Answers To Bar Examination in Civil Law

Law Schools
CIVIL LAW Answers to the BAR as Arranged by Topics (Year 1990-2006)
FORWARD
This work is not intended for sale or commerce. This work is freeware. It may be freely
copied and
distributed, nevertheless, PERMISSION TO COPY from the editors is ADVISABLE to
protect the
interest of the ORIGINAL SOURCES/REFERENCES of this material…. It is primarily
intended for
all those who desire to have a deeper understanding of the issues touched by the Philippine
Bar
Examinations and its trend. It is specially intended for law students from the provinces who,
very
often, are recipients of deliberately distorted notes from other unscrupulous law schools and
students. Share to others this work and you will be richly rewarded by God in heaven. It is
also
very good karma.
We would like to seek the indulgence of the reader for some Bar Questions which are
improperly
classified under a topic and for some topics which are improperly or ignorantly phrased, for
the
authors are just Bar Reviewees who have prepared this work while reviewing for the Bar
Exams
under time constraints and within their limited knowledge of the law. We would like to seek
the
reader’s indulgence for a lot of typographical errors in this work.
The Authors
Table of Contents
GENERAL PRINCIPLES .......................................................................................................................................
10
Civil law vs. Common Law (1997) ................................................................................................................................ 10
Effect of Obiter & Dissenting Opinion; SC Decisions (1994) .........................................................................................
10 Effectivity of Laws (1990)
............................................................................................................................................ 10 Equity follows the Law
(2003)...................................................................................................................................... 10 Ignorance of the Law
vs. Mistake of Fact (1996)........................................................................................................... 11 Inferior Courts
Decisions (1994) .................................................................................................................................. 11 Prejudicial
Questions (1997).............................................................................................................................
PERSONS.............................................................................................................................................................. .
1..1.. . .......... 11
Change of Name; Under RA 9048 (2006) ...................................................................................................................... 11
Death; Effects; Simultaneous Death (1998)..................................................................................................................
12 Death; Effects; Simultaneous Death
(1999).................................................................................................................. 12 Death; Effects; Simultaneous
Death (2000).................................................................................................................. 12 Juridical Capacity vs.
Capacity to Act (1996) ............................................................................................................... 12 Juridical Capacity;
Natural Persons (1999) .................................................................................................................. 13 Waiver of Rights
CO(2N0F04L)
I.C...T... ..
O...F... .
L...A...W....S....................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................... .1..3.. .. ................... 13
Appilicable Laws; laws governing contracts (1992) ..................................................................................................... 13
Applicable Laws; Arts 15, 16 & 17 (1998) ..................................................................................................................... 13
Applicable Laws; Arts 15, 16, 17 (2002)........................................................................................................................ 14
Applicable Laws; Capacity to Act (1998)...................................................................................................................... 14
Applicable Laws; Capacity to Buy Land (1995) ............................................................................................................ 15
Applicable Laws; Capacity to Contract (1995).............................................................................................................. 15
Applicable Laws; capacity to succeed (1991)............................................................................................................... 15
Applicable Laws; contracts contrary to public policy (1996) ........................................................................................ 15
Applicable Laws; Contracts of Carriage (1995) ............................................................................................................ 16
Applicable Laws; Labor Contracts (1991) .................................................................................................................... 16
Applicable Laws; laws governing marriages (1992) ..................................................................................................... 17
Applicable Laws; laws governing marriages (2003) ..................................................................................................... 17
Applicable Laws; Sale of Real Property (1995)............................................................................................................. 17
Applicable Laws; Succession; Intestate & Testamentary (2001) ................................................................................... 18
Applicable Laws; Sucession of Aliens (1995)............................................................................................................... 18
Applicable Laws; Wills executed abroad (1993) ........................................................................................................... 18
Definition; Cognovit; Borrowing Statute; Characterization (1994) ................................................................................ 18
Definition; forum non-conveniens; long-arm statute (1994) ......................................................................................... 19
Divorce; effect of divorce granted to former Filipinos; Renvoi Doctrine (1997) ............................................................. 19
Domiciliary theory vs. Nationality Theory (2004) .......................................................................................................... 19
Forum Non Conveniens & Lex Loci Contractus (2002) ................................................................................................. 19
Nationality Theory (2004)............................................................................................................................................. 20
Naturalization (2003) ................................................................................................................................................... 20
Theory; significant relationships theory (1994) ............................................................................................................ 20
Torts; Prescriptive Period (2004) ................................................................................................................................. 21
ADOPTION.................................................................................................................................................................
21
Adoption; Use of Surname of her Natural Mother (2006) .............................................................................................. 21
Inter-Country Adoption; Formalities (2005)..................................................................................................................
21 Parental Authority; Rescission of Adoption (1994)
...................................................................................................... 21 Qualification of Adopter
(2005).................................................................................................................................... 22 Qualification of
Adopter; Applicable Law (2001) .......................................................................................................... 22 Qualifications
of Adopter (2000) .................................................................................................................................. 22
Qualifications of Adopter (2003) ..................................................................................................................................
23 Successional Rights of Adopted Child (2004) ..............................................................................................................
23
FAMILY CODE..........................................................................................................................................................
23
Emancipation (1993) .................................................................................................................................................... 23
Family Code; Retroactive Application; Vested Rights
(2000)........................................................................................ 24
CIVIL LAW Answers to the BAR as Arranged by Topics (Year 1990-2006) Family Home; Dwelling House (1994)
.......................................................................................................................... 24 Family; Constitutional Mandates;
Divorce
(1991) ......................................................................................................... 24 Marriage; Annulment; Effects; Requisites
Before
Remarriage (1990) ........................................................................... 24 Marriage; Annulment; Grounds
(1991)......................................................................................................................... 25 Marriage; Annulment; Judicial
Declaration (1993)........................................................................................................ 25 Marriage; Annulment; Legal
Separation;
Prescription of Actions (1996) ...................................................................... 25 Marriage; Annulment; Proper Party
(1990)................................................................................................................... 26 Marriage; Annulment; Proper Party
(1995)................................................................................................................... 26 Marriage; Divorce Decree; Void
Marriages
(1992) ........................................................................................................ 26 Marriage; Divorce Decrees; Filiation of
Children
(2005) ............................................................................................... 26 Marriage; Divorce Decrees; Filipino Spouses
becoming
Alien (1996)........................................................................... 27 Marriage; Divorce Decrees; Filipino Spouses becoming Alien
(1999)........................................................................... 27 Marriage; Donations by Reason of Marriage; Effect of Declaration
of
Nullity (1996) ..................................................... 28 Marriage; Grounds; Declaration of Nullity: Annulment: Legal Separation:
Separation of Property (2003) ..................... 28 Marriage; Grounds; Nullity; Annulment; Legal Separation
(1997)................................................................................. 29 Marriage; Legal Separation; Declaration of Nullity
(2002)............................................................................................. 29 Marriage; Legal Separation; Grounds; Prescriptive
Period
(1994) ................................................................................ 29 Marriage; Legal Separation; Mutual guilt (2006)
........................................................................................................... 29 Marriage; Non-Bigamous Marriages (2006)
.................................................................................................................. 30 Marriage; Property Relations; Void Marriages
(1991)
................................................................................................... 30 Marriage; Psychological Incapacity
(1996)................................................................................................................... 30 Marriage; Psychological Incapacity
(2006)................................................................................................................... 31 Marriage; Psychological Incapacity
(2006)................................................................................................................... 31 Marriage; Requisites (1995)
......................................................................................................................................... 31 Marriage; Requisites (1999)
......................................................................................................................................... 32 Marriage; Requisites;
Marriage
License (1996) ............................................................................................................ 32 Marriage; Requisites; Marriage
License
(2002) ............................................................................................................ 33 Marriage; Requisites; Solemnizing Officers
(1994)....................................................................................................... 33 Marriage; Requisites; Void Marriage (1993)
................................................................................................................. 33 Marriage; Void Marriages (2004)
.................................................................................................................................. 34 Marriage; Void Marriages (2006)
.................................................................................................................................. 34 Marriage; Void Marriages;
Psychological
Incapacity (2002) ......................................................................................... 35 Parental Authority; Child under 7 years of age
(2006) .................................................................................................. 35 Parental Authority; Special Parental Authority;
Liability
of Teachers (2003)................................................................. 35 Parental Authority; Substitute vs. Special (2004)
......................................................................................................... 35 Paternity & Filiation (1999)
.......................................................................................................................................... 36 Paternity & Filiation;
Artificial
Insemination; Formalities (2006) ................................................................................... 36 Paternity & Filiation; Common-
Law
Union (2004)......................................................................................................... 36 Paternity & Filiation; Proofs;
Limitations;
Adopted Child (1995)................................................................................... 36 Paternity & Filiation; Recognition of
illegitimate
Child (2005)....................................................................................... 37 Paternity & Filiation; Rights of Legitimate Children
(1990)
........................................................................................... 37 Presumptive Legitime (1999)
....................................................................................................................................... 38 Property Relations; Absolute
Community (1994) ......................................................................................................... 38 Property Relations; Ante Nuptial
Agreement (1995) ..................................................................................................... 39 Property Relations; Conjugal
Partnership of
Gains (1998) ........................................................................................... 39 Property Relations; Marriage Settlement;
Conjugal
Partnership of Gains (2005) .......................................................... 39 Property Relations; Marriage Settlements (1991)
......................................................................................................... 40 Property Relations; Marriage Settlements (1995)
......................................................................................................... 40 Property Relations; Obligations; Benefit of the
Family
(2000) ...................................................................................... 41 Property Relations; Unions without Marriage (1992)
.................................................................................................... 41 Property Relations; Unions without Marriage (1997)
.................................................................................................... 41 Property Relations; Unions without Marriage (2000)
.................................................................................................... 42
SUCCESSION...........................................................................................................................................................
