2017 CIVIL LAW BAR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

I.

State whether the following marital unions are valid, void, or voidable, and give the
corresponding justifications for your answer:

a. Ador and Becky’s marriage wherein Ador was afflicted with AIDS prior to the
marriage. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Voidable. Under the Family Code, a marriage is voidable if either of
the party was afflicted with a sexually transmissible disease which is serious and incurable,
such as AIDS. Here, Ador was afflicted with AIDS at the time of the celebration of the
marriage, a sexually transmissible disease considered to be serious and incurable. [Basis:
Article 45(6), Family Code; discussed in p. 122, Vol. 1, Rabuya’s Civ Reviewer Book]
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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Void. Under the Family Code, a marriage is declared void by reason
of public policy when one, with the intention to marry the other, killed that other spouse or
his or her own spouse. Here, the wife killed her previous husband for the purpose of
marrying the second husband. [Basis: Article 38 (9), Family Code; discussed in p. 94, Vol. 1,
Rabuya’s Civ Reviewer Book]
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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: If the marriage took place during the effectivity of the Family Code
and Chona is in fact alive, the subsequent marriage is void for being bigamous because Eli
failed to obtain a judicial declaration of presumptive death of the absentee spouse prior to
contracting the subsequent marriage. Under the Family Code, a judicial declaration of
presumptive death of the absentee is required to be obtained by the spouse present to
make the subsequent marriage valid. However, had Chona really died when the plane
crashed, the subsequent marriage of Eli is valid because the prior marriage was already
terminated. [Basis: Article 41, Family Code; Armas v. Calisterio, 330 SCRA 201 (2000);
discussed in pp. 99-100, Vol. 1, Rabuya’s Civ Reviewer Book]
But if the subsequent marriage took place during the effectivity of the Civil Code, the

marriage is valid until annulled (voidable) because no judicial declaration of presumptive

death was required under the Civil Code.

d. David who married Lina immediately the day after obtaining a judicial decree
annulling his prior marriage to Elisa. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Void. Under the Family Code, David is required to record the
judgment of annullment and the partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses,
as well as the delivery of the presumptive legitimes of their children, in the appropriate civil
registry and registries of property prior to contracting the second marriage; otherwise, the
subsequent marriage is void. [Basis: Article 35(6), in relation to Artcicles 53 and 52, Family
Code; discussed in p. 83, Vol. 1, Rabuya’s Civ Reviewer Book]
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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Valid because their marriage is exceptional and exempt from the
requirement of a marriage license. Under the Family Code, the marriage of a man and
woman who lived exclusively as husband and wife for at least five years and without
impediment is exempt from the requirement of a marriage license. [Basis: Article 34, Family
Code; discussed in pp. 57-58, Vol. 1, Rabuya’s Civ Reviewer Book]
II.

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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

As to the land occupied Mike, the same remains property of the public dominion. According

to jurisprudence, the classification of the property as alienable and disposable land of the

public domain does not change its status as property of the public dominion. There must be

