jointly adopt the boy, would they have been legally allowed to do so? Explain with legal basis. (3%)

Mr. and Mrs. X, intending to migrate to the US, offered their house and lot to Mr. and Mrs. A for P8 Million, allowing the buyers to occupy and renovate it pending approval of the buyers' bank loan, with payment to be made upon release of the loan. The buyers spent P1 Million on repairs. A month later, the sellers' attorney-in-fact demanded that the buyers immediately pay in full or vacate and pay damages, claiming no sale had been perfected. (B) Can the buyers be made to immediately vacate on the ground that the sale was not perfected? Explain briefly. (3%)

Iya and Betty owed Jun P500,000.00 for advancing their equity in a corporation they joined as incorporators. Iya and Betty bound themselves solidarily liable for the debt. Later, Iya and Jun became sweethearts so Jun condoned the debt of P500,000.00. May Iya demand from Betty P250,000.00 as her share in the debt? Explain with legal basis. (2%)

A bus driver of company Z ran over a boy who died instantly; the driver was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and ordered to pay P2 Million in damages to the boy's parents. (B) If the parents of the boy do not wish to file a separate civil action against the bus company, can they still make the bus company liable if the driver cannot pay the award for damages? If so, what is the nature of the employer's liability and how may civil damages be satisfied? (3%)

Donna pledged a set of diamond ring and earring to Jane for P200,000.00 under an agreement that Jane could appropriate the jewelry if Donna failed to pay within six months. Donna failed to pay; Jane displayed the set in her mall jewelry shop, and a buyer, Juana, bought it for P300,000.00. (B) Can Donna redeem the jewelry set from Juana by paying the amount she owed Jane to Juana? Explain with legal basis. (2%)

(C) Give an example of a pledge created by operation of law. (2%)

Mr. and Mrs. Roman and Mr. and Mrs. Cruz filed an application for registration of a parcel of land which after due proceedings was granted by the RTC, acting as a land registration court. However, before the decree of registration could be issued, the spouses Roman and the spouses Cruz sold the lot to Juan. In the notarized deed of sale, the sellers expressly undertook to submit the deed of sale to the land registration court so that the title to the property would be directly issued in Juan's name. Is such a stipulation valid? (2%)

Juancho, Don and Pedro borrowed P150,000.00 from their friend Cita to put up an internet café, orally promising to pay her the full amount after one year. Because of their lack of business know-how, their business collapsed. Juancho and Don ended up penniless, but Pedro was able to borrow money and put up a restaurant which did well. Can Cita demand that Pedro pay the entire obligation since he, together with the two others, promised to pay the amount in full after one year? Defend your answer. (2%)

Sara borrowed P50,000.00 from Julia and orally promised to pay it within six months. When Sara tried to pay her debt on the 8th month, Julia demanded the payment of interest of 12% per annum because of Sara's delay in payment. Sara paid her debt and the interest claimed by Julia. After rethinking, Sara demanded back from Julia the amount she had paid as interest. Julia claims she has no obligation to return the interest paid by Sara because it was a natural obligation which Sara voluntarily performed and can no longer recover. Do you agree? Explain. (4%)

Donna pledged a set of diamond ring and earring to Jane for P200,000.00. She was made to sign an agreement that if she cannot pay her debt within six months, Jane could immediately appropriate the jewelry for herself. After six months, Donna failed to pay. Jane then displayed the earrings and ring set in her jewelry shop located in a mall. A buyer, Juana, bought the jewelry set for P300,000.00. (A) Was the agreement which Donna signed with Jane valid? Explain with legal basis. (2%)

X, a dressmaker, accepted clothing materials from Karla to make two dresses for her. On the day X was supposed to deliver Karla's dresses, X called up Karla to say that she had an urgent matter to attend to and will deliver them the next day. That night, however, a robber broke into her shop and took everything including Karla's two dresses. X claims she is not liable to deliver Karla's dresses or to pay for the clothing materials considering she herself was a victim of the robbery which was a fortuitous event and over which she had no control. Do you agree? Why? (3%)

X, Y, Z are siblings who inherited a 10-storey building from their parents. They agreed in writing to maintain it as a co-owned property for leasing out and to divide the net profits among themselves equally for a period of 20 years. On the 8th year, X wanted to get out of the co-ownership so he could get his 1/3 share in the property. Y and Z refused, saying X is bound by their agreement to keep the co-ownership for 20 years. Are Y and Z correct? Explain. (3%)

X and Y are partners in a shop offering portrait painting. Y provided the capital and the marketing while X was the portrait artist. They accepted the P50,000.00 payment of Kyla to do her portrait but X passed away without being able to do it. Can Kyla demand that Y deliver the portrait she had paid for because she was dealing with the business establishment and not with the artist personally? Why or why not? (3%)

Mr. and Mrs. X migrated to the US with all their children. As they had no intention of coming back, they offered their house and lot for sale to their neighbours, Mr. and Mrs. A (the buyers) who agreed to buy the property for P8 Million. Because Mr. and Mrs. A needed to obtain a loan from a bank first, and since the sellers were in a hurry to migrate, the latter told the buyers that they could already occupy the house, renovate it as it was already in a state of disrepair, and pay only when their loan is approved and released. While waiting for the loan approval, the buyers spent P1 Million in repairing the house. A month later, a person carrying an authenticated special power of attorney from the sellers demanded that the buyers either immediately pay for the property in full now or vacate it and pay damages for having made improvements on the property without a sale having been perfected. (A) What are the buyers' options or legal rights with respect to the expenses they incurred in improving the property under the circumstance? (3%)

Kardo, as a young lieutenant, met Glenda, and after a whirlwind courtship they were married. In the early part of his military career, Kardo was assigned to different places all over the country but Glenda refused to accompany him as she preferred to live in her hometown. They did not live together until the 12th year of their marriage when Kardo had risen up the ranks and was given his own command. They moved to living quarters in Fort Gregorio. One day, while Kardo was away on official business, one of his military aides caught Glenda having sex with the corporal assigned as Kardo's driver. The aide immediately reported the matter to Kardo who rushed home to confront his wife. Glenda readily admitted the affair and Kardo sent her away in anger. Kardo would later come to know the true extent of Glenda's unfaithfulness from his aides, his household staff, and former neighbors who informed him that Glenda has had intimate relations with various men throughout their marriage whenever Kardo was away on assignment. Kardo filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36. Based on interviews from Kardo, his aide, and the housekeeper, a psychologist testified that Glenda's habitual infidelity was due to her affliction with Histrionic Personality Disorder, an illness characterized by excessive emotionalism and uncontrollable attention-seeking behaviour rooted in Glenda's abandonment as a child by her father. Kardo, himself, his aide, and his housekeeper also testified in court. The RTC granted the petition, relying on the liberality espoused by Te v. Te (G.R. No. 161793, February 13, 2009) and Azcueta v. Republic (G.R. No. 180668, May 26, 2009). However, the OSG filed an appeal, arguing that sexual infidelity was only a ground for legal separation and that the RTC failed to abide by the guidelines laid down in the Molina case. How would you decide the appeal? (5%)

Bert and Joe, both male and single, lived together as common law spouses and agreed to raise a son of Bert's living brother as their child without legally adopting him. Bert worked while Joe took care of their home and the boy. In their 20 years of cohabitation they were able to acquire real estate assets registered in their names as co-owners. Unfortunately, Bert died of cardiac arrest, leaving no will. Bert was survived by his biological siblings, Joe, and the boy. (A) Can Article 147 on co-ownership apply to Bert and Joe, whereby all properties they acquired will be presumed to have been acquired by their joint industry and shall be owned by them in equal shares? (2%)

Marco and Gina were married in 1989. Ten years later, or in 1999, Gina left Marco and lived with another man, leaving their two children of school age with Marco. When Marco needed money for their children's education he sold a parcel of land registered in his name, without Gina's consent, which he purchased before his marriage. Is the sale by Marco valid, void or voidable? Explain with legal basis. (4%)

Alden and Stela were both former Filipino citizens. They were married in the Philippines but they later migrated to the United States where they were naturalized as American citizens. In their union they were able to accumulate several real properties both in the US and in the Philippines. Unfortunately, they were not blessed with children. In the US, they executed a joint will instituting as common heirs to divide their combined estate in equal shares, the five siblings of Alden and the seven siblings of Stela. Alden passed away in 2013 and a year later, Stela also died. The siblings of Alden who were all citizens of the US instituted probate proceedings in a US court impleading the siblings of Stela who were all in the Philippines. (A) Was the joint will executed by Alden and Stela who were both former Filipinos valid? Explain with legal basis. (3%)

(B) In this jurisdiction, is a joint venture (i.e., a group of corporations contributing resources for a specific project and sharing the profits therefrom) considered a partnership? (3%)

Z, a gambler, wagered and lost P2 Million in baccarat, a card game. He was pressured into signing a Deed of Absolute Sale in favour of the winner covering a parcel of land with improvements worth P20 Million. One month later, the supposed vendee of the property demanded that he and his family vacate the property subject of the deed of sale. Was the deed of sale valid? What can Z do? (4%)

Mrs. L was married to a ship captain who worked for an international maritime vessel. For her and her family's support, she would claim monthly allotments from her husband's company. One day, while en route from Hong Kong to Manila, the vessel manned by Captain L encountered a severe typhoon at sea. The captain was able to send radio messages of distress to the head office until all communications were lost. In the weeks that followed, the search operations yielded debris of the lost ship but the bodies of the crew and the passengers were not recovered. The insurance company thereafter paid out the death benefits to all the heirs of the passengers and crew. Mrs. L filed a complaint demanding that her monthly allotments continue for the next four years until her husband may be legally presumed dead because of his absence. If you were the magistrate, how would you rule? (3%)

Mr. and Mrs. Roman and Mr. and Mrs. Cruz obtained a grant of land registration, but before the decree could issue they sold the lot to Juan, undertaking in the notarized deed of sale to submit it to the land registration court so the title would issue directly in Juan's name. (C) If the title in Item XX.(A) is issued in the names of the original sellers, would a motion filed by Juan in the same case to correct or amend the title in order to reflect him as owner be considered a collateral attack? (2%)

(B) Distinguish civil and natural obligations.

A lawyer was given an authority by means of a Special Power of Attorney by his client to sell a parcel of land for the amount of P3 Million. Since the client owed the lawyer P1 Million in attorney's fees in a prior case he handled, the client agreed that if the property is sold, the lawyer was entitled to get 5% agent's fee plus P1 Million as payment for his unpaid attorney's fees. The client, however, subsequently found a buyer of his own who was willing to buy the property for a higher amount. Can the client unilaterally rescind the authority he gave in favour of his lawyer? Why or why not? (4%)

A driver of a bus owned by company Z ran over a boy who died instantly. A criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide was filed against the driver. He was convicted and was ordered to pay P2 Million in actual and moral damages to the parents of the boy who was an honour student and had a bright future. Without even trying to find out if the driver had assets or means to pay the award of damages, the parents of the boy filed a civil action against the bus company to make it directly liable for the damages. (A) Will their action prosper? (4%)

Jackie, 16, inherited a townhouse. Because she wanted to study in an exclusive school, she sold her townhouse by signing a Deed of Sale and turning over possession of the same to the buyer. When the buyer discovered that she was still a minor, she promised to execute another Deed of Sale when she turns 18. When Jackie turned 25 and was already working, she wanted to annul the sale and return the buyer's money to recover her townhouse. Was the sale contract void, voidable or valid? Can Jackie still recover the property? Explain. (4%)

Jose, single, donated a house and lot to his only niece, Maria, who was of legal age and who accepted the donation. The donation and Maria's acceptance thereof were evidenced by a Deed of Donation. Maria then lived in the house and lot donated to her, religiously paying real estate taxes thereon. Twelve years later, when Jose had already passed away, a woman claiming to be an illegitimate daughter of Jose filed a complaint against Maria. Claiming rights as an heir, the woman prayed that Maria be ordered to reconvey the house and lot to Jose's estate. In her complaint, she alleged that the notary public who notarized the Deed of Donation had an expired notarial commission when the Deed of Donation was executed by Jose. Can Maria be made to reconvey the property? What can she put up as a defense? (4%)

Alden and Stela were both former Filipino citizens who were naturalized as American citizens, and who executed a joint will in the US instituting as common heirs the siblings of each spouse. (C) Is the situation presented in item I an example of dépeçage?

Mr. A, a businessman, put several real estate properties under the name of his eldest son X because at that time, X was the only one of legal age among his four children. He told his son he was to hold those assets for his siblings until they become adults themselves. X then got married. After 5 years, Mr. A asked X to transfer the titles over three properties to his three siblings, leaving two properties to himself. To A's surprise, X said that he can no longer be made to transfer the properties to his siblings because more than 5 years have passed since the titles were registered in his name. Do you agree? Explain. (4%)

An easement that can be acquired by prescription: A) right of way B) watering of an animal C) lateral and subjacent support D) light and view

Mr. Bong owns several properties in Pasig City. He decided to build a condominium named Flores de Manila in one of his lots. To fund the project, he obtained a loan from the National Bank (NB) secured by a real estate mortgage over the adjoining property which he also owned. During construction, he built three (3) pumps on the mortgaged property to supply water to the condominium. After one (1) year, the project was completed and the condominium was turned over to the buyers. However, Mr. Bong failed to pay his loan obligation to NB. Thus, NB foreclosed the mortgaged property where the pumps were installed. During the sale on public auction of the mortgaged property, Mr. Simon won in the bidding. When Mr. Simon attempted to take possession of the property, the condominium owners, who in the meantime constituted themselves into Flores de Manila Inc. (FMI), claimed that they have earlier filed a case for the declaration of the existence of an easement before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City and prayed that the easement be annotated in the title of the property foreclosed by NB. FMI further claimed that when Mr. Bong installed the pumps in his adjoining property, a voluntary easement was constituted in favour of FMI. Will the action prosper? (4%)

The Roman Catholic Church accepted a donation of a real property located in Lipa City. A deed of donation was executed, signed by the donor, Don Mariano, and the donee, the Church, as represented by Fr. Damian. Before the deed could be notarized, Don Mariano died. Is the donation valid? (4%)

What is the effect of preterition? A) It annuls the devise and legacy B) It annuls the institution of heirs C) It reduces the devise and legacy D) It partially annuls the institution of heir

Esteban and Martha had four (4) children: Rolando, Jun, Mark and Hector. Rolando had a daughter, Edith, while Mark had a son, Philip. After the death of Esteban and Martha, their three (3) parcels of land were adjudicated to Jun. After the death of Jun, the properties passed to his surviving spouse Anita, and son Cesar. When Anita died, her share went to her son Cesar. Ten (10) years after, Cesar died intestate without any issue. Peachy, Anita's sister, adjudicated to herself the properties as the only surviving heir of Anita and Cesar. Edith and Philip would like to recover the properties claiming that they should have been reserved by Peachy in their behalf and must now revert back to them. Is the contention of Edith and Philip valid? (4%)

A pedestrian, who was four (4) months pregnant, was hit by a bus driver while crossing the street. Although the pedestrian survived, the fetus inside her womb was aborted. Can the pedestrian recover damages on account of the death of the fetus? A) Yes, because of Article 2206 of the Civil Code which allows the surviving heirs to demand damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. B) Yes, for as long as the pedestrian can prove that she was not at fault and the bus driver was the one negligent. C) No, because a fetus is not a natural person. D) No, if the fetus did not comply with the requirements under Article 41 of the Civil Code.

A delayed accession is: A) formation of an island B) avulsion C) alluvium D) change in the course of the riverbed

Isaac leased the apartment of Dorotea for two (2) years. Six (6) months after, Isaac subleased a portion of the apartment due to financial difficulty. Is the sublease contract valid? A) Yes, it is valid for as long as all the elements of a valid sublease contract are present. B) Yes, it is valid if there is no express prohibition for subleasing in the lease contract. C) No, it is void if there is no written consent on the part of the lessor. D) No, it is void because of breach of the lease contract.

Joe Miguel, a well-known treasure hunter in Mindanao, executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) appointing his nephew, John Paul, as his attorney-in-fact. John Paul was given the power to deal with treasure-hunting activities on Joe Miguel's land and to file charges against those who may enter it without the latter's authority. Joe Miguel agreed to give John Paul forty percent (40%) of the treasure that may be found on the land. Thereafter, John Paul filed a case for damages and injunction against Lito for illegally entering Joe Miguel's land. Subsequently, he hired the legal services of Atty. Audrey agreeing to give the latter thirty percent (30%) of Joe Miguel's share in whatever treasure that may be found in the land. Dissatisfied however with the strategies implemented by John Paul, Joe Miguel unilaterally revoked the SPA granted to John Paul. Is the revocation proper? (4%)

Timothy executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Kristopher setting up a business venture covering three (3) fastfood stores known as "Hungry Toppings" that will be established at Mall Uno, Mall Dos, and Mall Tres. The pertinent provisions of the MOA provide: (1) Timothy shall be considered a partner with thirty percent (30%) share in all of the stores to be set up by Kristopher; (2) The proceeds of the business, after deducting expenses, shall be used to pay the principal amount of P500,000.00 and the interest therein which is to be computed based on the bank rate, representing the bank loan secured by Timothy; (3) The net profits, if any, after deducting the expenses and payments of the principal and interest shall be divided as follows: seventy percent (70%) for Kristopher and thirty percent (30%) for Timothy; (4) Kristopher shall have a free hand in running the business without any interference from Timothy, his agents, representatives, or assigns, and should such interference happen, Kristopher has the right to buy back the share of Timothy less the amounts already paid on the principal and to dissolve the MOA; and (5) Kristopher shall submit his monthly sales report in connection with the business to Timothy. What is the contractual relationship between Timothy and Kristopher? (4%)

Ariz and Paz were officemates at Perlas ng Silanganan Bank (PSB). They fell in love with each other and had a civil and church wedding. Meanwhile, Paz rapidly climbed the corporate ladder of PSB and eventually became its Vice-President, while Ariz remained one of its bank supervisors, although he was short of twelve (12) units to finish his Masters of Business Administration (MBA) degree. Ariz became envious of the success of his wife. He started drinking alcohol until he became a drunkard. He preferred to join his barkadas; became a wife-beater; would hurt his children without any reason; and failed to contribute to the needs of the family. Despite rehabilitation and consultation with a psychiatrist, his ways did not change. After 19 years of marriage, Paz, a devout Catholic, decided to have their marriage annulled by the church. Through the testimony of Paz and a psychiatrist, it was found that Ariz was a spoiled brat in his youth and was sometimes involved in brawls. In his teens, he was once referred to a psychiatrist for treatment due to his violent tendencies. In due time, the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal (NAMT) annulled the union of Ariz and Paz due to the failure of Ariz to perform and fulfill his duties as a husband and as a father to their children. The NAMT concluded that it is for the best interest of Paz, Ariz and their children to have the marriage annulled. In view of the NAMT decision, Paz decided to file a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage of their civil wedding before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City using the NAMT decision and the same evidence adduced in the church annulment proceedings as basis. If you are the judge, will you grant the petition? Explain. (5%)

Due to the continuous heavy rainfall, the major streets in Manila became flooded. This compelled Cris to check-in at Square One Hotel. As soon as Cris got off from his Toyota Altis, the Hotel's parking attendant got the key of his car and gave him a valet parking customer's claim stub. The attendant parked his car at the basement of the hotel. Early morning, Cris was informed by the hotel manager that his car was carnapped. (B) What is the liability, if any, of the Hotel for the loss of Cris' car? (4%)

After undergoing sex reassignment in a foreign country, Jose, who is now using the name of "Josie," married his partner Ador. Is the marriage valid? A) Yes, the marriage is valid for as long as it is valid in the place where it is celebrated following Article 17 of the Civil Code. B) Yes, the marriage is valid if all the essential and formal elements of marriage under the Family Code are present. C) No, the marriage is not valid because one essential element of marriage is absent. D) No, the marriage is not valid but is voidable because "Josie" concealed her real identity.