42
Amount of Successional Rights (2004) ........................................................................................................................
42
Barrier between illegitimate & legitimate relatives (1993)
............................................................................................. 42 Barrier between illegitimate & legitimate relatives
(1996) ............................................................................................. 43 Collation (1993)
........................................................................................................................................................... 43 Disinheritance
vs. Preterition (1993) ............................................................................................................................ 43
Disinheritance; Ineffective (1999) ................................................................................................................................
43 Disinheritance; Ineffective; Preterition (2000)
.............................................................................................................. 44
CIVIL LAW Answers to the BAR as Arranged by Topics (Year 1990-2006) Heirs; Intestate Heirs; Reserva Troncal (1995)
............................................................................................................. 44 Heirs; Intestate Heirs; Shares
(2003)............................................................................................................................ 45 Intestate Succession
(1992)......................................................................................................................................... 45 Intestate Succession
(2000)......................................................................................................................................... 46 Intestate Succession;
Reserva
Troncal (1999) ............................................................................................................. 47 Legitime
(1997)............................................................................................................................................................ 47 Legitime;
Compulsory Heirs (2003).............................................................................................................................. 47 Legitime;
Compulsory Heirs vs. Secondary Compulsory Heirs (2005).......................................................................... 48 Preterition
(2001)......................................................................................................................................................... 48 Preterition;
Compulsory Heir (1999) ............................................................................................................................ 48 Proceedings;
Intestate Proceedings; Jurisdiction (2004) ............................................................................................. 48 Succession; Death;
Presumptive Legitime (1991) ........................................................................................................ 49 Wills; Codicil;
Institution of
Heirs; Substitution of Heirs (2002).................................................................................... 49 Wills; Formalities (1990)
.............................................................................................................................................. 50 Wills; Holographic Wills;
Insertions & Cancellations (1996) ......................................................................................... 50 Wills; Holographic Wills;
Witnesses
(1994).................................................................................................................. 50 Wills; Joint Wills (2000)
............................................................................................................................................... 50 Wills; Probate; Intrinsic
Validity
(1990) ........................................................................................................................ 51 Wills; Probate; Notarial and
Holographic
Wills (1997) .................................................................................................. 51 Wills; Revocation of Wills; Dependent
Relative
Revocation (2003)............................................................................... 51 Wills; Testamentary Disposition
(2006)........................................................................................................................ 52 Wills; Testamentary Intent (1996)
................................................................................................................................ 52
DONATION ................................................................................................................................................................
52
Donation vs. Sale (2003) .............................................................................................................................................. 52
Donations; Condition; Capacity to Sue (1996) ............................................................................................................. 52
Donations; Conditions; Revocation (1991)................................................................................................................... 53
Donations; Effect; illegal & immoral conditions (1997)................................................................................................. 53
Donations; Formalities; Mortis Causa (1990) ............................................................................................................... 54
Donations; Formalities; Mortis Causa (1998) ............................................................................................................... 54
Donations; Inter Vivos; Acceptance (1993) .................................................................................................................. 54
Donations; Perfection (1998) ....................................................................................................................................... 54
Donations; Requisites; Immovable Property................................................................................................................ 55
Donations; Unregistered; Effects; Non-Compliance; Resolutory Condition (2006) ....................................................... 55
Donations; Validity; Effectivity; for Unborn Child (1999) .............................................................................................. 55
Donations; with Resolutory Condition (2003)............................................................................................................... 56
PROPERTY................................................................................................................................................................
56
Accretion; Alluvion (2001) ........................................................................................................................................... 56
Accretion; Avulsion (2003) ..........................................................................................................................................
56 Builder; Good Faith
(1992)........................................................................................................................................... 57 Builder; Good
Faith vs. Bad Faith (1999) ..................................................................................................................... 57 Builder;
Good Faith vs. Bad Faith (2000) ..................................................................................................................... 57
Builder; Good Faith vs. Bad Faith; Accession (2000)
................................................................................................... 58 Builder; Good Faith vs. Bad Faith; Presumption
(2001)................................................................................................ 58 Chattel Mortgage vs. Pledge (1999)
............................................................................................................................. 58 Chattel Mortgage; Immovables
(1994).......................................................................................................................... 59 Chattel Mortgage;
Immovables (2003).......................................................................................................................... 59 Chattel
Mortgage; Possession (1993) .......................................................................................................................... 60
Chattel Mortgage; Preference of Creditors (1995)
........................................................................................................ 60 Easement vs. Usufruct
(1995)...................................................................................................................................... 60 Easement; Effects;
Discontinuous Easements; Permissive Use (2005) ........................................................................ 61 Easement;
Nuisance; Abatement (2002) ...................................................................................................................... 61
Easements; Classification (1998).................................................................................................................................