an express declaration by the State that the public dominion property is no longer intended
for public service or the development of the national wealth or that the property has been
converted into patrimonial. Without such express declaration, the property, even if
classified as alienable or disposable, remains property of the public dominion. [Basis: Heirs
of Mario Malabanan v. Republic, 587 SCRA 172 (2009); Heirs of Mario Malabanan v.
Republic, 704 SCRA 561 (2013); discussed in my FB wall on October 15 and 16, 2017 and
pp. 338-344, Vol. 1, Rabuya’s Civil Law Reviewer]
As to the land occupied by Rigor, the declaration that it is no longer intended for public use
or public service converted the same into patrimonial property provided that such express
declaration was in the form of a law duly enacted by Congress or in a Presidential
Proclamation in cases where the President was duly authorized by law. According to
jurisprudence, when public land is no longer intended for public use, public service or for
the development of the national wealth it is thereby effectively removed from the ambit of
public dominion and converted into patrimonnial provided that the declaration of such
conversion must be made in the form of a law duly enacted by Congress or by a Presidential
proclamation in cases where the President is duly authorized by law to that effect. [Basis:
Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic, 587 SCRA 172 (2009); Heirs of Mario Malabanan v.
Republic, 704 SCRA 561 (2013); discussed in my FB wall on October 15 and 16, 2017 and
pp. 338-344, Vol. 1, Rabuya’s Civil Law Reviewer]
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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, because the land remains property of public dominion and, therefore, not susceptible to
acquisition by prescription.
According to jurisprudence, the classification of the subject property as alienable and
disposable land of the public domain does not change its status as property of the public
dominion. In order to convert the property into patrimonial, there must be an express
declaration by the State that the public dominion property is no longer intended for public
service or the development of the national wealth or that the property has been converted
into patrimonial. Without such express declaration, the property, even if classified as
alienable or disposable, remains property of the public dominion, and thus incapable of
acquisition by prescription. [Basis: Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic, 587 SCRA 172
(2009); Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic, 704 SCRA 561 (2013); discussed in my FB
wall on October 15 and 16, 2017 and pp. 338-344, Vol. 1, Rabuya’s Civil Law Reviewer]
Here, the declaration of the property into alienable and disposable land of the public
domain in 1991 did not convert the property into patrimonial in the absence of an express
declaration of such conversion into patrimonial in the form of a law duly enacted by
Congress or by a Presidential proclamation in cases where the President is duly authorized
by law to that effect.
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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

None, because Rigor’s possession was short of the period required by the Civil Code for
purposes of acquisitive prescription which requires ten (10) years of continuous
possession, if possession was in good faith and with a just title, or thirty years, in any event.
While the property may be considered converted into patrimomial because of the 1991
declaration that it is no longer intended for public use or public service (provided that the
declaration be in the form of a law of a law duly enacted by Congress or by a Presidential
proclamation in cases where the President is duly authorized by law to that effect), Rigor
failed to complete the 30-year period required by law in case of extra-ordinary
prescription. Since the property was converted into patrimonial only in 1991, the period of
presciption commenced to run beginning that year only. Rigor’s possession prior to the
conversion of the property into patrimonial cannot be counted for the purpose of
completing the prescriptive period because prescription did not operate against the State at
that time, the property then being public dominion property.
Rigor may not likewise acquire ownership by virtue of the shorter 10-year ordinary
prescription because his possession was not in good faith and without a just title.
[Basis: Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic, 587 SCRA 172 (2009); Heirs of Mario

Malabanan v. Republic, 704 SCRA 561 (2013); discussed in my FB wall on October 15 and

16, 2017 and pp. 338-344, Vol. 1, Rabuya’s Civil Law Reviewer]

III.

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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The interest earned belongs to Josef because bank interest partakes of the nature of civil
fruits under Article 442 of the Civil Code and shall belong to the owner of the principal
thing.
When the National Housing Authority deposited the P50 Million as payment for the just
compensation with an authorized depositary bank for the purpose of obtaining a writ of
possession, it is deemed to be a constructive delivery of the said amount to Josef. Since Josef
is entitled to the P50 Million and undisputably the owner of the said principal amount, the
interest yield, as accession, in a bank deposit should likewise pertain to the owner of the
money deposited. Being an attribute of ownership (jus fruendi), Josef’s right over the fruits,
that is the bank interests, must be respected. [Basis: Republic v. Holy Trinity Realty
Development Corp., G.R. No. 172410, April 14, 2008]

IV.

a. Distinguish antichresis from usufruct. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

They are distinguished as follows:

(1) Antichresis is always a contract while usufruct need not arise from a contract because it
may also be constituted by law or by other acts inter vivos, such as donation, or in a last will
and testament, or by prescription.
(2) The subject matter of antichresis is always a real property while the subject matter of
usufruct may either be real property or personal property.
(3) Antichresis is an accessory contract or contract of security while usufruct is a real right.
(4) While in both, the fruits do not pertain to the owner, the usufructuary is entitled to

enjoy the fruits while the antichretic creditor has the obligation to apply the fruits to the

payment of the interest, if owing, and therefatre to the principal of the credit.

b. Distinguish commodatum from mutuum. (3%)

They are distinguished, as follows:

(1) As to subject matter: The subject matter of commodatum is ordinarily non-consumable

while the subject matter of mutuum is either money or consumable;
(2) As to compensation: Commodatum is essentially gratuitous while mutuum may be
gratuitous or with a stipulation to pay interest;
(3) As to right in subject matter: In commodatum, there is no transmission fo ownership of
the thing loaned while in mutuum, the borrower acquires ownership of the thing borrowed.
(4) As to duty of borrower: In commodatum, the same thing borrowed is required to be

returned while in mutuum, the borrower discharges himself, not by returning the identical

thing loaned, but by paying its equivalent in kind, quality and quantity. [Discussed in pp.