A congregation for religious women, by way of commodatum, is using the real property owned and registered in the name of Spouses Manuel as a retreat house. Maria, a helper of the congregation, discovered a chest in the backyard. When she opened the chest, it contained several pieces of jewelry and money. (A) Can the chest containing the pieces of jewelry and money be considered as hidden treasure? (4%)

Spouses Magtanggol managed and operated a gasoline station on a 1,000 sq.m. lot which they leased from Francisco Bigla-awa. The contract was for a period of three (3) years. When the contract expired, Francisco asked the spouses to peacefully vacate the premises. The spouses ignored the demand and continued with the operation of the gasoline station. One month after, Francisco, with the aid of a group of armed men, caused the closure of the gasoline station by constructing fences around it. Was the act of Francisco and his men lawful? Why? (4%)

Due to the continuous heavy rainfall, the major streets in Manila became flooded. This compelled Cris to check-in at Square One Hotel. As soon as Cris got off from his Toyota Altis, the Hotel's parking attendant got the key of his car and gave him a valet parking customer's claim stub. The attendant parked his car at the basement of the hotel. Early morning, Cris was informed by the hotel manager that his car was carnapped. (A) What contract, if any, was perfected between Cris and the Hotel when Cris surrendered the key of his car to the Hotel's parking attendant? (4%)

Who enjoys the Right of Retention? A) depositary until full payment of what may be due him in deposit B) lessee if he advances the expenses for the repair of the leased premises C) bailee if bailor owes him something D) builder in bad faith for the recovery of necessary and useful expenses

On March 30, 2000, Mariano died intestate and was survived by his wife, Leonora, and children, Danilo and Carlito. One of the properties he left was a piece of land in Alabang where he built his residential house. After his burial, Leonora and Mariano's children extrajudicially settled his estate. Thereafter, Leonora and Danilo advised Carlito of their intention to partition the property. Carlito opposed invoking Article 159 of the Family Code. Carlito alleged that since his minor child Lucas still resides in the premises, the family home continues until that minor beneficiary becomes of age. Is the contention of Carlito tenable? (4%)

Spouses Esteban and Maria decided to raise their two (2) nieces, Faith and Hope, both minors, as their own children after the parents of the minors died in a vehicular accident. Ten (10) years after, Esteban died. Maria later on married her boss Daniel, a British national who had been living in the Philippines for two (2) years. With the permission of Daniel, Maria filed a petition for the adoption of Faith and Hope. She did not include Daniel as her co-petitioner because for Maria, it was her former husband Esteban who raised the kids. If you are the judge, how will you resolve the petition? (4%)

A congregation for religious women, by way of commodatum, is using the real property owned and registered in the name of Spouses Manuel as a retreat house. Maria, a helper of the congregation, discovered a chest in the backyard. When she opened the chest, it contained several pieces of jewelry and money. (B) Who has the right to claim ownership of it? (4%)

Spouses Macario and Bonifacia Dakila entered into a contract to sell with Honorio Cruz over a parcel of industrial land in Valenzuela, Bulacan for a price of P3,500,000.00. The spouses would give a downpayment of P500,000.00 upon the signing of the contract, while the balance would be paid for the next three (3) consecutive months in the amount of P1,000,000.00 per month. The spouses paid the first two (2) installments but not the last installment. After one (1) year, the spouses offered to pay the unpaid balance which Honorio refused to accept. The spouses filed a complaint for specific performance against Honorio invoking the application of the Maceda Law. If you are the judge, how will you decide the case? (4%)

Nante, a registered owner of a parcel of land in Quezon City, sold the property to Monica under a deed of sale which reads as follows: "That for and in consideration of the sum of P500,000.00, value to be paid and delivered to me, and receipt of which shall be acknowledged by me to the full satisfaction of Monica, referred to as Vendee, I hereby sell, transfer, cede, convey, and assign, as by these presents, I do have sold, transferred, ceded, conveyed and assigned a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 2468 in favour of the Vendee." After delivery of the initial payment of P100,000.00, Monica immediately took possession of the property. Five (5) months after, Monica failed to pay the remaining balance of the purchase price. Nante filed an action for the recovery of possession of the property. Nante alleged that the agreement was one to sell, which was not consummated as the full contract price was not paid. Is the contention of Nante tenable? Why? (4%)

Miko and Dinah started to live together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage in 1984. Ten (10) years after, they separated. In 1996, they decided to live together again, and in 1998, they got married. On February 17, 2001, Dinah filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Miko on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The court rendered the following decision: (1) Declaring the marriage null and void; (2) Dissolving the regime of absolute community of property; and (3) Declaring that a decree of absolute nullity of marriage shall only be issued after liquidation, partition and distribution of the parties' properties under Article 147 of the Family Code. Dinah filed a motion for partial reconsideration questioning the portion of the decision on the issuance of a decree of nullity of marriage only after the liquidation, partition and distribution of properties under Article 147 of the Code. If you are the judge, how will you decide petitioner's motion for partial reconsideration? Why? (4%)

Dorotea leased portions of her 2,000 sq.m. lot to Monet, Kathy, Celia and Ruth for five (5) years. Two (2) years before the expiration of the lease contract, Dorotea sold the property to PM Realty and Development Corporation. The following month, Dorotea and PM Realty stopped accepting rental payments from all the lessees because they wanted to terminate the lease contracts. Due to the refusal of Dorotea to accept rental payments, the lessees, Ruth, et al., filed a complaint for consignation of the rentals before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila without notifying Dorotea. Is the consignation valid? (4%)

Tess leased her 1,500 sq.m. lot in Antipolo City to Ruth for a period of three (3) years, from January 2010 to February 2013. On March 19, 2011, Tess sent a letter to Ruth, part of which reads as follows: "I am offering you to buy the property you are presently leasing at P5,000.00 per sq. m. or for a total of P7,500,000.00. You can pay the contract price by installment for two (2) years without interest. I will give you a period of one (1) year from receipt of this letter to decide whether you will buy the property." After the expiration of the lease contract, Tess sold the property to her niece for a total consideration of P4,000,000.00. Ruth filed a complaint for the annulment of the sale, reconveyance and damages against Tess and her niece. Ruth alleged that the sale of the leased property violated her right to buy under the principle of right of first refusal. Is the allegation of Ruth tenable? (4%)

On March 27, 1980, Cornelio filed an application for land registration involving a parcel of agricultural land that he had bought from Isaac identified as Lot No. 2716 with an area of one (1) hectare. During the trial, Cornelio claimed that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, uninterrupted, public and adverse possession and occupation of the land for more than thirty (30) years. He likewise introduced in evidence a certification dated February 12, 1981 citing a presidential declaration to the effect that on June 14, 1980, agricultural lands of the public domain, including the subject matter of the application, were declared alienable and disposable agricultural land. (B) Can Cornelio acquire said agricultural land through acquisitive prescription, whether ordinary or extraordinary? (4%)

On March 27, 1980, Cornelio filed an application for land registration involving a parcel of agricultural land that he had bought from Isaac identified as Lot No. 2716 with an area of one (1) hectare. During the trial, Cornelio claimed that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, uninterrupted, public and adverse possession and occupation of the land for more than thirty (30) years. He likewise introduced in evidence a certification dated February 12, 1981 citing a presidential declaration to the effect that on June 14, 1980, agricultural lands of the public domain, including the subject matter of the application, were declared alienable and disposable agricultural land. (A) If you are the judge, will you grant the application for land registration of Cornelio? (4%)

Mabuhay Elementary School organized a field trip of its Grade VI students in Fort Santiago, Manila Zoo, and Star City. To be able to join, the parents of the students had to sign a piece of paper that reads as follows: "I allow my child (name of student), Grade—Section, to join the school's field trip on February 14, 2014. I will not file any claim against the school, administrator or teacher in case something happens to my child during the trip." Joey, a 7-year old student of Mabuhay Elementary School was bitten by a snake while the group was touring Manila Zoo. The parents of Joey sued the school for damages. The school, as a defense, presented the waiver signed by Joey's parents. Was there a valid waiver of right to sue the school? Why? (4%)

J.C. Construction (J.C.) bought steel bars from Matibay Steel Industries (MSI) which is owned by Buddy Batungbacal. J.C. failed to pay the purchased materials worth P500,000.00 on due date. J.C. persuaded its client Amoroso with whom it had receivables to pay its obligation to MSI. Amoroso agreed and paid MSI the amount of P500,000.00. After two (2) other payments, Amoroso stopped making further payments. Buddy filed a complaint for collection of the balance of the obligation and damages against J.C. J.C. denied any liability claiming that its obligation was extinguished by reason of novation which took place when MSI accepted partial payments from Amoroso on its behalf. Was the obligation of J.C. Construction to MSI extinguished by novation? Why? (4%)

Ted, married to Annie, went to Canada to work. Five (5) years later, Ted became a naturalized Canadian citizen. He returned to the Philippines to convince Annie to settle in Canada. Unfortunately, Ted discovered that Annie and his friend Louie were having an affair. Deeply hurt, Ted returned to Canada and filed a petition for divorce which was granted. In December 2013, Ted decided to marry his childhood friend Corazon in the Philippines. In preparation for the wedding, Ted went to the Local Civil Registry of Quezon City where his marriage contract with Annie was registered. He asked the Civil Registrar to annotate the decree of divorce on his marriage contract with Annie. However, he was advised by the National Statistics Office (NSO) to file a petition for judicial recognition of the decree of divorce in the Philippines. Is it necessary for Ted to file a petition for judicial recognition of the decree of divorce he obtained in Canada before he can contract a second marriage in the Philippines? (4%)

Fe, Esperanza, and Caridad inherited from their parents a 500 sq.m. lot which they leased to Maria for three (3) years. One year after, Fe, claiming to have the authority to represent her siblings Esperanza and Caridad, offered to sell the leased property to Maria which the latter accepted. The sale was not reduced into writing, but Maria started to make partial payments to Fe, which the latter received and acknowledged. After giving the full payment, Maria demanded for the execution of a deed of absolute sale which Esperanza and Caridad refused to do. Worst, Maria learned that the siblings sold the same property to Manuel. This compelled Maria to file a complaint for the annulment of the sale with specific performance and damages. If you are the judge, how will you decide the case? (4%)

Crispin died testate and was survived by Alex and Josine, his children from his first wife; Rene and Ruby, his children from his second wife; and Allan, Bea and Cheska, his children from his third wife. One important provision in his will reads as follows: "Ang lupa at bahay sa Lungsod ng Maynila ay ililipat at ilalagay sa pangalan nina Alex at Rene hindi bilang pamana ko sa kanila kundi upang pamahalaan at pangalagaan lamang nila at nang ang sinuman sa aking mga anak, sampu ng aking mga apo at kaapuapuhan ko sa habang panahon, ay may tutuluyan kung magnanais na mag-aral sa Maynila o sa kalapit na mga lungsod." Is the provision valid? (4%)

Mario executed his last will and testament where he acknowledges the child being conceived by his live-in partner Josie as his own child; and that his house and lot in Baguio City be given to his unborn conceived child. Are the acknowledgement and the donation mortis causa valid? Why? (4%)

Ciriaco Realty Corporation (CRC) sold to the spouses Dela Cruz a 500-square meter land (Lot A) in Parañaque. The land now has a fair market value of P1,200,000. CRC likewise sold to the spouses Rodriguez, a 700-square meter land (Lot B) which is adjacent to Lot A. Lot B has a present fair market value of P1,500,000. The spouses Dela Cruz constructed a house on Lot B, relying on the representation of the CRC sales agent that it is the property they purchased. Only upon the completion of their house did the spouses Dela Cruz discover that they had built on Lot B owned by the spouses Rodriguez, not on Lot A that they purchased. They spent P1,000,000 for the house. As their lawyer, advise the spouses Dela Cruz on their rights and obligations under the given circumstances, and the recourses and options open to them to protect their interests.

Gary is a tobacco trader and also a lending investor. He sold tobacco leaves to Homer for delivery within a month, although the period for delivery was not guaranteed. Despite Gary's efforts to deliver on time, transportation problems and government red tape hindered his efforts and he could only deliver after 30 days. Homer refused to accept the late delivery and to pay on the ground that the agreed term had not been complied with. As lending investor, Gary granted a P1,000,000 loan to Isaac to be paid within two years from execution of the contract. As security for the loan, Isaac promised to deliver to Gary his Toyota Innova within seven (7) days, but Isaac failed to do so. Gary was thus compelled to demand payment for the loan before the end of the agreed two-year term. Was Homer justified in refusing to accept the tobacco leaves? (1%) A) Yes. Homer was justified in refusing to accept the tobacco leaves. The delivery was to be made within a month. Gary's promise of delivery on a "best effort" basis made the delivery uncertain. The term, therefore, was ambiguous. B) No. Homer was not justified in refusing to accept the tobacco leaves. He consented to the terms and conditions of the sale and must abide by it. Obligations arising from contract have the force of law between the contracting parties. C) Yes. Homer was justified in his refusal to accept the delivery. The contract contemplates an obligation with a term. Since the delivery was made after 30 days, contrary to the terms agreed upon, Gary could not insist that Homer accept the tobacco leaves. D) No. Homer was not justified in refusing to accept the tobacco leaves. There was no term in the contract but a mixed condition. The fulfillment of the condition did not depend purely on Gary's will but on other factors, e.g., the shipping company and the government. Homer should comply with his obligation.

Gary is a tobacco trader and also a lending investor. He sold tobacco leaves to Homer for delivery within a month, although the period for delivery was not guaranteed. Despite Gary's efforts to deliver on time, transportation problems and government red tape hindered his efforts and he could only deliver after 30 days. Homer refused to accept the late delivery and to pay on the ground that the agreed term had not been complied with. As lending investor, Gary granted a P1,000,000 loan to Isaac to be paid within two years from execution of the contract. As security for the loan, Isaac promised to deliver to Gary his Toyota Innova within seven (7) days, but Isaac failed to do so. Gary was thus compelled to demand payment for the loan before the end of the agreed two-year term. Can Gary compel Isaac to pay his loan even before the end of the two-year period? (1%) A) Yes, Gary can compel Isaac to immediately pay the loan. Noncompliance with the promised guaranty or security renders the obligation immediately demandable. Isaac lost his right to make use of the period. B) Yes, Gary can compel Isaac to immediately pay the loan. The delivery of the Toyota Innova is a condition for the loan. Isaac's failure to deliver the car violated the condition upon which the loan was granted. It is but fair for Gary to demand immediate payment. C) No, Gary cannot compel Isaac to immediately pay the loan. The delivery of the car as security for the loan is an accessory contract; the principal contract is still the P1,000,000 loan. Thus, Isaac can still make use of the period. D) No, Gary cannot compel Isaac to immediately pay the loan. Equity dictates that Gary should have granted a reasonable extension of time for Isaac to deliver his Toyota Innova. It would be unfair and burdensome for Isaac to pay the P1,000,000 simply because the promised security was not delivered.

Lito was a commercial pilot who flew for Pacific-Micronesian Air. In 1998, he was the co-pilot of the airline's Flight MA916 that mysteriously disappeared two hours after take-off from Agana, Guam, presumably over the Pacific Ocean. No trace of the plane and its 105 passengers and crew was ever found despite diligent search; Lito himself was never heard of again. Lito left behind his wife, Lita, and their two children. In 2008, Lita met and married Jaime. They now have a child of their own. While on a tour with her former high school classmates in a remote province of China in 2010, Lita was surprised to see Lito or somebody who looked exactly like him, but she was sure it was Lito because of the extreme surprise that registered in his face when he also saw her. Shocked, she immediately fled to her hotel and post-haste returned to the country the next day. Lita now comes to you for legal advice. If Lito is alive, what is the status of his marriage to Lita? (1%) A) The marriage subsists because the marital bond has not been terminated by death. B) The marriage was terminated when Lita married Jaime. C) The marriage subsists because Lita's marriage to Jaime is void. D) The marriage is terminated because Lito is presumed dead after his plane has been missing for more than 4 years. E) The marriage can be formally declared terminated if Lito would not resurface.

Armand died intestate. His full-blood brothers, Bobby and Conrad, and half-blood brothers, Danny, Edward and Floro, all predeceased him. The following are the surviving relatives: (1) Benny and Bonnie, legitimate children of Bobby; (2) Cesar, legitimate child of Conrad; (3) Dante, illegitimate child of Danny; (4) Ernie, adopted child of Edward; and (5) Felix, grandson of Floro. The net value of Armand's estate is P1,200,000. How much is Felix's share in the net estate? (1%) A) P400,000. B) P150,000. C) P300,000. D) P0. E) None of the above.

Amador obtained a loan of P300,000 from Basilio payable on March 25, 2012. As security for the payment of his loan, Amador constituted a mortgage on his residential house and lot in Basilio's favor. Cacho, a good friend of Amador, guaranteed and obligated himself to pay Basilio, in case Amador fails to pay his loan at maturity. If Amador sells his residential house and lot to Diego, can Basilio foreclose the real estate mortgage? (1%) A) Yes, Basilio can foreclose the real estate mortgage because real estate mortgage creates a real right that attaches to the property. B) Yes, Basilio can foreclose the real estate mortgage. It is binding upon Diego as the mortgage is embodied in a public instrument. C) No, Basilio cannot foreclose the real estate mortgage. The sale confers ownership on the buyer, Diego, who must therefore consent. D) No, Basilio cannot foreclose the real estate mortgage. To deprive the new owner of ownership and possession is unjust and inequitable.

Cruz lent Jose his car until Jose finished his Bar exams. Soon after Cruz delivered the car, Jose brought it to Mitsubishi Cubao for maintenance check up and incurred costs of P8,000. Seeing the car's peeling and faded paint, Jose also had the car repainted for P10,000. After the bar exams, Cruz asked for the return of his car. Jose said he would return it as soon as Cruz has reimbursed him for the car maintenance and repainting costs of P18,000. Is Jose's refusal justified? (1%) A) No, Jose's refusal is not justified. In this kind of contract, Jose is obliged to pay for all the expenses incurred for the preservation of the thing loaned. B) Yes, Jose's refusal is justified. He is obliged to pay for all the ordinary and extraordinary expenses, but subject to reimbursement from Cruz. C) Yes, Jose's refusal is justified. The principle of unjust enrichment warrants the reimbursement of Jose's expenses. D) No, Jose's refusal is not justified. The expenses he incurred are useful for the preservation of the thing loaned. It is Jose's obligation to shoulder these useful expenses.