62 Easements; Right of Way
(1993).................................................................................................................................. 62 Easements; Right of
Way (2000).................................................................................................................................. 62 Easements; Right
of Way; Inseparability (2001) ........................................................................................................... 62
Page 5 of 119
CIVIL LAW Answers to the BAR as Arranged by Topics (Year 1990-2006) Easements; Right of Way; Requisites (1996)
............................................................................................................... 63 Ejectment Suit vs. Cancellation of Title (2005)
............................................................................................................. 63 Ejectment Suit; Commodatum (2006)
.......................................................................................................................... 63 Extra-Judicial Partition; Fraud
(1990)........................................................................................................................... 63 Hidden Treasure (1995)
............................................................................................................................................... 64 Hidden Treasures (1997)
............................................................................................................................................. 64 Mortgage; Pactum
Commissorium
(1999) .................................................................................................................... 64 Mortgage; Pactum Commissorium
(2001)
.................................................................................................................... 65 Mortgage; Right of Redemption vs. Equity of
Redemption (1999) ................................................................................ 65 Nuisance; Family House; Not Nuisance per se
(2006)
.................................................................................................. 65 Nuisance; Public Nuisance vs. Private Nuisance
(2005)............................................................................................... 65 Ownership; Co-Ownership (1992)
................................................................................................................................ 66 Ownership; Co-Ownership;
Prescription
(2000) ........................................................................................................... 66 Ownership; Co-Ownership; Prescription
(2002)
........................................................................................................... 67 Ownership; Co-Ownership; Redemption (1993)
........................................................................................................... 67 Possession
(1998)....................................................................................................................................................... 68 Property; Real
vs.
Personal Property (1995) ................................................................................................................ 68 Property; Real vs.
Personal
Property (1997) ................................................................................................................ 68 Sower; Good Faith/ Bad Faith
(2000)
........................................................................................................................... 69 Usufruct
(1997)............................................................................................................................................................ 69
LAND TRANSFER & DEEDS...............................................................................................................................
69
Acquisition of Lands; Citizenship Requirement (2003) ................................................................................................. 69
Adverse
Claims; Notice of Levy (1998) ........................................................................................................................ 69 Annotation
of Lis Pendens; When Proper (2001).......................................................................................................... 70 Foreshore
Lands (2000)............................................................................................................................................... 70 Forgery;
Innocent Purchaser; Holder in Bad Faith (2005)............................................................................................. 70 Forgery;
Innocent Purchaser; Mirror Principle (1991) .................................................................................................. 71 Fraud;
Procurement of Patent; Effect (2000) ................................................................................................................ 71
Homestead Patents; Void Sale (1999) .......................................................................................................................... 71
Innocent Purchaser for Value (2001)............................................................................................................................ 72
Mirror Principle (1990) ................................................................................................................................................. 72
Mirror Principle; Forgery; Innocent Purchaser (1999) .................................................................................................. 73
Notice of Lis Pendens (1995) ....................................................................................................................................... 73
Notice of Lis Pendens; Transferee Pendente Lite (2002) .............................................................................................. 73
Prescription & Laches; Elements of Laches (2000) ...................................................................................................... 74
Prescription & Laches; Indefeasibility Rule of Torrens Title (2002) .............................................................................. 74
Prescription (1990) ...................................................................................................................................................... 75
Prescription; Real Rights (1992) .................................................................................................................................. 75
Primary Entry Book; Acquisitive Prescription; Laches (1998) ...................................................................................... 76
Reclamation of Foreshore Lands; Limitations (2000) ................................................................................................... 76
Registration; Deed of Mortgage (1994)......................................................................................................................... 77
Remedies; Judicial Confirmation; Imperfect Title (1993) .............................................................................................. 77
Remedies; Judicial Reconstitution of Title (1996) ........................................................................................................ 77
Remedies; Procedure; Consulta (1994)........................................................................................................................ 77
Remedies; Reconveyance vs. Reopening of a Decree; Prescriptive Period (2003) ........................................................ 78
Remedies; Reconveyance; Elements (1995) ................................................................................................................ 78
Remedies; Reconveyance; Prescriptive Period (1997) ................................................................................................. 79
Remedies; Reopening of a Decree; Elements (1992) .................................................................................................... 79
Torrens System vs. Recording of Evidence of Title (1994) ........................................................................................... 80
Unregistered Land (1991) ............................................................................................................................................ 80
CONTRACTS ............................................................................................................................................................
80
Consensual vs. Real Contracts; Kinds of Real Contracts (1998) ..................................................................................
80
Consideration; Validity (2000)......................................................................................................................................
80 Contract of Option; Elements
(2005)............................................................................................................................ 81 Inexistent Contracts vs.
Annullable Contracts (2004)................................................................................................... 81 Nature of
Contracts; Obligatoriness (1991).................................................................................................................. 81 Nature
of Contracts; Privity of Contract (1996) ............................................................................................................ 82
CIVIL LAW Answers to the BAR as Arranged by Topics (Year 1990-2006) Nature of Contracts; Relativity of
Contracts
(2002) ...................................................................................................... 82 Rescission of Contracts; Proper Party
(1996)
.............................................................................................................. 82
OBLIGATIONS .........................................................................................................................................................
83
Aleatory Contracts; Gambling (2004) ........................................................................................................................... 83
Conditional Obligations (2000) .................................................................................................................................... 83
Conditional Obligations (2003) .................................................................................................................................... 83
Conditional Obligations; Promise (1997) ..................................................................................................................... 84
Conditional Obligations; Resolutory Condition (1999) ................................................................................................. 84
Extinguishment; Assignment of Rights (2001) ............................................................................................................. 84
Extinguishment; Cause of Action (2004)...................................................................................................................... 85
Extinguishment; Compensation (2002) ........................................................................................................................ 85
Extinguishment; Compensation vs. Payment (1998) .................................................................................................... 85
Extinguishment; Compensation/Set-Off; Banks (1998) ................................................................................................ 85
Extinguishment; Condonation (2000) .......................................................................................................................... 85
Extinguishment; Extraordinary Inflation or Deflation (2001) ......................................................................................... 86
Extinguishment; Loss (1994) ....................................................................................................................................... 86
Extinguishment; Loss; Impossible Service (1993) ....................................................................................................... 86
Extinguishment; Novation (1994)................................................................................................................................. 87
Extinguishment; Payment (1995) ................................................................................................................................. 87
Liability; Lease; Joint Liability (2001) .......................................................................................................................... 87
Liability; Solidary Liability (1998)................................................................................................................................. 87
Liability; Solidary Obligation (1992)............................................................................................................................. 88
Liability; Solidary Obligation; Mutual Guaranty (2003) ................................................................................................. 88
Loss of the thing due; Force Majeure (2000) ................................................................................................................ 88
Non-Payment of Amortizations; Subdivision Buyer; When justified (2005)................................................................... 89
Period; Suspensive Period (1991)................................................................................................................................ 89
TRUST.........................................................................................................................................................................
89
Express Trust; Prescription (1997) ..............................................................................................................................
89
Implied Trust (1998).....................................................................................................................................................
90 Trust; Implied Resulting Trust
(1995)..........................................................................................................................SALES........................................
............................................................................. .9..1.. .. ............................................... 91
Assignment of Credit vs. Subrogation (1993) ............................................................................................................... 91
Conditional Sale vs. Absolute Sale (1997).................................................................................................................... 91
Contract of Sale vs. Agency to Sell (1999) ................................................................................................................... 91
Contract of Sale; Marital Community Property; Formalities (2006) ............................................................................... 91
Contract to Sell (2001)................................................................................................................................................. 92
Contract to Sell vs. Contract of Sale (1997) .................................................................................................................. 92
Contract to Sell; Acceptance; Right of First Refusal (1991).......................................................................................... 92
Double Sales (2001)..................................................................................................................................................... 92
Double Sales (2004)..................................................................................................................................................... 93
Equitable Mortgage (1991).......................................................................................................................................... 93
Equitable Mortgage vs. Sale (2005).............................................................................................................................. 93
Immovable Property; Rescission of Contract (2003) .................................................................................................... 94
Maceda Law (2000)...................................................................................................................................................... 94
Maceda Law; Recto Law (1999).................................................................................................................................... 95
Option Contract (2002) ................................................................................................................................................ 95
Option Contract; Earnest Money (1993) ....................................................................................................................... 95
Perfected Sale; Acceptance of Earnest Money (2002) .................................................................................................. 95
Redemption; Legal; Formalities (2001) ........................................................................................................................ 96
Redemption; Legal; Formalities (2002) ........................................................................................................................ 96
Right of First Refusal; Lessee; Effect (1996) ................................................................................................................ 96
Right of First Refusal; Lessee; Effect (1998) ................................................................................................................ 97
Right of Repurchase (1993) ......................................................................................................................................... 97
Transfer of Ownership; Non-Payment of the Price (1991)............................................................................................. 97
Transfer of Ownership; Risk of Loss (1990) ................................................................................................................. 97
LEASE..........................................................................................................................................................................