725-726, Vol. 1, Rabuya’s Civil Law Reviewer]

V.

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
circumstances? Explain your answer. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The remedy available to Jacob is accion publiciana, or an action for the recovery of the

better right of possession. It also refers to an ejectment suit filed after the expiration of one
year from accrual of the cause of action or from the unalwful withholding of possession of

the realty.

Since the entry made by Liz is through stealth, Jacob could have filed an action for forcible
entry. Ordinarily, the one-year period within which to bring an action for forcible entry is
generally counted from the date of actual entry on the land, except that when the entry is
through stealth, the one -year period is counted from the time the plaintiff learned thereof.
Here, since more than one year had elapsed since Jacob learned of the entry made by Liz
through stealth, the action that may be filed by Jacob is no longer forcible entry, but an
accion publiciana. [Basis: Canlas v. Tubil, 601 SCRA 147 (2009); Valdez v. CA, 489 SCRA 369
(2006); discussed in pp. 353-354, Vol. 1, Rabuya’s Civil Law Reviewer]

VI.

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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Dylan is not entitled to a grant of compulsory right of way because he has an adequate
outlet going to the public highway.
One of the requisites for a compulsory grant of right of way is that the estate of the claimant
of a right of way must be isolated and without adequate outlet to a public highway. The true
standard for the grant of compulsory right of way is “adequacy” of outlet going to a public
highway and not the convenience of the dominant estate.
In the case at bar, there is already an existing adquate outlet from the dominant estate to a
public highway. Even if said outlet be incovenient, the need to open up another servitude is
entirely unjustified. [Basis: Article 649, Civil Code; Dichoso, Jr. v. Marcos, 647 SCRA 495
(2011); Costabella Corp. v. CA, 193 SCRA 333 (1991); discussed in pp. 559-561, Vol. 1,
Rabuya’s Civil Law Reviewer]
VII.

Alice agreed to sell a parcel of land with an area of 500 square meters registered in
her name and covered by TCT No. 12345 in favor of Bernadette for the amount of
P900,000. Their agreement dated October 15, 2015, reads as follows:

I, Bernadette, agree to buy the lot owned by Alice covered by TCT No. 12345 for the
amount of P900,000 subject to the following schedule of payment:

Upon signing of agreement – P100,000

November 15, 2015 – P200,000

December 15, 2015 – P200,000

January 15, 2016 – P200,000

February 15, 2016 – P200,000

Title to the property shall be transferred upon full payment of P900,000 on or before
February 15, 2016.

After making the initial payment of P100,000 on October 15, 2015, and the second
installment of P200,000 on November 15, 2015, Bernadette defaulted despite
repeated demands from Alice.

In December 2016, Bernadette offered to pay her balance but Alice refused and told
her that the land was no longer for sale. Due to the refusal, Bernadette caused the
annotation of her adverse claim upon TCT No. 12345 on December 19, 2016. Later
on, Bernadette discovered that Alice had sold the property to Chona on February 5,
2016, and that TCT No. 12345 had been cancelled and another one issued (TCT No.
67891) in favor of Chona as the new owner.

Bernadette sued Alice and Chona for specific performance, annulment of sale and
cancellation of TCT No. 67891. Bernadette insisted that she had entered into a
contract of sale with Alice; and that because Alice had engaged in double sale, TCT
No. 67891 should be cancelled and another title be issued in Bernadette’s favor.

a. Did Alice and Bernadette enter into a contract of sale of the lot covered by TCT No.
12345? Explain your answer. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, because in the agreement between Alice and Bernadette the ownership is reserved in

the vendor and is not to pass to the vendee until full payment of the purchase price, which

makes the contract one of contract to sell and not a contract of sale.