Lito was a commercial pilot who flew for Pacific-Micronesian Air. In 1998, he was the co-pilot of the airline's Flight MA916 that mysteriously disappeared two hours after take-off from Agana, Guam, presumably over the Pacific Ocean. No trace of the plane and its 105 passengers and crew was ever found despite diligent search; Lito himself was never heard of again. Lito left behind his wife, Lita, and their two children. In 2008, Lita met and married Jaime. They now have a child of their own. While on a tour with her former high school classmates in a remote province of China in 2010, Lita was surprised to see Lito or somebody who looked exactly like him, but she was sure it was Lito because of the extreme surprise that registered in his face when he also saw her. Shocked, she immediately fled to her hotel and post-haste returned to the country the next day. Lita now comes to you for legal advice. If Lito is alive, what is the status of Lita's marriage to Jaime? (1%) A) The marriage is valid because Lita's marriage to Lito was terminated upon Lito's disappearance for more than seven years. B) The marriage is valid. After an absence of more than 10 years, Lito is already presumed dead for all purposes. C) The marriage is void. Lito's mere absence, however lengthy, is insufficient to authorize Lita to contract a subsequent marriage. D) The marriage is void. If Lito is indeed alive, his marriage to Lita was never dissolved and they can resume their marital relations at any time.

In 2005, L, M, N, O and P formed a partnership. L, M and N were capitalist partners who contributed P500,000 each, while O, a limited partner, contributed P1,000,000. P joined as an industrial partner, contributing only his services. The Articles of Partnership, registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, designated L and O as managing partners; L was liable only to the extent of his capital contribution; and P was not liable for losses. In 2006, the partnership earned a net profit of P800,000. In the same year, P engaged in a different business with the consent of all the partners. However, in 2007, the partnership incurred a net loss of P500,000. In 2008, the partners dissolved the partnership. The proceeds of the sale of partnership assets were insufficient to settle its obligation. After liquidation, the partnership had an unpaid liability of P300,000. In 2007, how much is the share of O, a limited partner, in the net loss of P500,000? (1%) A) P0. B) P100,000. C) P125,000. D) P200,000. E) None of the above.

In 2005, L, M, N, O and P formed a partnership. L, M and N were capitalist partners who contributed P500,000 each, while O, a limited partner, contributed P1,000,000. P joined as an industrial partner, contributing only his services. The Articles of Partnership, registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, designated L and O as managing partners; L was liable only to the extent of his capital contribution; and P was not liable for losses. In 2006, the partnership earned a net profit of P800,000. In the same year, P engaged in a different business with the consent of all the partners. However, in 2007, the partnership incurred a net loss of P500,000. In 2008, the partners dissolved the partnership. The proceeds of the sale of partnership assets were insufficient to settle its obligation. After liquidation, the partnership had an unpaid liability of P300,000. Can the partnership creditors hold L, O and P liable after all the assets of the partnership are exhausted? (1%) A) Yes. The stipulation exempting P from losses is valid only among the partners. L is liable because the agreement limiting his liability to his capital contribution is not valid insofar as the creditors are concerned. Having taken part in the management of the partnership, O is liable as capitalist partner. B) No. P is not liable because there is a valid stipulation exempting him from losses. Since the other partners allowed him to engage in an outside business activity, the stipulation absolving P from liability is valid. For O, it is basic that a limited partner is liable only up to the extent of his capital contribution. C) Yes. The stipulations exempting P and L from losses are not binding upon the creditors. O is likewise liable because the partnership was not formed in accordance with the requirements of a limited partnership. D) No. The Civil Code allows the partners to stipulate that a partner shall not be liable for losses. The registration of the Articles of Partnership embodying such stipulations serves as constructive notice to the partnership creditors. E) None of the above is completely accurate.

Arlene owns a row of apartment houses in Kamuning, Quezon City. She agreed to lease Apartment No. 1 to Janet for a period of 18 months at the rate of P10,000 per month. The lease was not covered by any contract. Janet promptly gave Arlene two (2) months deposit and 18 checks covering the rental payment for 18 months. This show of good faith prompted Arlene to promise Janet that should Arlene decide to sell the property, she would give Janet the right of first refusal. Not long after Janet moved in, she received news that her application for a Master of Laws scholarship at King's College in London had been approved. Since her acceptance of the scholarship entailed a transfer of residence, Janet asked Arlene to return the advance rental payments she made. Arlene refused, prompting Janet to file an action to recover the payments. Arlene filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the lease on which the action is based, is unenforceable. If you were the judge, would you grant Arlene's motion? (1%) A) Yes, I will grant the motion because the lease contract between Arlene and Janet was not in writing, hence, Janet may not enforce any right arising from the same contract. B) No, I will not grant the motion because to allow Arlene to retain the advance payments would amount to unjust enrichment. C) Yes, I will grant the motion because the action for recovery is premature; Janet should first secure a judicial rescission of the contract of lease. D) No, I will not grant the motion because the cause of action does not seek to enforce any right under the contract of lease.

Sergio is the registered owner of a 500-square meter land. His friend, Marcelo, who has long been interested in the property, succeeded in persuading Sergio to sell it to him. On June 2, 2012, they agreed on the purchase price of P600,000 and that Sergio would give Marcelo up to June 30, 2012 within which to raise the amount. Marcelo, in a light tone usual between them, said that they should seal their agreement through a case of Jack Daniels Black and P5,000 "pulutan" money which he immediately handed to Sergio and which the latter accepted. The friends then sat down and drank the first bottle from the case of bourbon. On June 15, 2013, Sergio learned of another buyer, Roberto, who was offering P800,000 in ready cash for the land. When Roberto confirmed that he could pay in cash as soon as Sergio could get the documentation ready, Sergio decided to withdraw his offer to Marcelo, hoping to just explain matters to his friend. Marcelo, however, objected when the withdrawal was communicated to him, taking the position that they have a firm and binding agreement that Sergio cannot simply walk away from because he has an option to buy that is duly supported by a duly accepted valuable consideration. Does Marcelo have a cause of action against Sergio? (5%)

Sergio is the registered owner of a 500-square meter land. His friend, Marcelo, who has long been interested in the property, succeeded in persuading Sergio to sell it to him. On June 2, 2012, they agreed on the purchase price of P600,000 and that Sergio would give Marcelo up to June 30, 2012 within which to raise the amount. Marcelo handed P5,000 and a case of Jack Daniels Black to Sergio to seal the agreement, which Sergio accepted. On June 15, 2013, Sergio, having found another buyer offering P800,000 cash, decided to withdraw his offer to Marcelo. Marcelo objected, claiming a firm and binding agreement supported by a duly accepted valuable consideration. Can Sergio claim that whatever they might have agreed upon cannot be enforced because any agreement relating to the sale of real property must be supported by evidence in writing and they never reduced their agreement to writing? (3%)

Anselmo is the registered owner of a land and a house that his friend Boboy occupied for a nominal rental and on the condition that Boboy would vacate the property on demand. With Anselmo's knowledge, Boboy introduced renovations consisting of an additional bedroom, a covered veranda, and a concrete block fence, at his own expense. Subsequently, Anselmo needed the property as his residence, and thus asked Boboy to vacate and turn it over to him. Boboy, despite an extension, failed to vacate the property, forcing Anselmo to send him a written demand to vacate. In his own written reply, Boboy signified that he was ready to leave but Anselmo must first reimburse him the value of the improvements he introduced on the property as he is a builder in good faith. Anselmo refused, insisting that Boboy cannot ask for reimbursement as he is a mere lessee. Boboy responded by removing the improvements and leaving the building in its original state. Resolve Boboy's claim that as a builder in good faith, he should be reimbursed the value of the improvements he introduced. (4%)

Lito obtained a loan of P1,000,000 from Ferdie, payable within one year. To secure payment, Lito executed a chattel mortgage on a Toyota Avanza and a real estate mortgage on a 200-square meter piece of property. Would it be legally significant—from the point of view of validity and enforceability—if the loan and the mortgages were in public or private instruments?

Lito obtained a loan of P1,000,000 from Ferdie, payable within one year, secured by a chattel mortgage on a Toyota Avanza and a real estate mortgage on a 200-square meter property. Lito's failure to pay led to the extra-judicial foreclosure of the mortgaged real property. Within a year from foreclosure, Lito tendered a manager's check to Ferdie to redeem the property. Ferdie refused to accept payment on the ground that he wanted payment in cash: the check does not qualify as legal tender and does not include the interest payment. Is Ferdie's refusal justified?

In 2005, Andres built a residential house on a lot whose only access to the national highway was a pathway crossing Brando's property. Andres and others have been using this pathway (Pathway A) since 1980. In 2006, Brando fenced off his property, thereby blocking Andres' access to the national highway. Andres demanded that part of the fence be removed to maintain his old access route to the highway (Pathway A), but Brando refused, claiming that there was another available pathway (Pathway B) for ingress and egress to the highway. Andres countered that Pathway B has defects, is circuitous, and is extremely inconvenient to use. To settle their dispute, Andres and Brando hired Damian, a geodetic and civil engineer, to survey and examine the two pathways and the surrounding areas, and to determine the shortest and the least prejudicial way through the servient estates. After the survey, the engineer concluded that Pathway B is the longest route and will need improvements and repairs, but will not significantly affect the use of Brando's property. On the other hand, Pathway A that had long been in place, is the shorter route but would significantly affect the use of Brando's property. In light of the engineer's findings and the circumstances of the case, resolve the parties' right of way dispute. (6%)

Rica petitioned for the annulment of her ten-year old marriage to Richard. Richard hired Atty. Cruz to represent him in the proceedings. In payment for Atty. Cruz's acceptance and legal fees, Richard conveyed to Atty. Cruz a parcel of land in Taguig that he recently purchased with his lotto winnings. The transfer documents were duly signed and Atty. Cruz immediately took possession by fencing off the property's entire perimeter. Desperately needing money to pay for his mounting legal fees and his other needs and despite the transfer to Atty. Cruz, Richard offered the same parcel of land for sale to the spouses Garcia. After inspection of the land, the spouses considered it a good investment and purchased it from Richard. Immediately after the sale, the spouses Garcia commenced the construction of a three-storey building over the land, but they were prevented from doing this by Atty. Cruz who claimed he has a better right in light of the prior conveyance in his favour. Is Atty. Cruz's claim correct?

Manuel was born on 12 March 1940 in a 1,000-square meter property where he grew up helping his father, Michael, cultivate the land. Michael has lived on the property since the land was opened for settlement at about the time of the Commonwealth Government in 1935, but for some reason never secured any title of the property other than a tax declaration in his name. He has held the property through the years in the concept of an owner and his stay was uncontested by others. He has also conscientiously and continuously paid the realty taxes on the land. Michael died in 2000 and Manuel as Michael's only son and heir now wants to secure and register title to the land in his own name. He consults you for legal advice as he wants to perfect his title to the land and secure its registration in his name. What are the laws that you need to consider in advising Manuel on how he can perfect his title and register the land in his name? Explain the relevance of these laws to your projected course of action.

Manuel was born on 12 March 1940 in a 1,000-square meter property where he grew up helping his father, Michael, cultivate the land. Michael lived on the property since it was opened for settlement around the time of the Commonwealth Government in 1935, holding it in the concept of an owner, uncontested, and continuously paying realty taxes, but never secured title other than a tax declaration in his name. Michael died in 2000 and Manuel, his only son and heir, now wants to perfect his title to the land and secure its registration in his name. What do you have to prove to secure Manuel's objectives and what documentation are necessary?

Armand died intestate. His full-blood brothers, Bobby and Conrad, and half-blood brothers, Danny, Edward and Floro, all predeceased him. The following are the surviving relatives: (1) Benny and Bonnie, legitimate children of Bobby; (2) Cesar, legitimate child of Conrad; (3) Dante, illegitimate child of Danny; (4) Ernie, adopted child of Edward; and (5) Felix, grandson of Floro. The net value of Armand's estate is P1,200,000. How much is Ernie's share in the net estate? (1%) A) P0. B) P400,000. C) P150,000. D) P200,000. E) None of the above.

Amador obtained a loan of P300,000 from Basilio payable on March 25, 2012. As security for the payment of his loan, Amador constituted a mortgage on his residential house and lot in Basilio's favor. Cacho, a good friend of Amador, guaranteed and obligated himself to pay Basilio, in case Amador fails to pay his loan at maturity. If Amador fails to pay Basilio his loan on March 25, 2012, can Basilio compel Cacho to pay? (1%) A) No, Basilio cannot compel Cacho to pay because as guarantor, Cacho can invoke the principle of excussion, i.e., all the assets of Basilio must first be exhausted. B) No, Basilio cannot compel Cacho to pay because Basilio has not exhausted the available remedies against Amador. C) Yes, Basilio can compel Cacho to pay because the nature of Cacho's undertaking indicates that he has bound himself solidarily with Amador. D) Yes, Basilio can compel Cacho who bound himself to unconditionally pay in case Amador fails to pay; thus the benefit of excussion will not apply.

Armand died intestate. His full-blood brothers, Bobby and Conrad, and half-blood brothers, Danny, Edward and Floro, all predeceased him. The following are the surviving relatives: (1) Benny and Bonnie, legitimate children of Bobby; (2) Cesar, legitimate child of Conrad; (3) Dante, illegitimate child of Danny; (4) Ernie, adopted child of Edward; and (5) Felix, grandson of Floro. The net value of Armand's estate is P1,200,000. How much do Benny and Bonnie stand to inherit by right of representation? (1%) A) P200,000 B) P300,000 C) P400,000 D) P150,000 E) None of the above.

Armand died intestate. His full-blood brothers, Bobby and Conrad, and half-blood brothers, Danny, Edward and Floro, all predeceased him. The following are the surviving relatives: (1) Benny and Bonnie, legitimate children of Bobby; (2) Cesar, legitimate child of Conrad; (3) Dante, illegitimate child of Danny; (4) Ernie, adopted child of Edward; and (5) Felix, grandson of Floro. The net value of Armand's estate is P1,200,000. How much is Dante's share in the net estate? (1%) A) P150,000. B) P200,000. C) P300,000. D) P400,000. E) None of the above.

In 2005, L, M, N, O and P formed a partnership. L, M and N were capitalist partners who contributed P500,000 each, while O, a limited partner, contributed P1,000,000. P joined as an industrial partner, contributing only his services. The Articles of Partnership, registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, designated L and O as managing partners; L was liable only to the extent of his capital contribution; and P was not liable for losses. In 2006, the partnership earned a net profit of P800,000. In the same year, P engaged in a different business with the consent of all the partners. However, in 2007, the partnership incurred a net loss of P500,000. In 2008, the partners dissolved the partnership. The proceeds of the sale of partnership assets were insufficient to settle its obligation. After liquidation, the partnership had an unpaid liability of P300,000. Assuming that the just and equitable share of the industrial partner, P, in the profit in 2006 amounted to P100,000, how much is the share of O, a limited partner, in the P800,000 net profit? (1%) A) P160,000. B) P175,000. C) P280,000. D) P200,000. E) None of the above.

Betty entrusted to her agent, Aida, several pieces of jewelry to be sold on commission with the express obligation to turn over to Betty the proceeds of the sale, or to return the jewelries if not sold in a month's time. Instead of selling the jewelries, Aida pawned them with the Tambunting Pawnshop, and used the money for herself. Aida failed to redeem the pawned jewelries and after a month, Betty discovered what Aida had done. Betty brought criminal charges which resulted in Aida's conviction for estafa. Betty thereafter filed an action against Tambunting Pawnshop for the recovery of the jewelries. Tambunting raised the defense of ownership, additionally arguing that it is duly licensed to engage in the pawnshop and lending business, and that it accepted the mortgage of the jewelry in good faith and in the regular course of its business. If you were the judge, how will you decide the case? (1%) A) I will rule in favor of Betty. My ruling is based on the Civil Code provision that one who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof may recover it from the person in possession of the same. Tambunting's claim of good faith is inconsequential. B) I will rule in favor of Betty. Tambunting's claim of good faith pales into insignificance in light of the unlawful deprivation of the jewelries. However, equity dictates that Tambunting must be reimbursed for the pawn value of the jewelries. C) I will rule in favor of Tambunting. Its good faith takes precedence over the right of Betty to recover the jewelries. D) I will rule in favor of Tambunting. Good faith is always presumed. Tambunting's lawful acquisition in the ordinary course of business coupled with good faith gives it legal right over the jewelries.

A, B, C and D are the solidary debtors of X for P40,000. X released D from the payment of his share of P10,000. When the obligation became due and demandable, C turned out to be insolvent. Should the share of insolvent debtor C be divided only between the two other remaining debtors, A and B? (1%) A) Yes. Remission of D's share carries with it total extinguishment of his obligation to the benefit of the solidary debtors. B) Yes. The Civil Code recognizes remission as a mode of extinguishing an obligation. This clearly applies to D. C) No. The rule is that gratuitous acts should be restrictively construed, allowing only the least transmission of rights. D) No, as the release of the share of one debtor would then increase the burden of the other debtors without their consent.

Which of the following actions or defenses are meritorious: (1%) A) An action for recovery of downpayment paid under a rescinded oral sale of real property. B) A defense in an action for ejectment that the lessor verbally promised to extend or renew the lease. C) An action for payment of sum of money filed against one who orally promised to answer another's debt in case the latter defaults. D) A defense in an action for damages that the debtor has sufficient, but unliquidated assets to satisfy the credit acquired when it becomes due. E) None of the above.

Josefa executed a deed of donation covering a one hectare rice land in favour of her daughter, Jennifer. The deed specifically provides that: "For and in consideration of the love and service Jennifer has shown and given to me, I hereby freely, voluntarily, and irrevocably donate to her my one-hectare rice land covered by TCT No. 11550, located in San Fernando, Pampanga. This donation shall take effect upon my death." The deed also contained Jennifer's signed acceptance, and an attached notarized declaration by Josefa and Jennifer that the land will remain in Josefa's possession and cannot be alienated, encumbered, sold or disposed of while Josefa is still alive. Advise Jennifer on whether the deed is a donation inter vivos or mortis causa and explain the reasons supporting your advice. (8%)

Anselmo is the registered owner of a land and a house that his friend Boboy occupied for a nominal rental on the condition that Boboy would vacate on demand. With Anselmo's knowledge, Boboy introduced renovations (an additional bedroom, a covered veranda, and a concrete block fence) at his own expense. When Anselmo asked him to vacate, Boboy demanded reimbursement of the value of the improvements as a builder in good faith. Anselmo refused, insisting Boboy is a mere lessee. Boboy responded by removing the improvements and leaving the building in its original state. Can Boboy be held liable for damages for removing the improvements over Anselmo's objection? (4%)

Cruz lent Jose his car until Jose finished his Bar exams. Soon after Cruz delivered the car, Jose brought it to Mitsubishi Cubao for maintenance check up and incurred costs of P8,000. Seeing the car's peeling and faded paint, Jose also had the car repainted for P10,000. During the bar exam month, Jose lent the car to his girlfriend, Jolie, who parked the car at the Mall of Asia's open parking lot, with the ignition key inside the car. Car thieves broke into and took the car. Is Jose liable to Cruz for the loss of the car due to Jolie's negligence? (1%) A) No, Jose is not liable to Cruz as the loss was not due to his fault or negligence. B) No, Jose is not liable to Cruz. In the absence of any prohibition, Jose could lend the car to Jolie. Since the loss was due to force majeure, neither Jose nor Jolie is liable. C) Yes, Jose is liable to Cruz. Since Jose lent the car to Jolie without Cruz's consent, Jose must bear the consequent loss of the car. D) Yes, Jose is liable to Cruz. The contract between them is personal in nature. Jose can neither lend nor lease the car to a third person.