97
Extinguishment; Total Distruction; Leased Property (1993) .........................................................................................
97
Implied New Lease (1999)............................................................................................................................................
98 Lease of Rural Lands (2000)
........................................................................................................................................ 98 Page 7 of 119
CIVIL LAW Answers to the BAR as Arranged by Topics (Year 1990-2006) Leasee & Lessor; Rights and Obligations (1990)
......................................................................................................... 98 Leasee; Death Thereof; Effects (1997)
......................................................................................................................... 98 Option to Buy; Expired
(2001)...................................................................................................................................... 98 Sublease vs.
Assignment of
Lease; Rescission of Contract (2005) .............................................................................. 99 Sublease; Delay in Payment
of
Rentals (1994) ............................................................................................................. 99 Sublease; Sublessee; Liability
(1999) ........................................................................................................................ 100 Sublease; Sublessee; Liability
(2000) ........................................................................................................................ 100 Sublease; Validity;
Assignment of
Sublease (1990) ................................................................................................... 100
COMMON CARRIERS..........................................................................................................................................
100
Extraordinary Diligence (2000) ..................................................................................................................................
100
AGENCY ...................................................................................................................................................................
101
Agency (2003) ........................................................................................................................................................... 101
Agency vs. Sale (2000) .............................................................................................................................................. 101
Agency; coupled with an interest (2001) ....................................................................................................................
101 Agency; Guarantee Commission (2004).....................................................................................................................
101 Agency; Real Estate Mortgage (2004)
........................................................................................................................ 101 Appointment of Sub-Agent
(1999).............................................................................................................................. 102 General Agency vs.
Special Agency (1992)................................................................................................................ 102 Powers of the
Agent (1994)........................................................................................................................................ 102 Termination;
Effect of Death of Agent (1997) PARTNERSHIP
............. .............................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................. .1..0..3.. .. .................. 103
Composition of Partnerships; Spouses; Corporations (1994) .................................................................................... 103
Conveyance of a Partner’s Share Dissolution (1998)..................................................................................................
103 Dissolution of Partnership (1995)
.............................................................................................................................. 103 Dissolution of Partnership;
Termination (1993).......................................................................................................... 104 Effect of Death of Partner
(1997)................................................................................................................................ 104 Obligations of a Partner
(1992) .................................................................................................................................. 104 Obligations of a
PaCrtOneMrM; IOnDduAsTtrUiaMl P&ar MtneUr T(2U0U0M1)
...........................................................................................................................................................................................
................ .1..0..4.. . ...................... 104
Commodatum (1993) ................................................................................................................................................. 104
Commodatum (2005) .................................................................................................................................................
105 Commodatum vs. Usufruct (1998)
............................................................................................................................. 105 Mutuum vs. Commodatum (2004)
.............................................................................................................................. 106 Mutuum; Interests
(2001)........................................................................................................................................... 106 Mutuum;
Interests (2002)........................................................................................................................................... 106
Mutuum; Interests (2004)...........................................................................................................................................
106
DEPOSIT...................................................................................................................................................................
107
Compensation; Bank Loan (1997) ..............................................................................................................................
107
Deposit; Exchange (1992)..........................................................................................................................................
10S7 U
RETY.................................................................................................................................................................... 107
Recovery of Deficiency (1997) ...................................................................................................................................
107
ANTICHRESIS........................................................................................................................................................
107
Antichresis (1995) ..................................................................................................................................................... 107
PLEDGE ....................................................................................................................................................................
108
Pledge (1994) ............................................................................................................................................................
108
Pledge (2004) ............................................................................................................................................................
108 Pledge; Mortgage; Antichresis (1996)
....Q....U...A...S...I.-..C...O...N....T..R....A...C...T........................................................................................................
.................................................. .1..0..8.. .. ......................................................... 108
Quasi-Contracts; Negotiorium Gestio (1992) .............................................................................................................
109
Quasi-Contracts; Negotiorium Gestio (1993) .............................................................................................................
109 Quasi-Contracts; Negotiorium Gestio (1995)
............................................................................................................. 109 Quasi-Contracts; Solutio Indebiti (2004)
...T...O....R...T...S... .
&... ..
D...A...M....A...G...E...S... .......................................................................................................................................... .
1..1..0.. . .............................................................. 110
Collapse of Structures; Last Clear Chance (1990) ......................................................................................................
110
Damages (1994).........................................................................................................................................................
111 Damages arising from Death of Unborn Child (1991)
................................................................................................. 111 Damages arising from Death of Unborn Child
(2003) ................................................................................................. 111 Death Indemnity
(1994)..............................................................................................................................................P 1a1g1e 8 of
119
CIVIL LAW Answers to the BAR as Arranged by Topics (Year 1990-2006) Defense; Due Diligence in Selection
(2003) ................................................................................................................ 112 Filing of Separate Civil Action; Need for
Reservation (2003) ...................................................................................... 112 Fortuitous Event; Mechanical Defects (2002)
............................................................................................................. 112 Liability; Airline Company; Non-Performance of
an
Obligation (2004)........................................................................ 112 Liability; Airline Company; Non-Performance of an
Obligation
(2005)........................................................................ 113 Liability; Employer; Damage caused by Employees (1997)
........................................................................................ 113 Liability; owner who was in the vehicle (1996)
........................................................................................................... 114 Liability; owner who was in the vehicle (1998)
........................................................................................................... 114 Liability; owner who was in the vehicle (2002)
........................................................................................................... 114 Moral Damages & Atty Fees (2002)
............................................................................................................................ 114 Moral Damages; Non-Recovery
Thereof
(2006) .......................................................................................................... 115 Quasi-Delict (1992)
.................................................................................................................................................... 115 Quasi-Delict (2005)
.................................................................................................................................................... 115 Quasi-Delict; Acts
contrary
to morals (1996) ............................................................................................................. 115 Quasi-Delict; Mismanagement
of
Depositor’s Account (2006).................................................................................... 116 Vicarious Liability (1991)
........................................................................................................................................... 116 Vicarious Liability (2001)
........................................................................................................................................... 117 Vicarious Liability; Public
Utility
(2000) ..................................................................................................................... 118
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ...........................................................................................................................
118
Intellectual Creation (2004) ........................................................................................................................................ 118
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Civil law vs. Common Law (1997)
How would you compare the Civil Law system in its
governance and trend with that of the Common Law system?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As regards "governance": Governance in Civil Law is codal,
statutory and written law. It is additionally derived from case
law. Common law is basically derived from case law.
As regards "trend": Civil law is now tending to rely more and
more on decisions of the courts explaining the laws.
Common law is now codifying laws more and more. So they
are now merging towards similar systems.
Additional Answers:
1. COMMON LAW refers to the traditional part of the
law as distinct from legislation; it refers to the universal part
of law as distinct from particular local customs (Encyclopedia
Americana, Vol. 7). On the other hand, CIVIL LAW is
understood to be that branch of law governing the
relationship of persons in respect of their personal and private
interests as distinguished from both public and international
laws.