Distinctions between a contract to sell and a contract of sale are well-established in

jurisprudence. In a contract of sale, the title to the property passes to the vendee upon the
delivery of the thing sold; in a contract to sell, ownership is, by agreement, reserved in the
vendor and is not to pass to the vendee until full payment of the purchase price. Otherwise
stated, in a contract of sale, the vendor loses ownership over the property and cannot
recover it until and unless the contract is resolved or rescinded; whereas, in a contract to
sell, title is retained by the vendor until full payment of the price. In the latter contract,
payment of the price is a positive suspensive condition, failure of which is not a breach but
an event that prevents the obligation of the vendor to convey title from becoming effective.
[Saberon v. Ventanilla, Jr., 722 SCRA 287 (2014); Spouses Torrecampo v. Alindogan, 545
Phil. 686 (2007); discussed in pp. 363-366, Vol. 2, Rabuya’s Civil Law Reviewer]
In the case at bar, the contract entered between the parties is a contract to sell because
ownership is retained by the vendor and is not to pass to the vendee until full payment of
the purchase price.
b. Did Alice engage in double sale of the property? Explain your answer. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

NO, because there was no previous sale of the same property prior to its sale to Chona.

Despite the earlier transaction of Alice with Bernadette, the former is not guilty of double
sale because the previous transaction with Bernadette is charactrerized as a contract to
sell. In a contract to sell, there being no previous sale of the property, a third person buying
such property despite the fulfillment of the suspensive condition such as the full payment
of the purchase price, for instance, cannot be deemed a buyer in bad faith and the
prospective buyer cannot seek the relief of reconveyance of the property. There is no double
sale in such case. Title to the property will transfer to the buyer after registration because
there is no defect in the owner-sellers title per se, but the latter, of course, may be sued for
damages by the intending buyer. [Basis: Coronel v. CA, 263 SCRA 15 (1996); discussed in pp.
363-366, Vol. 2, Rabuya’s Civil Law Reviewer]
VIII.

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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Pedro’s legal heirs are his legitimate child, Alex, and his three illegitimate chidlren with
Veneranda. Pedro’s chidlren with Veneranda are illegitimate because they were conceived
and born outside of a valid marriage. Alex, on the other hand, is a legitimate child because
she was conceived or born inside a valid marriage.
Pedro’s surviving parents are not legal heirs because they are excluded by Alex. In intestate
succession, the legitimate ascendants do not become legal heirs if there is a surviving
legitimate descendant, such as Alex in the problem. Veneranda is not a legal heir of Pedro
because she and Pedro were not married.
Ordinarily, the share of an illegitimate child in intestate succession is one-half of the share
of the legitimate child. Considering, however, that the three illegitimate chidlren will impair
the legitime of Alex if the foregoing formula is followed, Alex is entitled instead to get his
legitime, which is ½ of the estate, or P2.5 Million, while the remaining P2.5 Million is to be
divided equally among the three illegitimate children of Pedro. Their legitimes in this case
will likewise be their shares in intestate succession. [Discussed in pp. 944, Vol. 1, Rabuya’s
Civil Law Reviewer]
(b) Assuming that Pedro’s will is discovered soon after his funeral. In the will, he
disposed of half of his estate in favor of Veneranda, and the other half in favor 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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, because the testamentary dispositions impair the legitimes of Pedro’s compulsory

heirs.

Following the provisions of the Civil Code, only Alex and Pedro’s three illegitimate children
are Pedro’s compulsory heirs. Since Alex is Pedro’s legitimate descendant and a primary
compulsory heir, she excludes Pedro’s parents as compulsory heirs, the latter being merely
secondary compulsory heirs. However, the three illegitimate chidlren are considered
concurring compulsory heirs who are also entitled to a share of the legitime.
Under the law, the legitime of Alex, being a legitimate descendant, is ½ of Pedro’s estate, or
P2.5 Million. The legitime of each of the illegitimate children is supposed to be ½ of the
share of Alex, or P1.25 Million each. Considering, however, that the remaining portion of the
estate is no longer sufficient to cover the supposed legitimes of the three illegitimate
children, they will simply share equally in the remaining P2.5 Million. Consequently, there is
no disposable free portion that Pedro may validly give to Veneranda or to his parents.
Hence, the will is intrinsically invalid. [Discussed in pp. 859, Vol. 1, Rabuya’s Civil Law
Reviewer]

IX.