The following are the characteristics of a voidable contract, except: A) Effective until set aside. B) May be assailed/attacked only in an action for that purpose. C) Can be confirmed or ratified. D) Can be assailed only by either party.

The following constitute the different circumstances or cases of fraud which will serve as ground for the annulment of a marriage, except? A) Non-disclosure of the previous conviction by final judgment of the other party of a crime involving moral turpitude. B) Concealment of a sexually-transmissible disease, regardless of its nature, existing at the time of the marriage. C) Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the time of marriage. D) Concealment by the wife or the husband of the fact of sexual relations prior to the marriage.

Which of the following DOES NOT result in permanent termination of parental authority? A) Death of the parents. B) Death of the child. C) Emancipation of the child. D) Conviction of the parents of a crime which carries with it the penalty of civil interdiction.

The following things are property of public dominion, except: A) ports and bridges constructed by the State. B) vehicles and weapons of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. C) rivers. D) lands reclaimed by the state from the sea.

Which phrase most accurately completes the statement - The expenses incurred in improvements for the luxury or mere pleasure shall not be refunded to the possessor in bad faith: A) but he may remove the objects for which such expenses have been incurred, provided that the thing suffers no injury thereby, and that the lawful possessor does not prefer to retain them. B) and he may not remove the objects for which such expenses have been incurred. C) and he may not remove the objects for which such expenses have been incurred, unless he pays the value they may have at the time he entered into possession. D) but he may remove the objects for which such expenses have been incurred.

A debtor is liable for damages in case of delay if he is guilty of any of the following, except: A) default (mora) B) mistake C) negligence (culpa) D) breach through contravention of the tenor thereof

The following are the requisites before a contract entered into in fraud of creditors may be rescinded, except: A) There must be credit existing prior to the celebration of the contract. B) There must be fraud, or at least, the intent to commit fraud to the prejudice of the creditor seeking rescission. C) The creditor cannot in any legal manner collect his credit (subsidiary character of rescission). D) The object of the contract must be legally in the possession of a 3rd person in good faith.

It is an intentional evasion of the faithful performance of the obligation. A) Negligence B) Fraud C) Delay D) Mistake

The following are the elements of an obligation, except: A) Juridical/Legal Tie B) Active subject C) Passive subject D) Consideration

Buko, Fermin and Toti bound themselves solidarily to pay Ayee the amount of P5,000.00. Suppose Buko paid the obligation, what is his right as against his co-debtors? A) Buko can ask for reimbursement from Fermin and Toti. B) Buko can sue Fermin and Toti for damages. C) Buko can sue for rescission. D) Buko can claim a refund from Ayee.

Buko, Fermin and Toti are solidary debtors of Ayee. Twelve (12) years after the obligation became due and demandable, Buko paid Ayee and later on asked for reimbursement of Fermin's and Toti's shares. Is Buko correct? Why? A) No, because the obligation has already prescribed. B) Yes, because the obligation is solidary. C) No, because in solidary obligation any one of the solidary debtors can pay the entire debt. D) Yes, because Fermin and Toti will be unduly enriched at the expense of Buko.

It is a principle which holds that parties are bound not only by what has been expressly provided for in the contract but also to the natural consequences that flow out of such agreement. A) Obligatory force of contracts B) Mutuality of contracts C) Autonomy of contracts D) Relativity of contracts

Who are illegitimate children? A) Children conceived or born outside a valid marriage. B) Children born under a valid marriage, which was later declared void because of the psychological incapacity of either or both of the spouses. C) Children conceived and born outside a valid marriage. D) Children born under a valid marriage, but the parents later obtained a legal separation.

When both parties to the contract are minors, the contract is: A) voidable B) rescissible C) void D) unenforceable

It is a rule which holds that the freedom of the parties to contract includes the freedom to stipulate, provided the stipulations are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. A) Obligatory force of contracts B) Mutuality of contracts C) Autonomy of contracts D) Relativity of contracts

Consent was given by one in representation of another but without authority. The contract is: A) voidable B) rescissible C) void D) unenforceable

The following are the ways by which innominate contracts are regulated, except: A) By the stipulation of the parties. B) By the general principles of quasi-contracts and delicts. C) By the rules governing the most analogous nominate contracts. D) By the customs of the place.

An offer becomes ineffective on any of the following grounds, except: A) Death, civil interdiction, insanity/insolvency of either party before acceptance is conveyed. B) Acceptance of the offer by the offeree. C) Qualified/conditional acceptance of the offer, which becomes counter-offer. D) Subject matter becomes illegal/impossible before acceptance is communicated.

The attestation clause contains the following, except: A) the number of pages used; B) that the testator signed or caused another to sign the will and every page thereof in the presence of the instrumental witnesses; C) notary public; D) the instrumental witnesses witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and one another.

Buko, Fermin and Toti bound themselves solidarily to pay Ayee the sum of P10,000.00. When the obligation became due and demandable, Ayee sued Buko for the payment of the P10,000.00. Buko moved to dismiss on the ground that there was failure to implead Fermin and Toti who are indispensable parties. Will the motion to dismiss prosper? Why? A) Yes, because Fermin and Toti should have been impleaded as their obligation is solidary. B) No, because the creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously. C) No, because a motion to dismiss is a prohibited pleading. D) Yes, because Fermin and Toti should also pay their share of the obligation.

It refers to the rule that a contract is binding not only between parties but extends to the heirs, successors in interest, and assignees of the parties, provided that the contract involved transmissible rights by their nature, or by stipulation or by law. A) Obligatory force of contracts B) Mutuality of contracts C) Autonomy of contracts D) Relativity of contracts

How can RJP distribute his estate by will, if his heirs are JCP, his wife; HBR and RVC, his parents; and an illegitimate child, SGO?

Spouses Primo and Monina Lim, childless, were entrusted with the custody of two (2) minor children, the parents of whom were unknown. Eager of having children of their own, the spouses made it appear that they were the children's parents by naming them Michelle P. Lim and Michael Jude Lim. Subsequently, Monina married Angel Olario after Primo's death. She decided to adopt the children by availing the amnesty given under R.A. 8552 to those individuals who simulated the birth of a child. She filed separate petitions for the adoption of Michelle, then 25 years old, and Michael, 18. Both Michelle and Michael gave consent to the adoption. The trial court dismissed the petition and ruled that Monina should have filed the petition jointly with her new husband. Monina, in a Motion for Reconsideration, argues that mere consent of her husband would suffice and that joint adoption is not needed, for the adoptees are already emancipated. Is the trial court correct in dismissing the petitions for adoption? Explain. (5%)

If one of the parties to the contract is without juridical capacity, the contract is: A) voidable B) rescissible C) void D) unenforceable

Ramon, a Filipino, executed a will in Manila, where he left his house and lot located in BF Homes Paranaque in favor of his Filipino son, Ramgen. Ramon's other children RJ and Ramona, both Turkish nationals, are disputing the bequest to Ramgen. They plotted to kill Ramgen. Ramon learned of the plot, so he tore his will in two pieces out of anger. Which statement is most accurate? A) The mere act of Ramon Sr. is immaterial because the will is still readable. B) The mere act of tearing the will amounts to revocation. C) The tearing of the will may amount to revocation if coupled with intent of revoking it. D) The act of tearing the will is material.

Michael Fermin, without the authority of Pascual Lacas, owner of a car, sold the same car in the name of Mr. Lacas to Atty. Buko. The contract between Atty. Buko and Mr. Lacas is A) void because of the absence of consent from the owner, Mr. Lacas. B) valid because all of the essential requisites of a contract are present. C) unenforceable because Michael Fermin had no authority but he sold the car in the name of Mr. Lacas, the owner. D) rescissible because the contract caused lesion to Atty. Buko.

A Japanese national and a Filipino national entered into a contract for services in Thailand. The services will be rendered in Singapore. In case of breach, what law will govern? A) Thailand law B) Philippine law C) Singapore law D) Japanese law

Action to recover real property based on ownership. Here, the object is the recovery of the dominion over the property as owner. What action is being referred to? A) Accion publiciana B) Accion reinvindicatoria C) Accion interdictal D) Quieting of Title

An illegitimate child may use the surname of his father when his filiation is established in any of the following instances, except: A) Filiation has been recognized by the father through the record of birth appearing in the civil register. B) Admission of filiation by the father in a public document. C) Private handwritten instrument is made by the father acknowledging his filiation. D) Affidavit by the mother stating the name of his true father.

A plenary action for the recovery of the possession of real estate, upon mere allegation and proof of a better right thereto, and without allegation of proof of title. This action can only be brought after the expiration of one (1) year. What action is being referred to? A) Accion publiciana B) Accion reinvindicatoria C) Accion interdictal D) Quieting of Title

The following are rescissible contracts, except: A) Entered into by guardian whenever ward suffers damage more than 1/4 of value of property. B) Agreed upon in representation of absentees, if absentee suffers lesion by more than 1/4 of value of property. C) Contracts where fraud is committed on creditor (accion pauliana). D) Contracts entered into by minors.

Which of the following statements is wrong? A) The possessor in bad faith shall reimburse the fruits received and those which the legitimate possessor could have received. B) The possessor in bad faith has right of reimbursement for necessary expenses and those for the production, gathering and preservation of the fruits. C) The possessor in bad faith is not entitled to a refund of ornamental expenses. D) The possessor in bad faith is entitled to a refund of useful expenses.

The following are the requisites of mora solvendi, except: A) Obligation pertains to the debtor and is determinate, due, demandable, and liquidated. B) Obligation was performed on its maturity date. C) There is judicial or extrajudicial demand by the creditor. D) Failure of the debtor to comply with such demand.

The creditor has the right to the fruits of the thing from the time: A) the thing is delivered. B) the obligation to deliver the thing arises. C) the contract is perfected. D) the fruits are delivered.

John Sagun and Maria Carla Camua, British citizens at birth, acquired Philippine citizenship by naturalization after their marriage. During their marriage, the couple acquired substantial landholdings in London and in Makati. Maria begot three (3) children, Jorge, Luisito, and Joshur. In one of their trips to London, the couple executed a joint will appointing each other as their heirs and providing that upon the death of the survivor between them, the entire estate would go to Jorge and Luisito only but the two (2) could not dispose of nor divide the London estate as long as they live. John and Maria died tragically in the London subway terrorist attack in 2005. Jorge and Luisito filed a petition for probate of their parents' will before a Makati Regional Trial Court. Joshur vehemently objected because he was preterited. Is the testamentary prohibition against the division of the London estate valid? Explain. (1%)

John Sagun and Maria Carla Camua, British citizens at birth, acquired Philippine citizenship by naturalization after their marriage. During their marriage, the couple acquired substantial landholdings in London and in Makati. Maria begot three (3) children, Jorge, Luisito, and Joshur. In one of their trips to London, the couple executed a joint will appointing each other as their heirs and providing that upon the death of the survivor between them, the entire estate would go to Jorge and Luisito only but the two (2) could not dispose of nor divide the London estate as long as they live. John and Maria died tragically in the London subway terrorist attack in 2005. Jorge and Luisito filed a petition for probate of their parents' will before a Makati Regional Trial Court. Joshur vehemently objected because he was preterited. Should the will be admitted to probate? Explain. (2%)

A husband by chance discovered hidden treasure on the paraphernal property of his wife. Who owns the discovered treasure? A) The half pertaining to the husband (as finder) belongs to the conjugal partnership. B) The half pertaining to the wife (as owner) belongs to the conjugal partnership. C) One half shall belong to the husband as finder and the other half shall belong to the wife as owner of the property. D) a and b

A contract granting a privilege to a person, for which he has paid a consideration, which gives him the right to buy certain merchandise or specified property, from another person, at anytime within the agreed period, at a fixed price. What contract is being referred to? A) Option Contract B) Contract to Sell C) Contract of Sale D) Lease

Siga-an granted a loan to Villanueva in the amount of P540,000.00. Such agreement was not reduced to writing. Siga-an demanded interest which was paid by Villanueva in cash and checks. The total amount Villanueva paid accumulated to P1,200,000.00. Upon advice of her lawyer, Villanueva demanded the return of the excess amount of P660,000.00 which was ignored by Siga-an. Is solutio indebiti applicable? Explain. (2%)

Jambrich, an Austrian, fell in love and lived together with Descallar and bought their houses and lots at Agro-Macro Subdivision. In the Contracts to Sell, Jambrich and Descallar were referred to as the buyers. When the Deed of Absolute Sale was presented for registration before the Register of Deeds, it was refused because Jambrich was an alien and could not acquire alienable lands of the public domain. After Jambrich and Descallar separated, Jambrich purchased an engine and some accessories for his boat from Borromeo. To pay for his debt, he sold his rights and interests in the Agro-Macro properties to Borromeo. Borromeo discovered that titles to the three (3) lots have been transferred in the name of Descallar. Who is the rightful owner of the properties? Explain. (5%)

After they got married, Nikki discovered that Christian was having an affair with another woman. But Nikki decided to give it a try and lived with him for two (2) years. After two (2) years, Nikki filed an action for legal separation on the ground of Christian's sexual infidelity. Will the action prosper? Explain. (5%)

Which of the following statements is correct? A) All contracts are perfected by mere consent. B) All contracts are perfected by delivery of the object. C) All contracts are required to be in writing. D) All contracts are required to have a valid consideration.

Aligada orally offered to sell his two-hectare rice land to Balane for P10 Million. The offer was orally accepted. By agreement, the land was to be delivered (through execution of a notarized Deed of Sale) and the price was to be paid exactly one-month from their oral agreement. Which statement is most accurate? A) If Aligada refuses to deliver the land on the agreed date despite payment by Balane, the latter may not successfully sue Aligada because the contract is oral. B) If Aligada refused to deliver the land, Balane may successfully sue for fulfillment of the obligation even if he has not tendered payment of the purchase price. C) The contract between the parties is rescissible. D) The contract between the parties is subject to ratification by the parties.

Liwayway Vinzons-Chato was then the Commissioner of Internal Revenue while Fortune Tobacco Corporation is an entity engaged in the manufacture of different brands of cigarettes, among which are "Champion," "Hope," and "More" cigarettes. Fortune filed a complaint against Vinzons-Chato to recover damages for the alleged violation of its constitutional rights arising from Vinzons-Chato's issuance of Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 37-93 (which re-classified Fortune cigarettes as locally manufactured with foreign brands and thereby imposed higher taxes), which the Supreme Court later declared invalid. Vinzons-Chato filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that she cannot be held liable for damages for acts she performed while in the discharge of her duties as BIR Commissioner. Is she correct? Explain. (5%)

The following rights are extinguished by death, except: A) Legal support B) Parental authority C) Right to inherit D) Agency

Which of the following contracts of sale is void? A) Sale of EGM's car by KRP, EGM's agent, whose authority is not reduced into writing. B) Sale of EGM's piece of land by KRP, EGM's agent, whose authority is not reduced into writing. C) Sale of EGM's car by KRP, a person stranger to EGM, without EGM's consent or authority. D) Sale of EGM's piece of land by KRP, a person stranger to EGM, without EGM's consent or authority.

Honorato filed a petition to adopt his minor illegitimate child Stephanie, alleging that Stephanie's mother is Gemma Astorga Garcia; that Stephanie has been using her mother's middle name and surname; and that he is now a widower and qualified to be her adopting parent. He prayed that Stephanie's middle name be changed from "Astorga" to "Garcia," which is her mother's surname, and that her surname "Garcia" be changed to "Catindig," which is his surname. This the trial court denied. Was the trial court correct in denying Honorato's request for Stephanie's use of her mother's surname as her middle name? Explain. (5%)

John Sagun and Maria Carla Camua, British citizens at birth, acquired Philippine citizenship by naturalization after their marriage. During their marriage, the couple acquired substantial landholdings in London and in Makati. Maria begot three (3) children, Jorge, Luisito, and Joshur. In one of their trips to London, the couple executed a joint will appointing each other as their heirs and providing that upon the death of the survivor between them, the entire estate would go to Jorge and Luisito only but the two (2) could not dispose of nor divide the London estate as long as they live. John and Maria died tragically in the London subway terrorist attack in 2005. Jorge and Luisito filed a petition for probate of their parents' will before a Makati Regional Trial Court. Joshur vehemently objected because he was preterited. Are the testamentary dispositions valid? Explain. (2%)

Maria, wife of Pedro, withdrew P5 Million from their conjugal funds. With this money, she constructed a building on a lot which she inherited from her father. Is the building conjugal or paraphernal? Reasons. (5%)

Roberto was in Nikko Hotel when he bumped into a friend who was then on her way to a wedding reception being held in said hotel. Roberto alleged that he was then invited by his friend to join her at the wedding reception and carried the basket full of fruits which she was bringing to the affair. At the reception, the wedding coordinator of the hotel noticed him and asked him, allegedly in a loud voice, to leave as he was not in the guest list. He retorted that he had been invited to the affair by his friend, who however denied doing so. Deeply embarrassed by the incident, Roberto then sued the hotel for damages under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code. Will Roberto's action prosper? Explain. (5%)

It is the omission in the testator's will of one, some or all of the compulsory heirs in direct line, whether living at the time of execution of the will or born after the death of the testator. What principle is being referred to? A) reserva troncal B) preterition C) fideicommissary D) disposicion captatoria

The following are the formalities required in the execution of holographic will, except: A) Entirely written; B) Dated; C) Signed by testator himself; D) Notarized by a notary public.

The requisites of succession are as follows, except: A) Death of decedent B) Transmissible estate C) Existence and capacity of successor, designated by decedent or law D) Payment of Taxes

Does the right to request for the issuance of a writ of possession over a foreclosed real property prescribe in five (5) years? (5%)

Which phrase most accurately completes the statement — Any third person who induces another to violate his contract: A) shall be liable for damages only if he is a party to the same contract. B) shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party. C) shall not be liable for damages to the other contracting party. D) shall not be liable for damages if the parties are in pari delicto.

Which of the following statements is wrong? A) Creditors are protected in cases of contracts intended to defraud them. B) Contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns and heirs, except in case where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law. C) If a contract should contain some stipulation in favor of a third person, he may demand its fulfillment provided he communicated his acceptance to the obligor before its revocation. D) In contracts creating real rights, third persons who come into possession of the object of the contract are not bound thereby.