In common law countries, the traditional responsibility
has for the most part been with the judges; in civil law
countries, the task is primarily reposed on the lawmakers.
Contemporary practices, however, so indicate a trend
towards centralizing that function to professional groups
that may indeed, see the gradual assimilation in time of
both systems. [Vitug, Civil. Law and Jurisprudence, p.
XX)
2. In Civil Law, the statutes theoretically take
precedence over court decisions interpreting them; while in
Common Law, the court decisions resolving specific cases are
regarded as law rather than the statutes themselves which are,
at the start, merely embodiments of case law. Civil Law is
code law or written law, while Common Law is case law. Civil
Law adopts the deductive method - from the general to the
particular, while the Common Law uses the inductive
approach from the particular to the general. Common Law
relies on equity. Civil Law anchors itself on the letter of the
law. The civilists are for the judge-proof law even as the
Common Law Is judge-made law. Civil Law judges are merely
supposed to apply laws and not interpret them.
Effect of Obiter & Dissenting Opinion; SC Decisions (1994)
2) What are the binding effects of an obiter dictum and a
dissenting opinion? 3) How can a decision of the Supreme
Court be set aside?
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
2) None. Obiter dictum and opinions are not necessary to the
determination of a case. They are not binding and
cannot have the force of official precedents. It is as if the Court
were turning aside from the main topic of the case to collateral
subjects: a dissenting opinion affirms or overrules a claim, right or
obligation. It neither disposes nor awards anything it merely
expresses the view of the dissenter. (Civil Code, Paras]
3) A decision of a division of the Supreme Court maybe set
aside by the Supreme Court sitting en banc, a Supreme Court
decision may be set aside by a contrary ruling of the Supreme
Court itself or by a corrective legislative act of Congress,
although said laws cannot adversely affect those favored
prior to the Supreme Court decision. [Civil Code, Paras).
Effectivity of Laws (1990)
After a devastating storm causing widespread destruction in
four Central Luzon provinces, the executive and legislative
branches of the government agreed to enact a special law
appropriating P1 billion for purposes of relief and
rehabilitation for the provinces. In view of the urgent nature
of the legislative enactment, it is provided in its effectivity
clause that it shall take effect upon approval and after
completion of publication in the Official Gazette and a
newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. The law
was passed by the Congress on July 1, 1990. signed into law
by the President on July 3, 1990, and published in such
newspaper of general circulation on July 7, 1990 and in the
Official Gazette on July 10, 1990.
(a) As to the publication of said legislative enactment, is
there sufficient observance or compliance with the
requirements for a valid publication? Explain your answer.
(b) When did the law take effect? Explain your
answer.
(c) Can the executive branch start releasing and
disbursing funds appropriated by the said law the day
following its approval? Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Yes, there is sufficient compliance. The law itself
prescribes the requisites of publication for its effectivity, and
all requisites have been complied with. (Article 2, Civil Code)
(b) The law takes effect upon compliance with all the
conditions for effectivity, and the last condition was complied
with on July 10, 1990. Hence, the" law became effective on
that date.
(c) No. It was not yet effective when it was approved by
Congress on July 1, 1990 and approved by the President on
July 3, 1990. The other requisites for its effectivity were not
yet complete at the time.
Equity follows the Law (2003)
It is said that ―equity follows the law‖ What do you
understand by this phrase, and what are its basic implications?
5%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
―Equity Follows the law‖ means that courts exercising equity
jurisdiction are bound by rules of law and have no arbitrary
discretion to disregard them. (Arsenal v IAC, 143 SCRA 40
[1986]). Equity is applied only in the absence of
Page 10 of 119
but never against statutory law. (Toyota Motor Phil. V CA 1. The civil action involves an
issue similar or intimately
216 SCRA 236 [1992]).
Ignorance of the Law vs. Mistake of Fact (1996)
Is there any difference in their legal effect between ignorance
of the law and ignorance or mistake of fact?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, there is a difference. While ignorance of the law is not an
excuse for not complying with it, ignorance of fact eliminates
criminal intent as long as there is no negligence (Art, NCC).
In addition, mistake on a doubtful or difficult question of law
may be the basis of good faith (Art. 526. NCC). Mistake of
fact may, furthermore, vitiate consent in a contract and make
it voidable (Art. 1390. NCC).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes. ignorance of the law differs in legal effect from
Ignorance or mistake of fact. The former does not excuse a
party from the legal consequences of his conduct while the
latter does constitute an excuse and is a legal defense.
Inferior Courts Decisions (1994)
Are decisions of the Court of Appeals considered laws?
1) a) No, but decisions of the Court of Appeals may
serve as precedents for inferior courts on points of law not
covered by any Supreme Court decision, and a ruling of the
Court of Appeals may become a doctrine. (Miranda vs..
Imperial 77 Phil. 1066).
b) No. Decisions of the Court of Appeals merely have
persuasive, and therefore no mandatory effect. However, a
conclusion or pronouncement which covers a point of law
still undecided may still serve as judicial guide and it is
possible that the same maybe raised to the status of doctrine.
If after it has been subjected to test in the crucible of analysis,
the Supreme Court should find that it has merits and qualities
sufficient for its consideration as a rule of jurisprudence (Civil
Code, Paras).
Prejudicial Questions (1997)
In the context that the term is used in Civil Law, state the
(a) concept, (b) requisites and (c) consequences of a
prejudicial question.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Concept A prejudicial question is one which must be
decided first before a criminal action may be instituted or
may proceed because a decision therein is vital to the
judgment in the criminal case. In the case of People vs. Adelo
Aragon (L5930, Feb. 17, 1954), the Supreme Court defined it as
one which arises in a case, the resolution of which question is
a logical antecedent of the issues involved in said case and the
cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal (Paras, Vol.
1, Civil. Code Annotation, 1989 ed. p, 194).
(b)
1R equisitesT h e prejudicial question must be determinative of the case
before the court.
2 Jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another
tribunal.
ADDITIONAL ANSWER:
related to the issue raised in the criminal action, and
2. the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the
criminal action may proceed.
(c) Consequences The criminal case must be suspended.
Thus, in a criminal case for damages to one's property, a civil
action that involves the ownership of said property should
first be resolved (De Leon vs. Mabanag. 38 Phil. 202)
PERSONS
Change of Name; Under RA 9048 (2006)
Zirxthoussous delos Santos filed a petition for change of
name with the Office of the Civil Registrar of Mandaluyong
City under the administrative proceeding provided in
Republic Act No. 9048. He alleged that his first name sounds
ridiculous and is extremely difficult to spell and pronounce.
After complying with the requirements of the law, the Civil
Registrar granted his petition and changed his first name
Zirxthoussous to "Jesus." His full name now reads "Jesus
delos Santos."
Jesus delos Santos moved to General Santos City to work in a
multi-national company. There, he fell in love and married Mary
Grace delos Santos. She requested him to have his first name
changed because his new name "Jesus delos Santos" is the same
name as that of her father who abandoned her family and became a
notorious drug lord. She wanted to forget him. Hence, Jesus filed
another petition with the Office of the Local Civil Registrar to
change his first name to "Roberto." He claimed that the change is
warranted because it will eradicate all vestiges of the infamy of Mary
Grace's father.
Will the petition for change of name of Jesus delos Santos to
Roberto delos Santos under Republic Act No. 9048 prosper?
Explain. (10%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, under the law, Jesus may only
change his name once. In addition, the petition for change of
name may be denied on the following grounds:
(1) Jesus is neither ridiculous, nor tainted with dishonor
nor extremely difficult to write or pronounce.
(2) There is no confusion to be avoided or created with
the use of the registered first name or nickname of the
petitioner.