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 EIsa’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%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The sale is void because the subject property is a community property which was sold
without the consent of one of the spouses.
Since the marriage of Danny and Elsa was celebrated during the effectivity of the Family
Code without a marriage settlement, their property regime is absolute community of
property, which is the property regime that applies by default under the Family Code in the
absence of a marriage settlement. Under the regime of absolute community, properties
acquired by the future spouses prior to the celebration of the marriage shall become
community property after the marriage. Hence the subject property is a community
property.
Under the regime of absolute community, the disposition or encumbrance of community
property must have the written consent of the other spouse or the authority of the court
without which the disposition or encumbrance is void Here, the sale of the absolute
community property by the husband without the consent of the wife or the authority of the
court renders the sale void, whatever may be the reason for such sale. The husband should
have obtained court authorization in selling the community property for the purpose of
using the proceeds thereof to pay his children’s tuition fees. [[Basis: Articles 75, 91 and 96,
Family Code; discussed in pp. 145, 147 and 153, Vol. 1, Rabuya’s Civil Law Reviewer].

X.

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 25,000.00. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Voidable. Under the Civil Code, a contract where one of the parties is
incapable of giving consent to a contract is voidable. A minor, like Andy in this case, is
incapable of giving consent to a contract. Hence, the contract is voidable. [Basis: Articles
1390(1) and 1327, Civil Code; discussed in p. 278, Vol. 2, Rabuya’s Civil Law Reviewer]
(b) A contract of lease of the Philippine Sea entered by and between Mitoy and Elsa.
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Void. Under the Civil Code, a contract whose cause, object or
purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy is void. The
Philippine Sea is either a property of public dominion (if within Philippine territory) or a
common thing (if outside of Philippine territory) and, therefore, outside the commerce of
men. Hence, it cannot be made the object of a contract. [Basis: Articles 1409(1) and 1347,
Civil Code; discussed in pp. 217 -218, Vol. 2, Rabuya’s Civil Law Reviewer]
(c) A barter of toys executed by 12-year old Clarence and 10-year old Czar (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Unenforceable. Under the Civil Code, a contract where both parties
are incapable of giving consent to a contract is unenforceable. Here, both parties to the
contract are minors and, therefore, incapable of giving consent to a contract. [Basis: Articles
1403(3) and 1327, Civil Code; discussed in p. 278, Vol. 2, Rabuya’s Civil Law Reviewer]
(d)A sale entered by Barri and Garri, both minors, which their parents later ratified.
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Valid. Under the Civil Code, while both parties to the contract are

minors and, therefore, incapable of giving consent, the ratification made by the parents of

both the contracting parties shall nonetheless validate the contract from the inception.

[Basis: Article 1407, Civil Code; discussed in p. 297, Vol. 2, Rabuya’s Civil Law Reviewer]

(e) Jenny’s sale of her car to Celestine in order to evade attachment by Jenny’s
creditors. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Rescissible. Under the Civil Code, a contract undertaken in fraud of

creditors is rescissible when the latter cannot in any other manner collect the claims due

them. [Basis: Article 1381 (3), Civil Code; discussed in p. 256, Vol. 2, Rabuya’s Civil Law

Reviewer]

XI.

Zeny and Nolan were best friends for a long time already. Zeny borrowed 310,000.00
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 your advice be? Explain your answer. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I will advice Nolan to file first an action to fix the term or period because the fulfillment of
the obligation itself cannot be demanded unti after the court has fixed the period for
compliance therewith, and such period has arrived. Any action to compel performance
brought before that would be premature.
Under the Civil Code, when the debtor binds himself when his means permit to do so, the
obligation shall be deemed to be one with a period, but which period shall be fixed by the
court. In such a situation, the court is authorized to fix the period because the duration of
the period depends exclusively upon the will of the debtor. Any action filed prior to the
expiration of the period to be fixed by the court would be premature. [Basis: Articles 1180
and 1197, Civil Code; Concepcion v. People, 74 Phil. 63; Gonzales v. Jose, 66 Phil. 369;
dicussed in pp. 70-72, Vol. 2, Rabuya’s Civil Law Reviewer]
XII.