Which of the following expresses a correct principle of law? Choose the best answer. A) Failure to disclose facts when there is a duty to reveal them, does not constitute fraud. B) Violence or intimidation does not render a contract annullable if employed not by a contracting party but by a third person. C) A threat to enforce one's claim through competent authority, if the claim is legal or just, does not vitiate consent. D) Absolute simulation of a contract always results in a void contract.

Which of the following contracts is void? A) An oral sale of a parcel of land. B) A sale of land by an agent in a public instrument where his authority from the principal is oral. C) A donation of a wrist watch worth P4,500.00. D) A relatively simulated contract.

The borrower in a contract of loan or mutuum must pay interest to the lender. A) If there is an agreement in writing to the effect. B) As a matter of course. C) If the amount borrowed is very large. D) If the lender so demands at the maturity date.

An obligation which is based on equity and natural law is known as: A) pure B) quasi-contract C) civil D) natural

When the consent of one of the parties was vitiated, the contract is: A) voidable B) rescissible C) void D) unenforceable

The liability of the school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or institution engaged in child care over the minor child for damage caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor while under their supervision, instruction or custody shall be: A) Joint and subsidiary B) Principal and solidary C) Principal and joint D) Subsidiary and solidary.

The petitioner filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based allegedly on the psychological incapacity of the respondent, but the psychologist was not able to personally examine the respondent and the psychological report was based only on the narration of petitioner. Should the annulment be granted? Explain. (5%)

The following are the grounds for disallowance of wills, except: A) The formalities required by law have not been complied with. B) The testator was insane or mentally incapable of making will. C) The will was executed through force or under duress, or influence of fear or threats. D) The will contains an attestation clause.

Siga-an granted a loan to Villanueva in the amount of P540,000.00. Such agreement was not reduced to writing. Siga-an demanded interest which was paid by Villanueva in cash and checks. The total amount Villanueva paid accumulated to P1,200,000.00. Upon advice of her lawyer, Villanueva demanded the return of the excess amount of P660,000.00 which was ignored by Siga-an. Is the payment of interest valid? Explain. (3%)

Ricky donated P1 Million to the unborn child of his pregnant girlfriend, which she accepted. After six (6) months of pregnancy, the fetus was born and baptized as Angela. However, Angela died 20 hours after birth. Ricky sought to recover the P1 Million. Is Ricky entitled to recover? Explain. (5%)

Cipriano and Lady Miros married each other. Lady Miros then left for the US and there, she obtained American citizenship. Cipriano later learned all about this including the fact that Lady Miros has divorced him in America and that she had remarried there. He then filed a petition for authority to remarry, invoking Par. 2, Art. 26 of the Family Code. Is Cipriano capacitated to re-marry by virtue of the divorce decree obtained by his Filipino spouse who was later naturalized as an American citizen? Explain. (5%)

Natividad's holographic will, which had only one (1) substantial provision, as first written, named Rosa as her sole heir. However, when Gregorio presented it for probate, it already contained an alteration, naming Gregorio, instead of Rosa, as sole heir, but without authentication by Natividad's signature. Rosa opposes the probate alleging such lack of proper authentication. She claims that the unaltered form of the will should be given effect. Whose claim should be granted? Explain. (5%)

Ricky and Arlene are married. They begot Franco during their marriage. Franco had an illicit relationship with Audrey and out of which, they begot Arnel. Franco predeceased Ricky, Arlene and Arnel. Before Ricky died, he executed a will which when submitted to probate was opposed by Arnel on the ground that he should be given the share of his father, Franco. Is the opposition of Arnel correct? Why? (5%)

The capacity of an heir to succeed shall be governed by the: A) national law of the decedent's heirs B) law of the country where the decedent was a resident at the time of his death C) national law of the person who died D) law of the country where the properties of the decedent are located.

A petition for declaration of nullity of a void marriage can only be filed by either the husband or the wife? Do you agree? Explain your answer. (5%)

The court, in an action filed for the purpose, may suspend parental authority if the parent or the person exercising parental authority commits any of the following acts, except: A) Treats the child with excessive harshness or cruelty. B) Gives the child corrupting orders, counsel or example. C) Compels the child to take up a course in college against his/her will. D) Subjects the child or allows him to be subjected to acts of lasciviousness.

Donation is perfected from the moment -- A) the donee accepts the donation. B) the donor executes the deed of donation. C) the donor knows of the donee's acceptance even if the latter has not received the copy of the deed of donation. D) the donee confirms that the donor has learned the former's acceptance.

The characteristics of succession are as follows, except: A) It is a legal contract. B) Only property, rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance are transmitted. C) The transmission takes place only at the time of death. D) The transmission takes place either by will or by operation of law.

Any disposition made upon the condition that the heir shall make some provision in his will in favor of the testator or of any other person shall be void. Here, both the condition and the disposition are void. What principle is being referred to? A) reserva troncal B) preterition C) fideicommissary D) disposicion captatoria

Which of the following is NOT a restriction on one's capacity to act? A) Minority B) Marriage C) Deaf-mute D) Civil interdiction

This attribute or incident of a case determines whether it is a conflict-of-laws case or one covered by domestic law. A) Cause of action B) Foreign element C) Jurisdiction D) Forum non conveniens

Even if the applicable law is a foreign law, a court in the Philippines may be constrained to apply Philippine law under any of the following instances, except: A) when the foreign law, judgment or contract is contrary to a sound and important public policy of the forum; B) when the property subject of the case is located outside of the Philippines; C) when the foreign law or judgment is penal in nature; D) when the foreign law is procedural in nature.

Under RA 8043, an adopter is required to be at least __ years old and __ years older than the child to be adopted at the time of the application unless the adopter is the parent by nature of the child. A) 30 and 15 B) 27 and 16 C) 50 and 10 D) 18 and 15

The will of a Filipino executed in a foreign country A) cannot be probated in the Philippines; B) may be probated in the Philippines provided that properties in the estate are located in the Philippines; C) cannot be probated before the death of the testator; D) may be probated in the Philippines provided it was executed in accordance with the laws of the place where the will was executed.

(Facts for items 15-18) In 1989, Charice (Filipino) and Justine (American) were married in the Philippines. In 1990, they separated and Justine went to Las Vegas where he obtained a divorce in the same year. He then married another Filipina, Lea, in Canada on January 1, 1992. They had two (2) sons, James and John (both born in 1992). In 1993, after failing to hear from Justine, Charice married Bugoy (a Filipino), by whom she had a daughter, Regine. In 2009, Regine married James (son of Justine with Lea) in California, where such marriage is valid. — What is the current status of the marriage of Charice and Justine under Philippine laws? A) Valid B) Void C) Voidable D) Dissolved

Atty. BUKO, a Filipino, executed a will while he was in Spain. The attestation clause of the said will does not contain Buko's signature. It is valid under Spanish law. At its probate in Manila, it is being opposed on the ground that the attestation clause does not contain BUKO's signature. Is the opposition correct? Choose the best answer. A) Yes, because it is a fatal defect. B) Yes, the will is not valid under Philippine law. C) No, attestation clause is not an act of the testator. D) No, the governing law is Spanish law.

Which of the following is NOT included in the attributes of juridical capacity? A) Juridical capacity is inherent in every natural person, and therefore it is not acquired. B) Juridical capacity is lost only through death. C) Juridical capacity is the fitness to be the subject of legal relations. D) Juridical capacity cannot exist without capacity to act.

If a will is executed by a testator who was born a Filipino citizen but became naturalized Japanese citizen at the time of his death, what law will govern its testamentary provisions if the will is executed in China and the property being disposed is located in Indonesia? A) Chinese law B) Philippine law C) Indonesia law D) Japanese law

Pedro (Filipino) and his wife Jane (American) executed a joint will in Canada, where such joint will is valid. In case the joint will is probated in Japan, what law will govern the formalities of the joint will? A) American law B) Philippine law C) Canadian law D) Japanese law

A summary action to recover physical or material possession only and must be brought within one (1) year from the time the cause of action arises. What action is being referred to? A) Accion publiciana B) Accion reinvindicatoria C) Accion interdictal D) Quieting of Title

A debtor may still be held liable for loss or damages even if it was caused by a fortuitous event in any of the following instances, except: A) The debtor is guilty of dolo, malice or bad faith, has promised the same thing to two or more persons who do not have the same interest. B) The debtor contributed to the loss. C) The thing to be delivered is generic. D) The creditor is guilty of fraud, negligence or delay or if he contravened the tenor of the obligation.

A French national revokes his will in Japan where he is domiciled. He then changed his domicile to the Philippines where he died. The revocation of his will in Japan is valid under Japanese law but invalid under Philippine law. The affected heir is a Malaysian national residing in the Philippines. What law will apply? A) Japanese law B) Philippine law C) French law D) Malaysian law

In the absence of contrary stipulation in a marriage settlement, property relations of Filipino spouses shall be governed by A) Philippine laws B) Law of the place where the spouses reside C) Law of the place where the properties are situated D) Law of the place where they were married.

Audrey, single, bought a parcel of land in Malolos City from Franco for P1 Million. A contract was executed between them which already vested upon Audrey full ownership of the property, although payable in monthly installments for a period of four (4) years. One (1) year after the execution of the contract, Audrey got married to Arnel. They executed a marriage settlement whereby they agreed that their properties shall be governed by the regime of conjugal partnership of gains. Thereafter, subsequent installments were paid from the conjugal partnership funds. Is the land conjugal or paraphernal? A) The land is conjugal because the installments were paid from the conjugal partnership funds. B) The land is paraphernal because ownership thereof was acquired before the marriage. C) The land is both conjugal and paraphernal if installments were paid from both the personal funds of Audrey and the conjugal partnership funds. D) The land is paraphernal because it was Audrey who purchased the same.

Pedro (Filipino) and Bill (American) entered into a contract in Australia, whereby it was agreed that Pedro will build a commercial building for Bill in the Philippines, and in payment for the construction, Bill will transfer and convey his cattle ranch located in Japan in favor of Pedro. In case Pedro performs his obligation, but Bill fails or refuses to pay, what law will govern? A) American law B) Philippine law C) Australian law D) Japanese law

Agay, a Filipino citizen and Topacio, an Australian citizen, got married in the consular office of the Philippines in Australia. According to the laws of Australia, a marriage solemnized by a consular official is valid, provided that such marriage is celebrated in accordance with the laws of such consular official. Under Philippine law, what is the status of the marriage of Agay and Topacio? Choose the best answer. A) Void, because the consular official only has authority to solemnize marriages between Filipinos. B) Valid, because according to the laws of Australia, such consular official has authority to celebrate the marriage. C) Voidable, because there is an irregularity in the authority of the consular official to solemnize marriages. D) Valid, because such marriage is recognized as valid in the place where it was celebrated.

What is the status of the marriage between Justine and Lea under Philippine laws? A) Valid B) Void C) Voidable D) Unenforceable

What is the status of the marriage between Charice and Bugoy under Philippine laws? A) Valid B) Void C) Voidable D) Unenforceable

Ricky and Princess were sweethearts. Princess became pregnant. Knowing that Ricky is preparing for the examinations, Marforth, a lawyer and cousin of Princess, threatened Ricky with the filing of a complaint for immorality in the Supreme Court, thus preventing him from taking examinations unless he marries Princess. As a consequence of the threat, Ricky married Princess. Can the marriage be annulled on the ground of intimidation under Article 45 of the Family Code? Choose the best answer. A) Yes, because without the threat, Ricky would not have married Princess. B) Yes, because the threat to enforce the claim of Princess vitiates the consent of Ricky in contracting the marriage. C) No, because the threat made by Marforth is just and legal. D) No, because Marforth is not a party to the contract of marriage between Princess and Ricky.

What is the status of the marriage between Regine and James under Philippine laws? A) Valid B) Void C) Voidable D) Unenforceable

Ernesto donated a mobile phone worth P32,000 to Hubert orally and delivered the unit to Hubert who accepted. Which statement is most accurate? A) The donation is void and Ernesto may get the mobile phone back. B) The donation is void but Ernesto cannot get the mobile phone back. C) The donation is voidable and may be annulled. D) The donation is valid.

A marriage is void if: A) solemnized with a marriage license issued without complying with the required 10-day posting. B) solemnized by a minister whom the parties believe to have the authority. C) between parties both 23 years of age but without parental advice. D) none of the above

In legal separation, which is not correct? A) The aggrieved spouse may file the action within five (5) years from the time of the occurrence of the cause. B) No trial shall be held without the 6-month cooling off period being observed. C) The spouses will be entitled to live separately upon the start of the trial. D) The prosecuting attorney has to conduct his own investigation.

Separation of property between spouses during the marriage may take place only: A) By agreement of the spouses. B) If one of the spouses has given ground for legal separation. C) Upon order of the court. D) If one spouse has abandoned the other.

Which of the following is not a requisite for a valid donation propter nuptias? A) The donation must be made before the celebration of the marriage. B) The donation shall be automatically revoked in case of non-celebration of the marriage. C) The donation must be made in consideration of the marriage. D) The donation must be made in favor of one or both of the future spouses.

Under RA 8043, a child qualified to be adopted is any person below __ years old. A) 18 B) 21 C) 15 D) 16

The following are the requisites of fortuitous event, except: A) Cause is independent of the will of the debtor. B) The event is unforeseeable/unavoidable. C) Occurrence renders it absolutely impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; impossibility must be absolute not partial, otherwise not force majeure. D) Debtor contributed to the aggravation of the injury to the creditor.

Which phrase most accurately completes the statement — If at the time the contract of sale is perfected, the thing which is the object of the contract has been entirely lost: A) the buyer bears the risk of loss. B) the contract shall be without any effect. C) the seller bears the risk of loss. D) the buyer may withdraw from the contract.

The following are the limitations on the right of ownership imposed by the owner himself, except A) Will/Succession B) Mortgage C) Pledge D) Lease

Which of the following statements is wrong? A) patrimonial property of the State, when no longer intended for public use or for public service, shall become property of public dominion. B) all property of the State, which is not of public dominion, is patrimonial property. C) The property of provinces, cities and municipalities is divided into property for public use and patrimonial property. D) Property is either of public dominion or of private ownership.

The following cannot ask for the reduction of inofficious donation, except: A) Creditors of the deceased B) Devisees or legatees C) Compulsory heirs of the donor D) The surviving spouse of the donee.

It is a juridical relation arising from lawful, voluntary, and unilateral acts based on the principle that no one should unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another. A) Quasi-contract B) Quasi-delict C) Contract D) Delict

The following are the elements of quasi-delict, except: A) Act or omission B) Fault/negligence C) Damage/injury D) Pre-existing contract

The husband may impugn the legitimacy of his child but not on the ground that: A) the wife is suspected of infidelity. B) the husband had a serious illness that prevented him from engaging in sexual intercourse. C) they were living apart. D) he is physically incapable of sexual intercourse.

This term refers to a delay on the part of both the debtor and creditor in reciprocal obligations. A) Mora accipiendi B) Mora solvendi C) Compensatio morae D) Solutio indebiti

Buko, Fermin and Toti are solidary debtors under a loan obligation of P300,000.00 which has fallen due. The creditor has, however, condoned Fermin's entire share in the debt. Since Toti has become insolvent, the creditor makes a demand on Buko to pay the debt. How much, if any, may Buko be compelled to pay? A) P200,000.00 B) P300,000.00 C) P100,000.00 D) P150,000.00

Dina bought a car from Jai and delivered a check in payment of the same. Has Dina paid the obligation? Why? A) No, not yet. The delivery of promissory notes payable to order, or bills of exchange or other mercantile documents shall produce the effect of payment only when they have been cashed, or when through the fault of the creditor they have been impaired. B) Yes, because a check is a valid legal tender of payment. C) It depends. If the check is a manager's check or cashier's check it will produce the effect of payment. If it's an ordinary check, no payment. D) Yes, because a check is as good as cash.

A partner cannot demand the return of his share (contribution) during the existence of a partnership. Do you agree? Explain your answer. (5%)

A contract to sell is the same as a conditional contract of sale. Do you agree? Explain your answer. (5%)

The following are the requisites of legal compensation, except: A) That each of the obligors is bound principally and that he be at the same time a principal creditor of the other. B) That both debts consist in a sum of money, or if the things due are consumable, they be of the same kind, and also of the same quality if the latter has been stated. C) That the two (2) debts are not yet due. D) That they be liquidated and demandable.

It is a conduct that may consist of giving, doing, or not doing something. A) Obligation B) Juridical necessity C) Prestation D) Contract

Which of the following marriages is void for reasons of public policy? A) Between brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half blood. B) Between step-parents and step children. C) Between parents-in-law and children-in-law. D) b and c

It is a principle which holds that contracts must be binding to both parties and its validity and effectivity can never be left to the will of one of the parties. A) Obligatory force of contracts B) Mutuality of contracts C) Autonomy of contracts D) Relativity of contracts

Eulalia was engaged in the business of buying and selling large cattle. In order to secure the financial capital, she advanced for her employees (biyaheros). She required them to surrender the TCT of their properties and to execute the corresponding Deeds of Sale in her favor. Domeng Bandong was not required to post any security but when Eulalia discovered that he incurred shortage in cattle procurement operation, he was required to execute a Deed of Sale over a parcel of land in favor of Eulalia. She sold the property to her grandniece Jocelyn who thereafter instituted an action for ejectment against the Spouses Bandong. To assert their right, spouses Bandong filed an action for annulment of sale against Eulalia and Jocelyn alleging that there was no sale intended but only equitable mortgage for the purpose of securing the shortage incurred by Domeng in the amount of P70,000.00 while employed as "biyahero" by Eulalia. Was the Deed of Sale between Domeng and Eulalia a contract of sale or an equitable mortgage? Explain. (5%)

Which of the following statements is correct? A) Offers in interrelated contracts are perfected upon consent. B) Offers in interrelated contracts require a single acceptance. C) Business advertisements are definite offers that require specific acceptance. D) Advertisements for Bidders are only invitations to make proposals and the advertiser is not bound to accept the highest/lowest bidder, unless it appears otherwise.

The following are solemn contracts (contracts which must appear in writing), except: A) Donations of real estate or of movables if the value exceeds P5,000.00. B) Stipulation to pay interest in loans. C) Sale of land through an agent (authority must be in writing). D) Construction contract of a building.

The following are void contracts, except: A) Pactum commissorium B) Pactum de non alienando C) Pactum leonina D) Pacto de retro

Rex, a philanthropist, donated a valuable lot to the municipality on the condition that it will build a public school on such lot within 2 years from its acceptance of the donation. The municipality properly accepted the donation but did not yet build the public school after 2 years. Can Rex revoke the donation? A) Yes, since the donation is subject to a resolutory condition which was not fulfilled. B) No, but Rex is entitled to recover the value of the land from the municipality. C) No, the transfer of ownership has been completed. D) Yes, the donation is not deemed made until the suspensive condition has been fulfilled.