(3) The petition involves the same entry in the same
document, which was previously corrected or changed under
this Order [Rules and Regulations Implementing RA 9048].
What entries in the Civil Registry may be changed or corrected
without a judicial order? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Only clerical or typographical errors
and first or nick names may be changed or corrected without
a judicial order under RA 9048.
Clerical or typographical errors refer to mistakes committed
in the performance of clerical work in writing, copying,
transcribing or typing an entry in the civil register. The
mistake is harmless and innocuous, such as errors in
spelling, visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding, absolute community
amounting to 1 Million Pesos. His
and can be corrected or changed only by reference to other
existing records. Provided, however, that no correction must
involve the change of nationality, age, status or sex of the
petitioner.
Death; Effects; Simultaneous Death (1998)
Jaime, who is 65, and his son, Willy, who is 25, died in a
plane crash. There is no proof as to who died first. Jaime's
only surviving heir is his wife, Julia, who is also Willy's
mother. Willy's surviving heirs are his mother, Julia and his
wife, Wilma.
1. In the settlement of Jaime's estate, can Wilma successfully
claim that her late husband, Willy had a hereditary share since
he was much younger than his father and, therefore, should
be presumed to have survived longer? [3%]
2. Suppose Jaime had a life insurance policy with his wife,
Julia, and his son, Willy, as the beneficiaries. Can Wilma
successfully claim that one-half of the proceeds should
belong to Willy's estate? |2%J
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. No, Wilma cannot successfully claim that Willy had a
hereditary share in his father's estate. Under Art. 43, Civil
Code, two persons "who are called to succeed each other"
are presumed to have died at the same time, in the absence of
proof as to which of them died first. This presumption of
simultaneous death applies in cases involving the question of
succession as between the two who died, who in this case are
mutual heirs, being father and son.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. Yet, Wilma can invoke the presumption of survivorship
and claim that one-half of the proceeds should belong to
Willy's estate, under Sec. 3 (jj) par. 5 Rule 131, Rules of
Court, as the dispute does not involve succession. Under this
presumption, the person between the ages of 15 and 60 years
is deemed to have survived one whose age was over 60 at the
time of their deaths. The estate of Willy endowed with
juridical personality stands in place and stead of Willy, as
beneficiary.
Mr. and Mrs. Cruz, who are childless, met with a serious
motor vehicle accident with Mr. Cruz at the wheel and Mrs.
Cruz seated beside him, resulting in the instant death of Mr.
Cruz. Mrs. Cruz was still alive when help came but she also
died on the way to the hospital. The couple acquired
properties worth One Million (P1 ,000,000.00) Pesos during
their marriage, which are being claimed by the parents of
both spouses in equal shares. Is the claim of both sets of
parents valid and why? (3%)
(b) Suppose in the preceding question, both Mr. and Mrs.
Cruz were already dead when help came, so that no-body
could say who died ahead of the other, would your answer be
the same to the question as to who are entitled to the
properties of the deceased couple? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) No, the claim of both parents is not valid. When Mr. Cruz died,
he was succeeded by his wife and his parents as his intestate heirs
who will share his estate equally. His estate was 0.5 Million
pesos which is his half share in the
wife, will, therefore, inherit O.25 Million Pesos and his parents will
inherit 0.25 Million Pesos. When Mrs. Cruz died, she was
succeeded by her parents as her intestate heirs. They will inherit all
of her estate consisting of her 0.5 Million half share in the absolute
community and her 0.25 Million inheritance from her husband, or a
total of 0.750 Million Pesos.
In sum, the parents of Mr. Cruz will inherit 250,000 Pesos
while the parents of Mrs. Cruz will inherit 750,000 Pesos.
(b) This being a case of succession, in the absence of proof
as to the time of death of each of the spouses, it is presumed
they died at the same time and no transmission of rights
from one to the other is deemed to have taken place.
Therefore, each of them is deemed to have an estate valued
at P500,000,00, or one-half of their conjugal property of P1
million. Their respective parents will thus inherit the entire
P1 Million in equal shares, of P500,000.00 per set of parents.
b) Cristy and her late husband Luis had two children, Rose
and Patrick, One summer, her mother-in-law, aged 70, took
the two children, then aged 10 and 12, with her on a boat trip
to Cebu. Unfortunately, the vessel sank en route, and the
bodies of the three were never found. None of the survivors
ever saw them on the water. On the settlement of her
mother-in-law's estate, Cristy files a claim for a share of her
estate on the ground that the same was inherited by her
children from their grandmother in representation of their
father, and she inherited the same from them. Will her action
prosper? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, her action will not prosper. Since there was no proof as
to who died first, all the three are deemed to have died at the
same time and there was no transmission of rights from one
to another, applying Article 43 of the New Civil Code.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, her action will not prosper. Under Article 43 of the New
Civil Code, inasmuch as there is no proof as to who died first,
all the three are presumed to have died at the same time and
there could be no transmission of rights among them. Her
children not having inherited from their grandmother. Cristy
has no right to share in her mother-inlaw's estate. She cannot
share in her own right as she is not a legal heir of her
mother-in-law. The survivorship provision of Rule 131 of the
Rules of Court does not apply to the problem. It applies only
to those cases where the issue involved is not succession.
Juridical Capacity vs. Capacity to Act (1996)
Distinguish juridical capacity from capacity to act,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
JURIDICAL CAPACITY is the fitness to be the subject of
legal relations while CAPACITY TO ACT is the power or to
do acts with legal effect. The former is inherent in every
natural person and is lost only through death while the latter
is merely acquired and may be lost even before death (Art.
37, NCC).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER;
Juridical capacity, as distinguished from capacity to act: (a) conditions detrimental to the
moral well-being of their
the former is passive while the latter is active, (b) the former
is inherent in a person while the latter is merely acquired, (c)
the former is lost only through death while the latter may be
lost through death or restricted by causes other than death,
and Id) the former can exist without capacity to act while the
latter cannot exist without juridical capacity.
Juridical Capacity; Natural Persons (1999)
Elated that her sister who had been married for five years
was pregnant for the first time, Alma donated P100,000.00 to
the unborn child. Unfortunately, the baby died one hour
after delivery. May Alma recover the P100.000.00 that she
had donated to said baby before it was born considering that
the baby died? Stated otherwise, is the donation valid and
binding? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The donation is valid and binding, being an act favorable to
the unborn child, but only if the baby had an intra-uterine life
of not less than seven months and pro-vided there was due
acceptance of the donation by the proper person representing
said child. If the child had less than seven months of
intra-uterine life, it is not deemed born since it died less than
24 hours following its delivery, in which ease the donation
never became effective since the donee never became a
person, birth being determinative of personality.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Even if the baby had an intra-uterine life of more than seven
months and the donation was properly accepted, it would be
void for not having conformed with the proper form. In
order to be valid, the donation and acceptance of personal
property exceeding five thousand pesos should be in writing.
(Article 748, par. 3)
Waiver of Rights (2004)
B. DON, an American businessman, secured parental consent
for the employment of five minors to play certain roles in two
movies he was producing at home in Makati. They worked at
odd hours of the day and night, but always accompanied by
parents or other adults. The producer paid the children
talent fees at rates better than adult wages.
But a social worker, DEB, reported to OSWD that these
children often missed going to school. They sometimes drank
wine, aside from being exposed to drugs. In some scenes,
they were filmed naked or in revealing costumes. In his
defense, DON contended all these were part of artistic
freedom and cultural creativity. None of the parents
complained, said DON. He also said they signed a contract
containing a waiver of their right to file any complaint in any
office or tribunal concerning the working conditions of their
children acting in the movies.