Krystal owns a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 12345 in Angeles City, Due to severe
financial constraints, Krystal was lorc based in 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 KrystaI’s suit for annulment of sale and reconveyance prosper? Explain your
answer. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, because the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured by the subsequent
transfer of the property to a Filipino citizen who is constitutionally qualified to own land in
the Philippines.
While the Constitutuion prohibits an alien from acquiring or holding title to private lands or
to lands of the public domain in the Philippines, except only by way of hereditary
succession, jurisprudence is consistent that if land is invalidly transferred to an alien who
subsequently becomes a citizen or transfers it to a citizen, the flaw in the original
transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is rendered valid.
In the case at bar, the subsequent transfer of the property to Gloria, a Filipino citizen, has
the effect of curing the defect of the original transaction in favor of RBP Corporation
because the land has since become the property of a Filipino citizen who is constitutionally
qualified to own land. As such, the prior invalid transfer can no longer be assailed because
the objective of the constitutional provision -- to keep our land in Filipino hands -- has been
served. [Basis: United Church Board of World Ministries vs. Sebastian, 159 SCRA 446, 451-
452, March 30, 1988; per Cruz, J. See also Tejido vs. Zamacoma, 138 SCRA 78, August 7,
1985; Sarsosa vda. de Barsobiavs. Cuenco, 113 SCRA 547, April 16, 1982; Godinez vs. Fong
Pak Luen, 120 SCRA 223, January 27, 1983; Yap vs. Maravillas, 121 SCRA 244, March 28,
1983; De Castro vs. Tan, 129 SCRA 85, April 30, 1984]
XIII.

TRUE or FALSE – Explain your answers.

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

SUGGESTED ANSWER: False, because rights which are not patrimonial in nature, such as
the right to liberty, the right to honor, family rights, etc., cannot be considered as property.
[Basis: II Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, 1992 ed., pp. 4-5]
(b) A lessee cannot bring a case for quieting of title respecting the property that he
leases. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: False, because the action may be filed by anyone who has legal or
equitable title to, or interest in, the property which is the subject matter of the action.
Hence, any holder of interest to the property or right to possession of the land, including
the interest of a lessee, may bring an action for quieting of title. [Basis: Article 477, Civil
Code]
(c) Only the city or municipal mayor can file a civil action to abate a public nuisance.
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: False, because under the law it is the district health officer and not
the chief executive of the local government who has been authorized to file a civil action to
abate a public nuisance. [Basis: Article 700, in relation to Article 699, Civil Code; Cruz v.
Pandacan Hiker’s Club, Inc., 778 SCRA 385 (2016), discussed in p. 601, Vol. 1, Rabuya’s Civil
Law Reviewer].
(d) Possession of a movable property is lost when the location of the said movable is
unknown to the owner. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: False, because possession of movables is not deemed lost so long as
they remain under the control of the possessor, even though for the time being he may not
know their whereabouts. [Basis: Article 556, Civil Code; discussed in pp. 485-486, Vol. 1,
Rabuya’s Civil Law Reviewer]
(e) Continuous non-apparent easements can be acquired either through title or by
prescription. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: False, because only continuous and apparent easements can be

acquired either by virtue of a title or by prescription. [Basis: Article 620, Civil Code;

discussed in p. 533, Vol. 1, Rabuya’s Civil Law Reviewer]

XIV.