Asiong borrowed P1 million from a bank, secured by a mortgage on his land. Without his consent, his friend Boyong paid the whole loan. Since Asiong benefited from the payment, can Boyong compel the bank to subrogate him in its right as mortgagee of Asiong's land? A) No, but the bank can foreclose and pay Boyong back. B) No, since Boyong paid for Asiong's loan without his approval. C) Yes, since a change of creditor took place by novation with the bank's consent. D) Yes, since it is but right that Boyong be able to get back his money and, if not, to foreclose the mortgage in the manner of the bank.

The husband's acts of forcibly ejecting his wife without just cause from the conjugal dwelling and refusing to take her back constitutes A) desertion. B) recrimination. C) constructive abandonment. D) de facto separation.

What happens to the property regimes that were subsisting under the New Civil Code when the Family Code took effect? A) The original property regimes are immutable and remain effective. B) Those enjoying specific regimes under the New Civil Code may adopt the regime of absolute community of property under the Family Code. C) Those that married under the New Civil Code but did not choose any of its regimes shall now be governed by the regime of absolute community of property. D) They are superseded by the Family Code which has retroactive effect.

X, who was abroad, phoned his brother, Y, authorizing him to sell X's parcel of land in Pasay. X sent the title to Y by courier service. Acting for his brother, Y executed a notarized deed of absolute sale of the land to Z after receiving payment. What is the status of the sale? A) Valid, since a notarized deed of absolute sale covered the transaction and full payment was made. B) Void, since X should have authorized agent Y in writing to sell the land. C) Valid, since Y was truly his brother X's agent and entrusted with the title needed to effect the sale. D) Valid, since the buyer could file an action to compel X to execute a deed of sale.

X bought a land from Y, paying him cash. Since they were friends, they did not execute any document of sale. After 7 years, the heirs of X asked Y to execute a deed of absolute sale to formalize the verbal sale to their father. Unwilling to do so, X's heirs filed an action for specific performance against Y. Will their action prosper? A) No, after more than 6 years, the action to enforce the verbal agreement has already elapsed. B) No, since the sale cannot under the Statute of Frauds be enforced. C) Yes, since X bought the land and paid Y for it. D) Yes, after full payment, the action became imprescriptible.

The doctrine of stare decisis prescribes adherence to precedents in order to promote the stability of the law. But the doctrine can be abandoned A) when adherence to it would result in the Government's loss of its case. B) when the application of the doctrine would cause great prejudice to a foreign national. C) when necessary to promote the passage of a new law. D) when the precedent has ceased to be beneficial and useful.

A court declared Ricardo, an old bachelor, an absentee and appointed Cicero administrator of his property. After a year, it was discovered that Ricardo had died abroad. What is the effect of the fact of his death on the administration of his property? A) With Ricardo no longer an absentee but a deceased person, Cicero will cease to be administrator of his properties. B) The administration shall be given by the court having jurisdiction over the intestate proceedings to a new administrator whom it will appoint. C) Cicero automatically becomes administrator of Ricardo's estate until judicially relieved. D) Cicero's alienations of Ricardo's property will be set aside.

Ric and Josie, Filipinos, have been sweethearts for 5 years. While working in a European country where the execution of joint wills are allowed, the two of them executed a joint holographic will where they named each other as sole heir of the other in case either of them dies. Unfortunately, Ric died a year later. Can Josie have the joint will successfully probated in the Philippines? A) Yes, in the highest interest of comity of nations and to honor the wishes of the deceased. B) No, since Philippine law prohibits the execution of joint wills and such law is binding on Ric and Josie even abroad. C) Yes, since they executed their joint will out of mutual love and care, values that the generally accepted principles of international law accepts. D) Yes, since it is valid in the country where it was executed, applying the principle of "lex loci celebrationis."

A natural obligation under the New Civil Code of the Philippines is one which A) the obligor has a moral obligation to do, otherwise entitling the obligee to damages. B) refers to an obligation in writing to do or not to do. C) the obligee may enforce through the court if violated by the obligor. D) cannot be judicially enforced but authorizes the obligee to retain the obligor's payment or performance.

Baldo, a rejected suitor, intimidated Judy into marrying him. While she wanted to question the validity of their marriage two years after the intimidation ceased, Judy decided in the meantime to freely cohabit with Baldo. After more than 5 years following their wedding, Judy wants to file a case for annulment of marriage against Baldo on ground of lack of consent. Will her action prosper? A) Yes, the action for annulment is imprescriptible. B) No, since the marriage was merely voidable and Judy ratified it by freely cohabiting with Baldo after the force and intimidation had ceased. C) No, since the action prescribed 5 years from the date of the celebration of the marriage. D) Yes, because the marriage was celebrated without Judy's consent freely given.

Roy and Carlos both undertook a contract to deliver to Sam in Manila a boat docked in Subic. Before they could deliver it, however, the boat sank in a storm. The contract provides that fortuitous event shall not exempt Roy and Carlos from their obligation. Owing to the loss of the motor boat, such obligation is deemed converted into one of indemnity for damages. Is the liability of Roy and Carlos joint or solidary? A) Neither solidary nor joint since they cannot waive the defense of fortuitous event to which they are entitled. B) Solidary or joint upon the discretion of Sam. C) Solidary since Roy and Carlos failed to perform their obligation to deliver the motor boat. D) Joint since the conversion of their liability to one of indemnity for damages made it joint.

Joanne married James, a person with no known relatives. Through James' hard work, he and his wife Joanne prospered. When James died, his estate alone amounted to P100 million. If, in his will, James designates Joanne as his only heir, what will be the free portion of his estate? A) Joanne gets all; estate has no free portion left. B) Joanne gets 1/2; the other half is free portion. C) Joanne gets 1/3; the remaining 2/3 is free portion. D) Joanne gets 1/4; the remaining 3/4 is free portion.

No decree of legal separation can be issued A) unless the children's welfare is attended to first. B) without prior efforts at reconciliation shown to be futile. C) unless the court first directs mediation of the parties. D) without prior investigation conducted by a public prosecutor.

Anne owed Bessy P1 million due on October 1, 2011 but failed to pay her on due date. Bessy sent a demand letter to Anne giving her 5 days from receipt within which to pay. Two days after receipt of the letter, Anne personally offered to pay Bessy in manager's check but the latter refused to accept the same. The 5 days lapsed. May Anne's obligation be considered extinguished? A) Yes, since Bessy's refusal of the manager's check, which is presumed funded, amounts to a satisfaction of the obligation. B) No, since tender of payment even in cash, if refused, will not discharge the obligation without proper consignation in court. C) Yes, since Anne tendered payment of the full amount due. D) No, since a manager's check is not considered legal tender in the Philippines.

The owner of a thing cannot use it in a way that will injure the right of a third person. Thus, every building or land is subject to the easement which prohibits its proprietor or possessor from committing nuisance like noise, jarring, offensive odor, and smoke. This principle is known as A) Jus vindicandi. B) Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas. C) Jus disponendi. D) Jus abutendi.

Janice and Jennifer are sisters. Janice sued Jennifer and Laura, Jennifer's business partner, for recovery of property with damages. The complaint did not allege that Janice exerted earnest efforts to come to a compromise with the defendants and that such efforts failed. The judge dismissed the complaint outright for failure to comply with a condition precedent. Is the dismissal in order? A) No, since Laura is a stranger to the sisters, Janice has no moral obligation to settle with her. B) Yes, since court should promote amicable settlement among relatives. C) Yes, since members of the same family, as parties to the suit, are required to exert earnest efforts to settle their disputes before coming to court. D) No, the family council, which would ordinarily mediate the dispute, has been eliminated under the Family Code.

Josie, 18, married Dante, 25, without her parents' knowledge and consent, and lived with him. After a year, Josie returned to her parents' home, complained of the unbearable battering she was getting from Dante, and expressed a desire to have her marriage with him annulled. Who may bring the action? A) Dante. B) Her parents. C) Josie herself. D) The State.

Pepito executed a will that he and 3 attesting witnesses signed following the formalities of law, except that the Notary Public failed to come. Two days later, the Notary Public notarized the will in his law office where all signatories to the will acknowledged that the testator signed the will in the presence of the witnesses and that the latter themselves signed the will in the presence of the testator and of one another. Was the will validly notarized? A) No, since it was not notarized on the occasion when the signatories affixed their signatures on the will. B) Yes, since the Notary Public has to be present only when the signatories acknowledged the acts required of them in relation to the will. C) Yes, but the defect in the mere notarization of the will is not fatal to its execution. D) No, since the notary public did not require the signatories to sign their respective attestations again.

Josie owned a lot worth P5 million prior to her marriage to Rey. Subsequently, their conjugal partnership spent P3 million for the construction of a house on the lot. The construction resulted in an increase in the value of the house and lot to P9 million. Who owns the house and the lot? A) Josie and the conjugal partnership of gains will own both on a 50-50 basis. B) Josie will own both since the value of the house and the increase in the property's value is less than her lot's value; but she is to reimburse conjugal partnership expenses. C) Josie still owns the lot, it being her exclusive property, but the house belongs to the conjugal partnership. D) The house and lot shall both belong to the conjugal partnership, with Josie entitled to reimbursement for the value of the lot.

Venecio and Ester lived as common-law spouses since both have been married to other persons from whom they had been separated in fact for several years. Hardworking and bright, each earned incomes from their respective professions and enterprises. What is the nature of their incomes? A) Conjugal since they earned the same while living as husband and wife. B) Separate since their property relations with their legal spouses are still subsisting. C) Co-ownership since they agreed to work for their mutual benefit. D) Communal since they earned the same as common-law spouses.

Because of X's gross negligence, Y suffered injuries that resulted in the abortion of the foetus she carried. Y sued X for, among other damages, P1 million for the death of a family member. Is Y entitled to indemnity for the death of the foetus she carried? A) Yes, since the foetus is already regarded as a child from conception, though unborn. B) No, since X would not have known that the accident would result in Y's abortion. C) No, since birth determines personality, the accident did not result in the death of a person. D) Yes, since the mother believed in her heart that she lost a child.

An agent, authorized by a special power of attorney to sell a land belonging to the principal succeeded in selling the same to a buyer according to the instructions given the agent. The agent executed the deed of absolute sale on behalf of his principal two days after the principal died, an event that neither the agent nor the buyer knew at the time of the sale. What is the standing of the sale? A) Voidable. B) Valid. C) Void. D) Unenforceable.

The wife filed a case of legal separation against her husband on the ground of sexual infidelity without previously exerting earnest efforts to come to a compromise with him. The judge dismissed the case for having been filed without complying with a condition precedent. Is the dismissal proper? A) No, efforts at a compromise will only deepen the wife's anguish. B) No, since legal separation like validity of marriage is not subject to compromise agreement for purposes of filing. C) Yes, to avoid a family feud that is hurtful to everyone. D) Yes, since the dispute could have been settled with the parties agreeing to legal separation.

Rudolf borrowed P1 million from Rodrigo and Fernando who acted as solidary creditors. When the loan matured, Rodrigo wrote a letter to Rudolf, demanding payment of the loan directly to him. Before Rudolf could comply, Fernando went to see him personally to collect and he paid him. Did Rudolf make a valid payment? A) No, since Rudolf should have split the payment between Rodrigo and Fernando. B) No, since Rodrigo, the other solidary creditor, already made a prior demand for payment from Rudolf. C) Yes, since the payment covers the whole obligation. D) Yes, since Fernando was a solidary creditor, payment to him extinguished the obligation.

Fidel, a Filipino with fair complexion, married Gloria. Before the marriage, Gloria confessed to Fidel that she was two-month pregnant with the child of a black African who had left the country for good. When the child was born, Fidel could not accept it being too black in complexion. What is the status of the child? A) Illegitimate, because Gloria confessed that the child is not Fidel's. B) Illegitimate, because by the color of its skin, the child could not possibly be that of Fidel. C) Legitimate, because the child was born within a valid marriage. D) Legitimate, because Fidel agreed to treat the child as his own after Gloria told him who the father was.

When bilateral contracts are vitiated with vices of consent, they are rendered A) rescissible. B) void. C) unenforceable. D) voidable.

Spouses X and Y have a minor daughter, Z, who needs support for her education. Both X and Y, who are financially distressed, could not give the needed support to Z. As it happens, Z's other relatives are financially capable of giving that support. From whom may Z first rightfully demand support? From her A) grandfather. B) brother. C) uncle. D) first cousin.

Which of the following claims against the debtor enjoys preference over the others with respect to his specific immovable property and real rights? A) Unpaid price of real property sold, upon the immovable property. B) Mortgage credits recorded in the registry of property, upon the mortgaged real estate. C) Taxes due, upon the land or building. D) Expenses for the preservation and improvement of property, when the law authorizes reimbursement, upon the preserved or improved immovable.

Which of the following is NOT a basis for rendering a disinheritance defective or imperfect? A) Its cause comes from the guilt of a spouse in a legal separation case, the innocent-spouse having died. B) The truth of its cause is denied and not sufficiently proved by evidence. C) Its cause is not authorized by the law. D) Its cause is not specified.

Raul, Ester, and Rufus inherited a 10-hectare land from their father. Before the land could be partitioned, Raul sold his hereditary right to Raffy, a stranger to the family, for P5 million. Do Ester and Rufus have a remedy for keeping the land within their family? A) Yes, they may be subrogated to Raffy's right by reimbursing him within the required time what he paid Raul. B) Yes, they may be subrogated to Raffy's right provided they buy him out before he registers the sale. C) No, they can be subrogated to Raffy's right only with his conformity. D) No, since there was no impediment to Raul selling his inheritance to a stranger.

Lucio executed a simple deed of donation of P50 million on time deposit with a bank in favor of A, B, C, D, and E, without indicating the share of each donee. All the donees accepted the donation in writing. A, one of the donees, died. Will B, C, D, and E get A's share in the money? A) Yes, accretion will automatically apply to the joint-donees in equal shares. B) Yes, since the donor's intention is to give the whole of P50 million to the joint donees in equal shares. C) No, A's share will revert to the donor because accretion applies only if the joint-donees are spouses. D) No, A's share goes to his heirs since the donation did not provide for reversion to donor.

The authority that school administrators exercise over school children under their supervision, instruction, or custody is called A) legal parental authority. B) substitute parental authority. C) ordinary parental authority. D) special parental authority.

Solomon sold his coconut plantation to Aragon, Inc. for P100 million payable in installments of P10 million per month with 6% interest per annum. Solomon married Lorna after 5 months and they chose conjugal partnership of gains to govern their property relations. When they married, Aragon had an unpaid balance of P50 million plus interest in Solomon's favor. To whom will Aragon's monthly payments go after the marriage? A) The principal shall go to the conjugal partnership but the interests to Solomon. B) Both principal and interests shall go to Solomon since they are his exclusive properties. C) Both principal and interests shall go to the conjugal partnership since these become due after the marriage. D) The principal shall go to Solomon but the interests to the conjugal partnership.

Which of the following is an indispensable requirement in an action for "quieting of title" involving real property? The plaintiff must A) be in actual possession of the property. B) be the registered owner of the property. C) have legal or equitable title to the property. D) be the beneficial owner of the property.

Can future inheritance be the subject of a contract of sale? A) No, since it will put the predecessor at the risk of harm from a tempted buyer, contrary to public policy. B) Yes, since the death of the decedent is certain to occur. C) No, since the seller owns no inheritance while his predecessor lives. D) Yes, but on the condition that the amount of the inheritance can only be ascertained after the obligations of the estate have been paid.

The decedent died intestate leaving an estate of P10 million. He left the following heirs: a) Marlon, a legitimate child and b) Cecilia, the legal spouse. Divide the estate. A) Marlon gets 1/4 and Cecilia gets 3/4. B) Marlon gets 2/3 and Cecilia 1/3. C) Marlon gets 1/2 and Cecilia gets 1/2. D) Marlon gets 3/4 and Cecilia 1/4.

Who can make a donation? A) All persons who can enter into contracts and dispose of their property. B) All persons who are of legal age and suffer from no civil interdiction. C) All persons who can make a last will and testament. D) All persons, whether natural or artificial, who own property.

When does a declaration of absence of a missing person take effect? A) Immediately from the issuance of the declaration of absence. B) 3 months after the publication of the declaration of absence. C) 6 months after the publication of the declaration of absence. D) 15 days from the issuance of the declaration of absence.

Arthur and Helen, both Filipinos, got married and had 2 children. Arthur later worked in Rome where he acquired Italian citizenship. He got a divorce from Helen in Rome but, on returning to the Philippines, he realized his mistake, asked forgiveness of his wife, and resumed living with her. They had 2 more children. What is the status of their 4 children? A) The children born before the divorce are legitimate but those born after it are not since Arthur got the divorce when he had ceased to be a Filipino. B) The divorce rendered illegitimate the children born before it since the marriage that begot them had been nullified. C) The children born before and after the divorce are all legitimate since Philippine law does not recognize divorce. D) All the children are legitimate since they were born of the same father and mother.

A left B, his wife, in the Philippines to work in Egypt but died in that country after a year's continuous stay. Two months after A's death, B gave birth to a child, claiming it is A's child. Who can assail the legitimacy of the child? A) A's other heirs apart from B. B) The State which has interest in the welfare of overseas contract workers. C) Any one who is outraged by B's claim. D) No one since A died.

Lennie bought a business class ticket from Alta Airlines. As she checked in, the manager downgraded her to economy on the ground that a Congressman had to be accommodated in the business class. Lennie suffered the discomfort and embarrassment of the downgrade. She sued the airlines for quasi-delict but Alta Airlines countered that, since her travel was governed by a contract between them, no quasi-delict could arise. Is the airline correct? A) No, the breach of contract may in fact be tortious as when it is tainted as in this case with arbitrariness, gross bad faith, and malice. B) No, denying Lennie the comfort and amenities of the business class as provided in the ticket is a tortious act. C) Yes, since the facts show a breach of contract, not a quasi-delict. D) Yes, since quasi-delict presupposes the absence of a pre-existing contractual relation between the parties.

Manuel came to Manila and married Marianne. Unknown to Marianne, Manuel had been previously convicted in Palawan of theft and served time for it. After Marianne learned of his previous conviction, she stopped living with him. Can Marianne seek the annulment of the marriage based on Manuel's nondisclosure of his previous crime? A) No, since the assumption is that marriage forgives all past wrongs. B) Yes, since the non-disclosure of that crime is the equivalent of fraud, which is a ground for annulment. C) No, in case of doubt, the law must be construed to preserve the institution of marriage. D) No, since Manuel already served the penalty for his crime.

When A and B married, they chose conjugal partnership of gains to govern their property relations. After 3 years, B succeeded in getting her marriage to A annulled on ground of the latter's psychological incapacity. What liquidation procedure will they follow in disposing of their assets? A) They will follow the rule governing the liquidation of a conjugal partnership of gains where the party who acted in bad faith forfeits his share in the net profits. B) Since the marriage has been declared void, the rule for liquidation of absolute community of property shall be followed. C) The liquidation of a co-ownership applies since the annulment brought their property relation under the chapter on property regimes without marriage. D) The law on liquidation of partnerships applies.