Is the waiver valid and binding? Why or why not?
Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The waiver is not valid. Although the contracting parties may
establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they
may deem convenient, they may not do so if such are contrary to
law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy (Article
1306, Civil Code). The parents' waiver to file a complaint concerning
the working
children acting in the movies is in violation of the Family Code and
Labor laws. Thus, the waiver is invalid and not binding.
The Child Labor Law is a mandatory and prohibitory law and
the rights of the child cannot be waived as it is contrary to
law and public policy.
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Appilicable Laws; laws governing contracts (1992)
X and Y entered into a contract in Australia, whereby it was
agreed that X would build a commercial building for Y in the
Philippines, and in payment for the construction, Y will
transfer and convey his cattle ranch located in the United
States in favor of X. What law would govern: a) The
validity of the contract? b) The performance of the contract?
c) The consideration of the contract?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The validity of the contract will be governed by Australian
law, because the validity refers to the element of the making
of the contract in this case.
(Optional Addendum:"... unless the parties agreed to be
bound by another law".}
(b) The performance will be governed by the law of the
Philippines where the contract is to be performed.
(c) The consideration will be governed by the law of
tUhnei t ed States where the ranch is located. (Optional Addendum:
In the foregoing cases, when the foreign law would apply, the
absence of proof of that foreign law would render Philippine law
applicable under the "eclectic theory".)
Applicable Laws; Arts 15, 16 & 17 (1998)
Juan is a Filipino citizen residing in Tokyo, Japan. State what
laws govern:
1 His capacity to contract marriage in Japan, [ 1%]
2 His successional rights as regards his deceased
Filipino father's property in Texas, U.S.A. [1%]
3 The extrinsic validity of the last will and testament
which Juan executed while sojourning in Switzerland. [2%]
4 The intrinsic validity of said will. (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Juan's capacity to contract marriage is
governed by Philippine law -i.e., the Family Code -pursuant
to Art. 15, Civil Code, which provides that our laws relating
to, among others, legal capacity of persons are binding upon
citizens of the Philippines even though living abroad.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. By way of exception to the general rule of lex rei sitae
prescribed by the first paragraph of Art. 16. Civil Code, a
person's successional rights are governed by the national law
of the decedent (2nd par.. Art. 16). Since Juan's deceased
Page 13 of 119
father was a Filipino citizen, Philippine law governs Juan's
successional rights.
ANOTHER ANSWER:
2. Juan's successional rights are governed by Philippine law,
pursuant to Article 1039 and the second paragraph of Article
16, both of the Civil Code. Article 1039, Civil Code, provides
that capacity to succeed shall be governed by the "law of the
nation" of the decedent, i.e.. his national law. Article 16
provides in paragraph two that the amount of successional
rights, order of succession, and intrinsic validity of
testamentary succession shall be governed by the "national
law" of the decedent who is identified as a Filipino in the
present problem.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
3. The extrinsic validity of Juan's will is governed by (a)
Swiss law, it being the law where the will was made (Art. 17.
1st par. Civil Code), or (b) Philippine law, by implication
from the provisions of Art. 816, Civil Code, which allows
even an alien who is abroad to make a will in conformity
with our Civil Code.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4. The intrinsic validity of his will is governed by Philippine
law, it being his national law. (Art. 16, Civil Code)
Applicable Laws; Arts 15, 16, 17 (2002)
Felipe and Felisa, both Filipino citizens, were married in
Malolos, Bulacan on June 1, 1950. In 1960 Felipe went to the
United States, becoming a U.S. citizen in 1975. In 1980 they
obtained a divorce from Felisa, who was duly notified of the
proceedings. The divorce decree became final under
California Law. Coming back to the Philippines in 1982,
Felipe married Sagundina, a Filipino Citizen. In 2001, Filipe,
then domiciled in Los Angeles, California, died, leaving one
child by Felisa, and another one by Sagundina. He left a will
which he left his estate to Sagundina and his two children and
nothing to Felisa. Sagundina files a petition for the probate of
Felipe’s will. Felisa questions the intrinsic validity of the will,
arguing that her marriage to Felipe subsisted despite the
divorce obtained by Felipe because said divorce is not
recognized in the Philippines. For this reason, she claims that
the properties and that Sagundina has no successional rights.
A. Is the divorce secured by Felipe in California
recognizable and valid in the Philippines? How does it affect
Felipe’s marriage to Felisa? Explain. (2%).
B. What law governs the formalities of the will? Explain.
(1%)
C. Will Philippine law govern the intrinsic validity of
the will? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. (1.) The divorce secured by Felipe in California is
recognizable and valid in the Philippines because he was no
longer a Filipino at that time he secured it, Aliens may obtain
divorces abroad which may be recognized in the Philippines
provided that they are valid according to their national law
(Van Dorn V. Romillo, Jr., 139 SCRA 139 [1985]; Quita v.
Court of Appeals, 300 SCRA 406 [1998]; Llorente v. Court of
Appeals, 345 SCRA 595 [2000] ).
(2). With respect to Felipe the divorce is valid, but with
respect to Felisa it is not. The divorce will not capacitate
Felisa to remarry because she and Felipe were both Filipinos
at the time of their marriage. However, in DOJ Opinion No.
134 series of 1993, Felisa is allowed to remarry because the
injustice sought to be corrected by Article 26 also obtains in
her case.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B. The foreigner who executes his will in the Philippines may
observed the formalities described in:
1. The Law of the country of which he is a citizen under
Article 817 of the New Civil Code, or
2. the law of the Philippines being the law of the place of
execution under Article 17 of the New Civil Code.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
C. Philippine law will not govern the intrinsic validity of the
will. Article 16 of the New Civil Code provides that intrinsic
validity of testamentary provisions shall be governed by the
National Law of the person whose succession is under
consideration. California law will govern the intrinsic validity
of the will.
Applicable Laws; Capacity to Act (1998)
Francis Albert, a citizen and resident of New Jersey, U.S.A.,
under whose law he was still a minor, being only 20 years of
age, was hired by ABC Corporation of Manila to serve for two
years as its chief computer programmer. But after serving for
only four months, he resigned to join XYZ Corporation,
which enticed him by offering more advantageous terms. His
first employer sues him in Manila for damages arising from the
breach of his contract of employment. He sets up his minority
as a defense and asks for annulment of the contract on that
ground. The plaintiff disputes this by alleging that since the
contract was executed in the Philippines under whose law the
age of majority is 18 years, he was no longer a minor at the
time of perfection of the contract.
1 Will the suit prosper? [3%]
2 Suppose XYZ Corporation is impleaded as a codefendant,
what would be the basis of its liability, if any?
[2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. The suit will not prosper under Article 15, Civil Code,
New Jersey law governs Francis Albert's capacity to act, being
his personal law from the standpoint of both his nationality
and his domicile. He was, therefore, a minor at the time he
entered into the contract.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
1. The suit will not prosper. Being a U.S. national, Albert's
capacity to enter into a contract is determined by the law of
the State of which he is a national, under which he to still a
minor. This is in connection with Article 15 of the Civil Code
which embodies the said nationality principle of lex patriae.
While this principle intended to apply to Filipino citizens
under that provision, the Supreme Court in Recto v. Harden
is of the view that the status or capacity of foreigners is to be
determined on the basis of the same provision or principle,
i.e., by U.S. law in the present problem.
persons is governed by the law of his nationality, capacity
Plaintiffs argument does not hold true, because status or
capacity is not determined by lex loci contractus but by lex
patriae.
ANOTHER ANSWER:
1. Article 17 of the Civil Code provides that the forms and
solemnities of contracts, wills and other public instruments
shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are
executed.