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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Plutarco acquires ownership over the increased area by virtue of accession. According to
the Civil Code, the accretion gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters
shall belong to the owner of the lands adjoining the banks of rivers.
In order for the above rule to apply, however, the following requisites must be present: (1)
that the deposit of soil be gradual and imperceptible; (2) that it be made through the effects
of the current of the waters; and (3) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to
the banks of the rivers. All foregoing requirements are present in this case. Hence, Plutarco
aquires ownership over the increased area by operation of law. [Basis: Article 457, Civil
Code; Republic v. CA, 132 SCRA 514 (1984); discussed in pp. 402-405, Vol. 1, Rabuya’s Civil
Law Reviewer]
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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, because the dried-up river bed shall continue to belong to the State as its property of
public dominion. As such, it is not susceptible to private appropriation and acquisitive
prescription. Therefore, Plutarco may not validly claim a right of ownership of the dried-up
river bed. [Republic v. Santos III, 685 SCRA 51 (2012); Celestial v. Cachopero, 431 SCRA 469
(2003); 657 SCRA 499 (2011); discussed in p. 409, Vol. 1, Rabuya’s Civil Law Reviewer]

XV.

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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, ABC Bank may proceed directly against Rosella upon Kevin’s default even without
proceeding against Kevin first because Rosella is a surety after she bound herself solidarily
with the principal debtor.
Notwithstanding the use of the word “guaranty” circumstances may be shown which
convert the contract into one of suretyship. Under the Civil Code, when the guarantor binds
himself solidarily with the principal debtor, the contract becomes one of suretyship and not
of guaranty proper. In a contract of suretyship, the liability of the surety is direct, primary
and absolute. He is directly and equally bound with the principal debtor. Such being the
case, a creditor can go directly against the surety although the principal debtor is solvent
and is able to pay or no prior demand is made on the principal debtor. [Basis: Article 2047,
Civil Code; Ong v. PCIB, 448 SCRA 705; discussed in pp. 810-812, Vol. 2, Rabuya’s Civil Law
Reviewer]
In this case, since Rosella is a surety, ABC Bank can go directly against her even without

proceeding against the principal debtor because the surety insures the debt, regardless of

whether or not the principal debtor is financially capable to fulfil his obligation.

XVI.

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 across 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
between the school bus and the train resulted in the instant 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. He insisted that he had exercised the
diligence of a good father of a family in supervising Porfirio, claiming that the latter
had had no history of negligence or recklessness before the fatal accident.

(a) Did his operation of the school bus service for a limited clientele render Jovencio
a common carrier? Explain your answer. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, because a common carrier is one who is engaged in the business of carrying or
transporting passengers or goods or both, or one who holds himself or itself out to the
public as being engaged in said business.
In Perena v. Zarate [679 SCRA 208 (2012)], the Court definitively ruled that the operators of
a school bus service are common carriers even if they are catering to a limited clientele
because of the following reasons: (1) they are engaged in transporting passengers generally
as a business, not just as a casual occupation; (2) they are undertaking to carry passengers
over established roads by the method by which the business was conducted; and (3) they
are transporting students for a fee.
The Court additionally explained that despite catering to a limited clienteè le, they operate as
common carriers because they held themselves out as a ready transportation
indiscriminately to the students of a particular school living within or near where they
operated the service and for a fee. [Discussed and posted on my FB wall as early as October
23, 2017]
(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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Being a common carrier, Jovencio is required to observe extraordinary diligence, and is

presumed to be at fault or to have acted negligently in case of the loss of the effects of
passengers, or the death or injuries to passengers.
In this case, Jovencio is liable for the death of the student because, acting as a common
carrier, he is already presumed to be negligent at the time of the accident because death
had occurred to the passenger. Here, Jovencio failed to fend off liability because he failed to
prove that he observed extraordinary diligence in ensuring the safety of the passengers.
[Basis: Perena v. Zarate, 679 SCRA 208 (2012); discussed and posted on my FB wall as early
as October 23, 2017]
(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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The basis for the computation of the deceased’s earning capacity should be the minimum
wage in effect at the time of his death, pursuant to the ruling of the Court in Perena v. Zarate
[679 SCRA 208 (2012)]. In the same case, the Court also ruled that the computation of the
victim’s life expectancy rate should not be reckoned from his age of 15 years at the time of
his death, but on 21 years, his age when he would have graduated from college.
In the same case, the Court justified the indemnification of the victim’s loss of earning

capacity despite him having been unemployed because compensation of this nature is

awarded not for loss of time or earnings but for loss of the deceased’s power or ability to

earn money.