Contracts take effect only between the parties or their assigns and heirs, except where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by their nature, by stipulation, or by provision of law. In the latter case, the assigns or the heirs are not bound by the contracts. This is known as the principle of A) Relativity of contracts. B) Freedom to stipulate. C) Mutuality of contracts. D) Obligatory force of contracts.

Allan bought Billy's property through Carlos, an agent empowered with a special power of attorney (SPA) to sell the same. When Allan was ready to pay as scheduled, Billy called, directing Allan to pay directly to him. On learning of this, Carlos, Billy's agent, told Allan to pay through him as his SPA provided and to protect his commission. Faced with two claimants, Allan consigned the payment in court. Billy protested, contending that the consignation is ineffective since no tender of payment was made to him. Is he correct? A) No, since consignation without tender of payment is allowed in the face of the conflicting claims on the plaintiff. B) Yes, as owner of the property sold, Billy can demand payment directly to himself. C) Yes, since Allan made no announcement of the tender. D) Yes, a tender of payment is required for a valid consignation.

Joseph, a 17-year old Filipino, married Jenny, a 21-year old American in Illinois, USA, where the marriage was valid. Their parents gave full consent to the marriage of their children. After three years, Joseph filed a petition in the USA to promptly divorce Jenny and this was granted. When Joseph turned 25 years, he returned to the Philippines and married Leonora. What is the status of this second marriage? A) Void, because he did not cause the judicial issuance of declaration of the nullity of his first marriage to Jenny before marrying Leonora. B) Valid, because Joseph's marriage to Jenny is void, he being only 17 years of age when he married her. C) Valid, because his marriage to Leonora has all the elements of a valid marriage. D) Void, because Joseph is still considered married to Jenny since the Philippines does not recognize divorce.

Congress passed a law imposing taxes on income earned out of a particular activity that was not previously taxed. The law, however, taxed incomes already earned within the fiscal year when the law took effect. Is the law valid? A) No, because laws are intended to be prospective, not retroactive. B) No, the law is arbitrary in that it taxes income that has already been spent. C) Yes, since tax laws are the lifeblood of the nation. D) Yes, tax laws are an exception; they can be given retroactive effect.

X sold Y 100 sacks of rice that Y was to pick up from X's rice mill on a particular date. Y did not, however, appear on the agreed date to take delivery of the rice. After one week, X automatically rescinded the sale without notarial notice to Y. Is the rescission valid? A) Yes, automatic rescission is allowed since, having the character of movables and consumables, rice can easily deteriorate. B) No, the buyer is entitled to a customary 30-day extension of his obligation to take delivery of the goods. C) No, since there was no express agreement regarding automatic rescission. D) No, the seller should first determine that Y was not justified in failing to appear.

May a spouse freely donate communal or conjugal property without the consent of the other? A) Absolutely not, since the spouses co-own such property. B) Yes, for properties that the family may spare, regardless of value. C) Yes, provided the donation is moderate and intended for charity or family rejoicing. D) Yes, in a donation mortis causa that the donor may still revoke in his lifetime.

When does the regime of conjugal partnership of gains begin to exist? A) At the moment the parties take and declare each other as husband and wife before the officiating officer. B) At the time the spouses acquire properties through joint efforts. C) On the date the future spouses executed their marriage settlements because this is the starting point of their marital relationship. D) On the date agreed upon by the future spouses in their marriage settlements since their agreement is the law between them.

Lino entered into a contract to sell with Ramon, undertaking to convey to the latter one of the five lots he owns, without specifying which lot it was, for the price of P1 million. Later, the parties could not agree which of five lots he owned Lino undertook to sell to Ramon. What is the standing of the contract? A) Unenforceable. B) Voidable. C) Rescissible. D) Void.

Illegitimate brothers and sisters, whether of full or half-blood, are bound to support each other, EXCEPT when A) the brother or sister who needs support lives in another place. B) such brothers and sisters are not recognized by their father. C) the brother or sister in need stops schooling without valid reason. D) the need for support of a brother or sister, already of age, is due to the latter's fault.

An Australian living in the Philippines acquired shares of stock worth P10 million in food manufacturing companies. He died in Manila, leaving a legal wife and a child in Australia and a live-in partner with whom he had two children in Manila. He also left a will, done according to Philippine laws, leaving all his properties to his live-in partner and their children. What law will govern the validity of the disposition in the will? A) Australian law since his legal wife and legitimate child are Australians and domiciled in Australia. B) Australian law since the intrinsic validity of the provisions of a will is governed by the decedent's national law. C) Philippine law since the decedent died in Manila and he executed his will according to such law. D) Philippine law since the decedent's properties are in the Philippines.

X owed Y P1.5 million. In his will, X gave Y a legacy of P1 million but the will provided that this legacy is to be set off against the P1.5 million X owed Y. After the set off, X still owed Y P500,000. Can Y still collect this amount? A) Yes, because the designation of Y as legatee created a new and separate juridical relationship between them, that of testator-legatee. B) It depends upon the discretion of the probate court if a claim is filed in the testate proceedings. C) No, because the intention of the testator in giving the legacy is to abrogate his entire obligation to Y. D) No, because X had no instruction in his will to deliver more than the legacy of P1 million to Y.

While engaged to be married, Arnold and Josephine agreed in a public instrument to adopt the economic regime of absolute community of property. Arnold acknowledged in the same instrument that Josephine's daughter Mary is his illegitimate child. But Josephine died before the marriage could take place. Does the marriage settlement have any significance? A) None, since the instrument containing the marriage settlement is essentially void for containing an unrelated matter. B) Yes, insofar as Arnold acknowledged Mary as his illegitimate child. C) None, since the marriage did not take place. D) Yes, if they acquired properties while living together as husband and wife.

When the donor gives donations without reserving sufficient funds for his support or for the support of his dependents, his donations are A) Rescissible, since it results in economic lesion of more than 25% of the value of his properties. B) Voidable, since his consent to the donation is vitiated by mindless kindness. C) Void, since it amounts to wanton expenditure beyond his means. D) Reducible to the extent that the donations impaired the support due to himself and his dependents.

The right of a mortgagor in a judicial foreclosure to redeem the mortgaged property after his default in the performance of the conditions of the mortgage but before the sale of the mortgaged property or confirmation of the sale by the court, is known as: A) accion publiciana. B) equity of redemption. C) pacto de retro. D) right of redemption.

T died intestate, leaving an estate of P9,000,000. He left as heirs three legitimate children, namely, A, B, and C. A has two children, D and E. Before he died, A irrevocably repudiated his inheritance from T in a public instrument filed with the court. How much, if any, will D and E, as A's children, get from T's estate? A) Each of D and E will get P1,500,000 by right of representation since their father repudiated his inheritance. B) Each of D and E will get P2,225,000 because they will inherit from the estate equally with B and C. C) D and E will get none because of the repudiation; "B" and "C" will get A's share by right of accretion. D) Each of D and E will get P2,000,000 because the law gives them some advantage due to the demise of their father.

The residents of a subdivision have been using an open strip of land as passage to the highway for over 30 years. The owner of that land decided, however, to close it in preparation for building his house on it. The residents protested, claiming that they became owners of the land through acquisitive prescription, having been in possession of the same in the concept of owners, publicly, peacefully, and continuously for more than 30 years. Is this claim correct? A) No, the residents have not been in continuous possession of the land since they merely passed through it in going to the highway. B) No, the owner did not abandon his right to the property; he merely tolerated his neighbors' use of it for passage. C) Yes, residents of the subdivision have become owners by acquisitive prescription. D) Yes, community ownership by prescription prevails over private claims.

In a true pacto de retro sale, the title and ownership of the property sold are immediately vested in the vendee a retro subject only to the resolutory condition of repurchase by the vendor a retro within the stipulated period. This is known as A) equitable mortgage. B) conventional redemption. C) legal redemption. D) equity of redemption.

Can common-law spouses donate properties of substantial value to one another? A) No, they are only allowed to give moderate gifts to each other during family rejoicing. B) No, they cannot give anything of value to each other to prevent placing their legitimate relatives at a disadvantage. C) Yes, unlike the case of legally married spouses, such donations are not prohibited. D) Yes, as long as they leave sufficient property for themselves and for their dependents.

An action for reconveyance of a registered piece of land may be brought against the owner appearing on the title based on a claim that the latter merely holds such title in trust for the plaintiff. The action prescribes, however, within 10 years from the registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate of title of the property as long as the trust had not been repudiated. What is the exception to this 10-year prescriptive period? A) When the plaintiff had no notice of the deed or the issuance of the certificate of title. B) When the title holder concealed the matter from the plaintiff. C) When fortuitous circumstances prevented the plaintiff from filing the case sooner. D) When the plaintiff is in possession of the property.

The presence of a vice of consent vitiates the consent of a party in a contract and this renders the contract A) Rescissible. B) Unenforceable. C) Voidable. D) Void.

X, a married man, cohabited with Y, an unmarried woman. Their relation bore them BB, a baby boy. Subsequently, after X became a widower, he married Y. Was BB legitimated by that marriage? A) Yes, since his parents are now lawfully married. B) Yes, since he is an innocent party and the marriage rectified the wrong done him. C) No, since once illegitimate, a child shall always remain illegitimate. D) No, since his parents were not qualified to marry each other when he was conceived.

X borrowed money from a bank, secured by a mortgage on the land of Y, his close friend. When the loan matured, Y offered to pay the bank but it refused since Y was not the borrower. Is the bank's action correct? A) Yes, since X, the true borrower, did not give his consent to Y's offer to pay. B) No, since anybody can discharge X's obligation to his benefit. C) No, since Y, the owner of the collateral, has an interest in the payment of the obligation. D) Yes, since it was X who has an obligation to the bank.

The husband assumed sole administration of the family's mango plantation since his wife worked abroad. Subsequently, without his wife's knowledge, the husband entered into an antichretic transaction with a company, giving it possession and management of the plantation with power to harvest and sell the fruits and to apply the proceeds to the payment of a loan he got. What is the standing of the contract? A) It is void in the absence of the wife's consent. B) It is void absent an authorization from the court. C) The transaction is void and can neither be ratified by the wife nor authorized by the court. D) It is considered a continuing offer by the parties, perfected only upon the wife's acceptance or the court's authorization.

A warranty inherent in a contract of sale, whether or not mentioned in it, is known as the A) warranty on quality. B) warranty against hidden defects. C) warranty against eviction. D) warranty in merchantability.

In the order of intestate succession where the decedent is legitimate, who is the last intestate heirs or heir who will inherit if all heirs in the higher level are disqualified or unable to inherit? A) Nephews and nieces. B) Brothers and sisters. C) State. D) Other collateral relatives up to the 5th degree of consanguinity.

Is the wife who leaves her husband without just cause entitled to support? A) No, because the wife must always be respectful and submissive to the husband. B) Yes. The marriage not having been dissolved, the husband continues to have an obligation to support his wife. C) No, because in leaving the conjugal home without just cause, she forfeits her right to support. D) Yes, since the right to receive support is not subject to any condition.

X and Y, Filipinos, got married in Los Angeles, USA, using a marriage license issued by the Philippine consul in Los Angeles, acting as Civil Registrar. X and Y did not know that they were first cousins because their mothers, who were sisters, were separated when they were quite young. Since X did not want to continue with the relation when he heard of it, he left Y, came to the Philippines and married Z. Can X be held liable for bigamy? A) No since X's marriage to Y is void ab initio or did not exist. B) No since X acted in good faith, conscious that public policy did not approve of marriage between first cousins. C) Yes since he married Z without first securing a judicial declaration of nullity of his marriage to Y. D) Yes since his first marriage to Y in Los Angeles is valid.

Illegitimate children, those not recognized by their biological fathers, shall use the surname of their A) biological father subject to no condition. B) mother or biological father, at the mother's discretion. C) mother. D) biological father unless he judicially opposes it.

Virgilio owned a bare and simple swimming pool in his garden. MB, a 7-year old child, surreptitiously entered the garden and merrily romped around the ledges of the pool. He accidentally tripped, fell into the pool, and drowned. MB's parents sued Virgilio for damages arising from their child's death, premised on the principle of "attractive nuisance". Is Virgilio liable for the death of MB? A) No, the child was 7 years old and knew the dangers that the pool offered. B) Yes, being an attractive nuisance, Virgilio had the duty to prevent children from coming near it. C) No, since the pool was bare and had no enticing or alluring gadgets, floats, or devices in it that would attract a 7-year old child. D) Yes, since Virgilio did not cover the swimming pool while not in use to prevent children from falling into it.

Six tenants sued X, the landowner, for willfully denying them water for their farms, which water happened to flow from land under X's control, his intention being to force them to leave his properties. Is X liable for his act and why? A) No, because the tenants must be content with waiting for rainfall for their farms. B) No, since X owns both the land and the water. C) Yes, because the tenants' farms have the natural right of access to water wherever it is located. D) Yes, since X willfully caused injury to his tenants contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.

Birth determines personality. Death extinguishes it. Under what circumstances may the personality of a deceased person continue to exist? A) In case of re-appearance of a missing person presumed dead. B) In protecting the works of a deceased under intellectual property laws. C) In case of declaration of presumptive death of a missing spouse. D) In the settlement of the estate of a deceased person.

X, the owner, constituted a 10-year usufruct on his land as well as on the building standing on it in Y's favor. After flood totally destroyed the building 5 years later, X told Y that an act of God terminated the usufruct and that he should vacate the land. Is X, the owner of the land, correct? A) No, since the building was destroyed through no fault of Y. B) No, since Y still has the right to use the land and the materials left on it. C) Yes, since Y cannot use the land without the building. D) Yes, since the destruction of the building without the X's fault terminated the usufruct.

A buyer ordered 5,000 apples from the seller at P20 per apple. The seller delivered 6,000 apples. What are the rights and obligations of the buyer? A) He can accept all 6,000 apples and pay the seller at P20 per apple. B) He can accept all 6,000 apples and pay a lesser price for the 1,000 excess apples. C) He can keep the 6,000 apples without paying for the 1,000 excess since the seller delivered them anyway. D) He can cancel the whole transaction since the seller violated the terms of their agreement.

In his will, the testator designated X as a legatee to receive P2 million for the purpose of buying an ambulance that the residents of his Barangay can use. What kind of institution is this? A) a fideicomissary institution. B) a modal institution. C) a conditional institution. D) a collective institution.

Spouses A and B leased a piece of land belonging to B's parents for 25 years. The spouses built their house on it worth P300,000.00. Subsequently, in a case that C filed against A and B, the court found the latter liable to C for P200,000.00. When the sheriff was attaching their house for the satisfaction of the judgment, A and B claimed that it was exempt from execution, being a family home. Is this claim correct? A) Yes, because while B's parents own the land, they agreed to have their daughter build her family home on it. B) No, because there is no judicial declaration that it is a family home. C) No, since the land does not belong to A and B, it cannot qualify as a family home. D) Yes, because the A and B's family actually lives in that house.

When can a missing person who left someone to administer his property be declared an absentee by the court? When he has been missing for A) 2 years from the receipt of the last news about him. B) 7 years from the receipt of the last news about him. C) 10 years from the receipt of the last news about him. D) 5 years from the receipt of the last news about him.

The liability of the partners, including industrial partners for partnership contracts entered into in its name and for its account, when all partnership assets have been exhausted is A) Pro-rata. B) Joint. C) Solidary. D) Voluntary.

ML inherited from his father P5 million in legitime but he waived it in a public instrument in favor of his sister QY who accepted the waiver in writing. But as it happened, ML borrowed P6 million from PF before the waiver. PF objected to the waiver and filed an action for its rescission on the ground that he had the right to ML's P5 million legitime as partial settlement of what ML owed him since ML has proved to be insolvent. Does PF, as creditor, have the right to rescind the waiver? A) No, because the waiver in favor of his sister QY amounts to a donation and she already accepted it. B) Yes, because the waiver is prejudicial to the interest of a third person whose interest is recognized by law. C) No, PF must wait for ML to become solvent and, thereafter, sue him for the unpaid loan. D) Yes, because a legitime cannot be waived in favor of a specific heir; it must be divided among all the other heirs.

When one exercises a right recognized by law, knowing that he thereby causes an injustice to another, the latter is entitled to recover damages. This is known as the principle of A) res ipsa loquitur. B) damnum absque injuria. C) vicarious liability. D) abuse of rights.

Rene and Lily got married after a brief courtship. After one month, Lily discovered that while Rene presented himself as a macho man he was actually gay. He would not go to bed with her. He kept obscene magazines of nude men and always sought the company of handsome boys. What legal remedy does Lily have? A) She can file an action for annulment of marriage on ground of fraud. B) She can seek a declaration of nullity of the marriage based on Rene's psychological incapacity. C) She can go abroad and file for divorce in a country that can grant it. D) She has none since she had the opportunity to examine the goods and freely entered into the marriage.

X and Y were to marry in 3 months. Meantime, to express his affection, X donated a house and lot to Y, which donation X wrote in a letter to Y. Y wrote back, accepting the donation and took possession of the property. Before the wedding, however, Y suddenly died of heart attack. Can Y's heirs get the property? A) No, since the marriage did not take place. B) Yes, since all the requisites of a donation of an immovable are present. C) No, since the donation and its acceptance are not in a public instrument. D) Yes, since X freely donated the property to Y who became its owner.

Upon the proposal of a third person, a new debtor substituted the original debtor without the latter's consent. The creditor accepted the substitution. Later, however, the new debtor became insolvent and defaulted in his obligation. What is the effect of the new debtor's default upon the original debtor? A) The original debtor is freed of liability since novation took place and this relieved him of his obligation. B) The original debtor shall pay or perform the obligation with recourse to the new debtor. C) The original debtor remains liable since he gave no consent to the substitution. D) The original debtor shall pay or perform 50% of the obligation to avoid unjust enrichment on his part.

X insured himself for P5 million, designating Y, his wife, as his sole beneficiary. The designation was irrevocable. A few years later, X had their marriage annulled in court on the ground that Y had an existing prior marriage. X subsequently died. Is Y entitled to the insurance benefits? A) Yes, since the insurance was not dependent on the marriage. B) Yes, since her designation as beneficiary was irrevocable. C) No, X's designation of Y is revoked by operation of law upon the annulment of their marriage based on Y's fault. D) Yes, since without judicial revocation, X's designation of Y remains valid and binding.

Fernando executed a will, prohibiting his wife Marina from remarrying after his death, at the pain of the legacy of P100 Million in her favor becoming a nullity. But a year after Fernando's death, Marina was so overwhelmed with love that she married another man. Is she entitled to the legacy, the amount of which is well within the capacity of the disposable free portion of Fernando's estate? A) Yes, since the prohibition against remarrying is absolute, it is deemed not written. B) Yes, because the prohibition is inhuman and oppressive and violates Marina's rights as a free woman. C) No, because the nullity of the prohibition also nullifies the legacy. D) No, since such prohibition is authorized by law and is not repressive; she could remarry but must give up the money.

The term of a 5-year lease contract between X the lessor and Y the lessee, where rents were paid from month to month, came to an end. Still, Y continued using the property with X's consent. In such a case, it is understood that they impliedly renewed the lease A) from month to month under the same conditions as to the rest. B) under the same terms and conditions as before. C) under the same terms except the rent which they or the court must fix. D) for only a year, with the rent raised by 10% pursuant to the rental control law.

Knowing that the car had a hidden crack in the engine, X sold it to Y without informing the latter about it. In any event, the deed of sale expressly stipulated that X was not liable for hidden defects. Does Y have the right to demand from X a reimbursement of what he spent to repair the engine plus damages? A) Yes. X is liable whether or not he was aware of the hidden defect. B) Yes, since the defect was not hidden; X knew of it but he acted in bad faith in not disclosing the fact to Y. C) No, because Y is in estoppel, having changed engine without prior demand. D) No, because Y waived the warranty against hidden defects.

X and Y agreed verbally before their marriage (a) on the paternity of the illegitimate child of Y and (b) on the economic regime that will govern X and Y's property relations. Is the verbal agreement valid? A) No, because a marriage settlement to be valid should be in writing. B) Yes, since ante-nuptial agreements need not be in writing. C) No, because a marriage settlement cannot include an agreement on the paternity of an illegitimate child. D) Yes, since even if it is not a valid marriage settlement, it is a valid verbal contract.

Acme Cannery produced sardines in cans known as "Sards." Mylene bought a can of Sards from a store, ate it, and suffered from poisoning caused by a noxious substance found in the sardines. Mylene filed a case for damages against Acme. Which of the following defenses will hold? A) The expiry date of the "Sards" was clearly printed on its can, still the store sold and Mylene bought it. B) Mylene must have detected the noxious substance in the sardines by smell, yet she still ate it. C) Acme had no transaction with Mylene; she bought the "Sards" from a store, not directly from Acme. D) Acme enjoys the presumption of safeness of its canning procedure and Mylene has not overcome such presumption.

The testator executed a will following the formalities required by the law on succession without designating any heir. The only testamentary disposition in the will is the recognition of the testator's illegitimate child with a popular actress. Is the will valid? A) Yes, since in recognizing his illegitimate child, the testator has made him his heir. B) No, because the non-designation of heirs defeats the purpose of a will. C) No, the will comes to life only when the proper heirs are instituted. D) Yes, the recognition of an illegitimate heir is an ample reason for a will.

In gratitude, the groom's parents made a donation of a property in writing to the bride's parents shortly before their children's wedding. The donation was accepted. What is the nature of the donation? A) It is an ordinary donation since it was not given to the bride or groom. B) It is donation propter nuptias since it was given with the marriage in mind. C) It is an indirect donation propter nuptias since the bride would eventually inherit the property from her parents. D) It is a remuneratory donation.

X and Y, although not suffering from any impediment, cohabited as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. Following the birth of their child, the couple got married. A year after, however, the court annulled the marriage and issued a decree of annulment. What is the present status of the child? A) Legitimated. B) Illegitimate. C) Natural child. D) Legitimate.

X and Y, both Filipinos, were married and resided in Spain although they intend to return to the Philippines at some future time. They have not executed any marriage settlements. What law governs their property relations? A) They may choose between Spanish law and Philippine law. B) Philippine law since they are both Filipinos. C) No regime of property relations will apply to them. D) Spanish law since they live in Spain.

QR and TS who had a marriage license requested a newly appointed Judge in Manila to marry them on the beach of Boracay. Since the Judge maintained Boracay as his residence, he agreed. The sponsors were all public officials. What is the status of the marriage? A) Valid, since the improper venue is merely an irregularity; all the elements of a valid marriage are present. B) Void, because the couple did not get a local permit for a beach wedding. C) Voidable, because the Judge acted beyond his territorial jurisdiction and is administratively liable for the same. D) Void, because the Judge did not solemnize the marriage within the premises of his court.

Before Karen married Karl, she inherited P5 million from her deceased mother which amount she brought into the marriage. She later used part of the money to buy a new Mercedes Benz in her name, which Karen and her husband used as a family car. Is the car a conjugal or Karen's exclusive property? A) It is conjugal property since the spouses use it as a family car. B) It is Karen's exclusive property since it is in her name. C) It is conjugal property having been bought during the marriage. D) It is Karen's exclusive property since she bought it with her own money.

What is the prescriptive period for filing an action for revocation of a donation based on acts of ingratitude of the donee? A) 5 years from the perfection of the donation. B) 1 year from the perfection of the donation. C) 4 years from the perfection of the donation. D) Such action does not prescribe.

Conrad and Linda, both 20 years old, applied for a marriage license, making it appear that they were over 25. They married without their parents' knowledge before an unsuspecting judge. After the couple has been in cohabitation for 6 years, Linda's parents filed an action to annul the marriage on ground of lack of parental consent. Will the case prosper? A) No, since only the couple can question the validity of their marriage after they became 21 of age; their cohabitation also convalidated the marriage. B) No, since Linda's parents made no allegations that earnest efforts have been made to come to a compromise with Conrad and Linda and which efforts failed. C) Yes, since the marriage is voidable, the couple being below 21 years of age when they married. D) Yes, since Linda's parents never gave their consent to the marriage.

Define, Enumerate or Explain. (2% each) What is the difference between "guaranty" and "suretyship"?

A, B, and C entered into a partnership to operate a restaurant business. When the restaurant had gone past break-even stage and started to garner considerable profits, C died. A and B continued the business without dissolving the partnership. They in fact opened a branch of the restaurant, incurring obligations in the process. Creditors started demanding for the payment of their obligations. What are the creditors' recourse/s? Explain. (3%)

The spouses Peter and Paula had three (3) children. Paula later obtained a judgment of nullity of marriage. Their absolute community of property having been dissolved, they delivered P1 million to each of their 3 children as their presumptive legitimes. Peter later re-married and had two (2) children by his second wife Marie. Peter and Marie, having successfully engaged in business, acquired real properties. Peter later died intestate. What is the effect of the receipt by Peter's 3 children by his first marriage of their presumptive legitimes on their right to inherit following Peter's death? (5%)

On May 5, 1989, 16-year old Rozanno, who was issued a student permit, drove to school with a car, a gift from his parents. On even date, as his class was scheduled to go on a field trip, his teacher requested him to accommodate in his car, as he did, four (4) of his classmates because the van rented by the school was too crowded. On the way to a museum which the students were scheduled to visit, Rozanno made a wrong maneuver, causing a collision with a jeepney. One of his classmates died. He and the three (3) others were badly injured. Who is liable for the death of Rozanno's classmate and the injuries suffered by Rozanno and his 3 other classmates? Explain. (2%)

Spouses Rex and Lea bore two children now aged 14 and 8. During the subsistence of their marriage, Rex begot a child by another woman. He is now 10 years of age. On Lea's discovery of Rex's fathering a child by another woman, she filed a petition for legal separation which was granted. Rex now wants to adopt his illegitimate child. Whose consent is needed for Rex's adoption of his illegitimate child? (2.5%)

Gigolo entered into an agreement with Majorette for her to carry in her womb his baby via in vitro fertilization. Gigolo undertook to underwrite Majorette's pre-natal expenses as well as those attendant to her delivery. Gigolo would thereafter pay Majorette P2 million and, in return, she would give custody of the baby to him. After Majorette gives birth and delivers the baby to Gigolo following her receipt of P2 million, she engages your services as her lawyer to regain custody of the baby. Can Gigolo demand from Majorette the return of the P2 million if he returns the baby? Explain. (2.5%)

A executed a Deed of Donation in favor of B, a bachelor, covering a parcel of land valued at P1 million. B was, however, out of the country at the time. For the donation to be valid. (1%) 1) B may e-mail A accepting the donation. 2) The donation may be accepted by B's father with whom he lives. 3) B can accept the donation anytime convenient to him. 4) B's mother who has a general power of attorney may accept the donation for him. 5) None of the above is sufficient to make B's acceptance valid.

A had a 4-storey building which was constructed by Engineer B. After five years, the building developed cracks and its stairway eventually gave way and collapsed, resulting to injuries to some lessees. Who should the lessees sue for damages? (1%) 1) A, the owner 2) B, the engineer 3) both A & B

O, owner of Lot A, learning that Japanese soldiers may have buried gold and other treasures at the adjoining vacant Lot B belonging to spouses X & Y, excavated in Lot B where she succeeded in unearthing gold and precious stones. How will the treasures found by O be divided? (1%) 1) 100% to O as finder 2) 50% to O and 50% to the spouses X and Y 3) 50% to O and 50% to the state 4) None of the above

On May 5, 1989, 16-year old Rozanno, who was issued a student permit, drove to school with a car, a gift from his parents. On even date, as his class was scheduled to go on a field trip, his teacher requested him to accommodate in his car, as he did, four (4) of his classmates because the van rented by the school was too crowded. On the way to a museum which the students were scheduled to visit, Rozanno made a wrong maneuver, causing a collision with a jeepney. One of his classmates died. He and the three (3) others were badly injured. How about the damage to the jeepney? Explain. (2%)

A executed a 5-page notarial will before a notary public and three witnesses. All of them signed each and every page of the will. One of the witnesses was B, the father of one of the legatees to the will. What is the effect of B being a witness to the will? (1%) 1) The will is invalidated 2) The will is valid and effective 3) The legacy given to B's child is not valid

Eighteen-year old Filipina Patrice had a daughter out of wedlock whom she named Laurie. At 26, Patrice married American citizen John who brought her to live with him in the United States of America. John at once signified his willingness to adopt Laurie. Can John file the petition for adoption? If yes, what are the requirements? If no, why? (5%)

Define, Enumerate or Explain. (2% each) Define quasi tort. Who are the persons liable under quasi torts and what are the defenses available to them?

Gigolo entered into an agreement with Majorette for her to carry in her womb his baby via in vitro fertilization. Gigolo undertook to underwrite Majorette's pre-natal expenses as well as those attendant to her delivery. Gigolo would thereafter pay Majorette P2 million and, in return, she would give custody of the baby to him. After Majorette gives birth and delivers the baby to Gigolo following her receipt of P2 million, she engages your services as her lawyer to regain custody of the baby. Who of the two can exercise parental authority over the child? Explain. (2.5%)

Define, Enumerate or Explain. (2% each) Give at least two reasons why a court may assume jurisdiction over a conflict of laws case.

Spouses B and G begot two offsprings. Albeit they had serious personality differences, the spouses continued to live under one roof. B begot a son by another woman. G also begot a daughter by another man. If G gives the surname of B to her daughter by another man, what can B do to protect their legitimate children's interests? Explain. (5%)

Spouses B and G begot two offsprings. Albeit they had serious personality differences, the spouses continued to live under one roof. B begot a son by another woman. G also begot a daughter by another man. If B acquiesces to the use of his surname by G's daughter by another man, what is/are the consequence/s? Explain. (5%)

X was the owner of an unregistered parcel of land in Cabanatuan City. As she was abroad, she advised her sister Y via overseas call to sell the land and sign a contract of sale on her behalf. Y thus sold the land to B1 on March 31, 2001 and executed a deed of absolute sale on behalf of X. B1 fully paid the purchase price. B2, unaware of the sale of the land to B1, signified to Y his interest to buy it but asked Y for her authority from X. Without informing X that she had sold the land to B1, Y sought X for a written authority to sell. X e-mailed Y an authority to sell the land. Y thereafter sold the land on May 1, 2001 to B2 on monthly installment basis for two years, the first installment to be paid at the end of May 2001. Who between B1 and B2 has a better right over the land? Explain. (5%)

G filed on July 8, 2000 a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to B. During the pendency of the case, the couple entered into a compromise agreement to dissolve their absolute community of property. B ceded his right to their house and lot and all his shares in two business firms to G and their two children, aged 18 and 19. B also opened a bank account in the amount of P3 million in the name of the two children to answer for their educational expenses until they finish their college degrees. For her part, G undertook to shoulder the day-to-day living expenses and upkeep of the children. The Court approved the spouses' agreement on September 8, 2000. Suppose in late 2004 the two children had squandered the P3 million fund for their education before they could obtain their college degrees, can they ask for more support from B? Explain. (3%)

Spouses Rex and Lea bore two children now aged 14 and 8. During the subsistence of their marriage, Rex begot a child by another woman. He is now 10 years of age. On Lea's discovery of Rex's fathering a child by another woman, she filed a petition for legal separation which was granted. Rex now wants to adopt his illegitimate child. If there was no legal separation, can Rex still adopt his illegitimate child? Explain. (2.5%)

On May 5, 1989, 16-year old Rozanno, who was issued a student permit, drove to school with a car, a gift from his parents. On even date, as his class was scheduled to go on a field trip, his teacher requested him to accommodate in his car, as he did, four (4) of his classmates because the van rented by the school was too crowded. On the way to a museum which the students were scheduled to visit, Rozanno made a wrong maneuver, causing a collision with a jeepney. One of his classmates died. He and the three (3) others were badly injured. Under the same facts, except the date of occurrence of the incident, this time in mid-1994, what would be your answer? Explain. (2%)

Franz was the owner of Lot E which was surrounded by four (4) lots one of which – Lot C – he also owned. He promised Ava that if she bought Lot E, he would give her a right of way in Lot C. Convinced, Ava bought Lot E and, as promised, Franz gave her a right of way in Lot C. Ava cultivated Lot E and used the right of way granted by Franz. Ava later found gainful employment abroad. On her return after more than 10 years, the right of way was no longer available to her because Franz had in the meantime sold Lot C to Julia who had it fenced. Does Ava have a right to demand from Julia the activation of her right of way? Explain. (2.5%)

Franz was the owner of Lot E which was surrounded by four (4) lots one of which – Lot C – he also owned. He promised Ava that if she bought Lot E, he would give her a right of way in Lot C. Convinced, Ava bought Lot E and, as promised, Franz gave her a right of way in Lot C. Ava cultivated Lot E and used the right of way granted by Franz. Ava later found gainful employment abroad. On her return after more than 10 years, the right of way was no longer available to her because Franz had in the meantime sold Lot C to Julia who had it fenced. Assuming Ava opts to demand a right of way from any of the owners of Lots A, B, and D, can she do that? Explain. (2.5%)

A, B, and C entered into a partnership to operate a restaurant business. When the restaurant had gone past break-even stage and started to garner considerable profits, C died. A and B continued the business without dissolving the partnership. They in fact opened a branch of the restaurant, incurring obligations in the process. Creditors started demanding for the payment of their obligations. Who are liable for the settlement of the partnership's obligations? Explain? (3%)

G filed on July 8, 2000 a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to B. During the pendency of the case, the couple entered into a compromise agreement to dissolve their absolute community of property. B ceded his right to their house and lot and all his shares in two business firms to G and their two children, aged 18 and 19. B also opened a bank account in the amount of P3 million in the name of the two children to answer for their educational expenses until they finish their college degrees. For her part, G undertook to shoulder the day-to-day living expenses and upkeep of the children. The Court approved the spouses' agreement on September 8, 2000. Suppose the business firms suffered reverses, rendering G unable to support herself and the children. Can G still ask for support pendente lite from B? Explain. (3%)

Gigolo entered into an agreement with Majorette for her to carry in her womb his baby via in vitro fertilization. Gigolo undertook to underwrite Majorette's pre-natal expenses as well as those attendant to her delivery. Gigolo would thereafter pay Majorette P2 million and, in return, she would give custody of the baby to him. After Majorette gives birth and delivers the baby to Gigolo following her receipt of P2 million, she engages your services as her lawyer to regain custody of the baby. What legal action can you file on behalf of Majorette? Explain. (2.5%)

Gigolo entered into an agreement with Majorette for her to carry in her womb his baby via in vitro fertilization. Gigolo undertook to underwrite Majorette's pre-natal expenses as well as those attendant to her delivery. Gigolo would thereafter pay Majorette P2 million and, in return, she would give custody of the baby to him. After Majorette gives birth and delivers the baby to Gigolo following her receipt of P2 million, she engages your services as her lawyer to regain custody of the baby. Is the child entitled to support and inheritance from Gigolo? Explain. (2.5%)

G and B were married on July 3, 1989. On March 4, 2001, the marriage, which bore no offspring, was declared void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code. At the time of the dissolution of the marriage, the couple possessed the following properties: A house and lot acquired by B on August 3, 1988, one third (1/3) of the purchase price (representing down payment) of which he paid; one third (1/3) was paid by G on February 14, 1990 out of a cash gift given to her by her parents on her graduation on April 6, 1989; and the balance was paid out of the spouses' joint income; and an apartment unit donated to B by an uncle on June 19, 1987. Who owns the foregoing properties? Explain. (5%)

G and B were married on July 3, 1989. On March 4, 2001, the marriage, which bore no offspring, was declared void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code. At the time of the dissolution of the marriage, the couple possessed the following properties: A house and lot acquired by B on August 3, 1988, one third (1/3) of the purchase price (representing down payment) of which he paid; one third (1/3) was paid by G on February 14, 1990 out of a cash gift given to her by her parents on her graduation on April 6, 1989; and the balance was paid out of the spouses' joint income; and an apartment unit donated to B by an uncle on June 19, 1987. If G and B had married on July 3, 1987 and their marriage was dissolved in 2007, who owns the properties? Explain. (5%)

The spouses Peter and Paula had three (3) children. Paula later obtained a judgment of nullity of marriage. Their absolute community of property having been dissolved, they delivered P1 million to each of their 3 children as their presumptive legitimes. Peter later re-married and had two (2) children by his second wife Marie. Peter and Marie, having successfully engaged in business, acquired real properties. Peter later died intestate. Who are Peter's legal heirs and how will his estate be divided among them? (5%)

In 1997, B and G started living together without the benefit of marriage. The relationship produced one offspring, Venus. The couple acquired a residential lot in Parañaque. After four (4) years or in 2001, G having completed her 4-year college degree as a fulltime student, she and B contracted marriage without a license. The marriage of B and G was, two years later, declared null and void due to the absence of a marriage license. If you were the judge who declared the nullity of the marriage, to whom would you award the lot? Explain briefly. (3%)

X, a widower, died leaving a will stating that the house and lot where he lived cannot be partitioned for as long as the youngest of his four children desires to stay there. As coheirs and co-owners, the other three may demand partition anytime. (1%)

Primo owns a pet iguana which he keeps in a man-made pond enclosed by a fence situated in his residential lot. A typhoon knocked down the fence of the pond and the iguana crawled out of the gate of Primo's residence. N, a neighbor who was passing by, started throwing stones at the iguana, drawing the iguana to move toward him. N, panicked and ran but tripped on something and suffered a broken leg. Is anyone liable for N's injuries? Explain. (4%)

In 1997, B and G started living together without the benefit of marriage. The relationship produced one offspring, Venus. The couple acquired a residential lot in Parañaque. After four (4) years or in 2001, G having completed her 4-year college degree as a fulltime student, she and B contracted marriage without a license. The marriage of B and G was, two years later, declared null and void due to the absence of a marriage license. Is Venus legitimate, illegitimate, or legitimated? Explain briefly. (3%)

Under Article 26 of the Family Code, when a foreign spouse divorces his/her Filipino spouse, the latter may re-marry by proving only that the foreign spouse has obtained a divorce against her or him abroad. (1%)