Since the contract of employment was executed in Manila,
Philippine law should govern. Being over 18 years old and no
longer a minor according to Philippine Law, Francis Albert
can be sued. Thus, the suit of ABC Corporation against him
for damages will prosper.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. XYZ Corporation, having enticed Francis Albert to break
his contract with the plaintiff, may be held liable for damages
under Art. 1314, Civil Code.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
2. The basis of liability of XYZ Corporation would be
Article 28 of the Civil Code which states that: "Unfair
competition in agricultural, commercial, or industrial
enterprises or in labor through the use of force, intimidation,
deceit, machination or any other unjust, oppressive or
highhanded method shall give rise to a right of action by the
person who thereby suffers damage."
ANOTHER ANSWER:
2. No liability arises. The statement of the problem does not
in any way suggest intent, malice, or even knowledge, on the
part of XYZ Corporation as to the contractual relations
between Albert and ABC Corporation.
Applicable Laws; Capacity to Buy Land (1995)
3. What law governs the capacity of the Filipino to buy the
land? Explain your answer and give its legal basis.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Philippine law governs the capacity of the Filipino to buy the
land. In addition to the principle of lex rei sitae given above.
Article 15 of the NCC specifically provides that Philippine
laws relating to legal capacity of persons are binding upon
citizens of the Philippines no matter where they are.
Applicable Laws; Capacity to Contract (1995)
2. What law governs the capacity of the Japanese to sell the
land? Explain your answer and give its legal basis.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Japanese law governs the capacity of the Japanese to sell the
land being his personal law on the basis of an interpretation
of Art. 15, NCC.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS;
a) Since capacity to contract is governed by the personal law
of an individual, the Japanese seller's capacity should be
governed either by his national law (Japanese law) or by the
law of his domicile, depending upon whether Japan follows
the nationality or domiciliary theory of personal law for its
citizens.
b) Philippine law governs the capacity of the Japanese owner
in selling the land. While as a general rule capacity of
concerning transactions involving property is an exception.
Under Article 16 of the NCC the capacity of persons in
transactions involving title to property is governed by the law
of the country where the property is situated. Since the
property is in the Philippines, Philippine law governs the
capacity of the seller.
Applicable Laws; capacity to succeed (1991)
Jacob, a Swiss national, married Lourdes, a Filipina, in Berne,
Switzerland. Three years later, the couple decided to reside in
the Philippines. Jacob subsequently acquired several
properties in the Philippines with the money he inherited
from his parents. Forty years later. Jacob died intestate, and is
survived by several legitimate children and duly recognized
illegitimate daughter Jane, all residing in the Philippines.
(a) Suppose that Swiss law does not allow illegitimate children
to inherit, can Jane, who is a recognized illegitimate child,
inherit part of the properties of Jacob under Philippine law?
(b) Assuming that Jacob executed a will leaving certain
properties to Jane as her legitime in accordance with the law
of succession in the Philippines, will such testamentary
disposition be valid?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Yes. As stated in the problem. Swiss law does not allow
illegitimate children to inherit Hence, Jane cannot inherit the
property of Jacob under Philippine law.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B. The testamentary disposition will not be valid if it would
contravene Swill law; otherwise, the disposition would be
valid. Unless the Swiss law is proved, it would be presumed
to be the same as that of Philippine law under the Doctrine of
Processual Presumption.
Applicable Laws; contracts contrary to public policy (1996)
Alma was hired as a domestic helper in Hongkong by the
Dragon Services, Ltd., through its local agent. She executed a
standard employment contract designed by the Philippine
Overseas Workers Administration (POEA) for overseas
Filipino workers. It provided for her employment for one
year at a salary of US$1,000.00 a month. It was submitted to
and approved by the POEA. However, when she arrived in
Hongkong, she was asked to sign another contract by Dragon
Services, Ltd. which reduced her salary to only US$600.00 a
month. Having no other choice, Alma signed the contract but
when she returned to the Philippines, she demanded payment
of the salary differential of US$400.00 a month. Both Dragon
Services, Ltd. and its local agent claimed that the second
contract is valid under the laws of Hongkong, and therefore
binding on Alma. Is their claim correct? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Their claim is not correct. A contract is the law between the
parties but the law can disregard the contract if it is contrary
to public policy. The provisions of the 1987 Constitution on
the protection of labor and on social justice (Sec. 10. Art II)
embody a public policy of the Philippines. Since the
application of Hongkong law in this case is in violation of
that public policy, the application shall be disregarded by Court of Appeals (G.R No.
104235, Nov. 10, 1993) the
our Courts. (Cadalin v. POEA. 238 SCRA 762)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS;
a) Their claim is not correct. Assuming that the second
contract is binding under Hongkong law, such second
contract is invalid under Philippine law which recognizes as
valid only the first contract. Since the case is being litigated in
the Philippines, the Philippine Court as the forum will not
enforce any foreign claim obnoxious to the forum's public
policy. There is a strong public policy enshrined in our
Constitution on the protection of labor. Therefore, the
second contract shall be disregarded and the first contract will
be enforced. (Cadalin v. POEA, 238 SCRA 762).
b) No, their claim is not correct. The second contract
executed in Hongkong, partakes of the nature of a waiver that
is contrary to Philippine law and the public policy governing
Filipino overseas workers. Art. 17, provides that our
prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts, or their
property or which have for their object public order, public
policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by
laws or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. Besides,
Alma's consent to the second contract was vitiated by undue
influence, being virtually helpless and under financial distress
in a foreign country, as indicated by the given fact that she
signed because she had no choice. Therefore, the defendants
claim that the contract is valid under Hongkong law should be
rejected since under the DOCTRINE OF PROCESSUAL
PRESUMPTION a foreign law is deemed similar or identical
to Philippine law in the absence of proof to the contrary, and
such is not mentioned in the problem as having been adduced.
Applicable Laws; Contracts of Carriage (1995)
On 8 December 1991 Vanessa purchased from the Manila
office of Euro-Aire an airline ticket for its Flight No. 710
from Dallas to Chicago on 16 January 1992. Her flight
reservation was confirmed. On her scheduled departure
Vanessa checked in on time at the Dallas airport. However, at
the check-in counter she discovered that she was waitlisted
with some other passengers because of intentional
overbooking, a Euro-Aire policy and practice. Euro-Alre
admitted that Vanessa was not advised of such policy when
she purchased her plane ticket. Vanessa was only able to fly
two days later by taking another airline.
Vanessa sued Euro-Aire in Manila for breach of contract and
damages. Euro-Aire claimed that it cannot be held liable for
damages because its practice of overbooking passengers was
allowed by the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. Vanessa on
the other hand contended that assuming that the U.S. Code
of Federal Regulations allowed Intentional overbooking, the
airline company cannot invoke the U.S. Code on the ground
that the ticket was purchased in Manila, hence, Philippine law
should apply, under which Vanessa can recover damages for
breach of contract of carriage. Decide. Discuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Vanessa can recover damages under Philippine law for breach
of contract of carriage, Philippine law should govern as the
law of the place where the plane tickets were bought and the
contract of carriage was executed. In Zalamea v.
Supreme Court applied Philippine law in recovery of damages
for breach of contract of carriage for the reason that it is the
law of the place where the contract was executed.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
If the violation of the contract was attended with bad faith,
there is a ground to recover moral damages. But since there
was a federal regulation which was the basis of the act
complained of, the airline cannot be in bad faith. Hence, only
actual damages can be recovered. The same is true with
regards to exemplary damages.
Applicable Laws; Labor Contracts (1991)
A. The Japan Air Lines (JAL), a foreigner corporation
licensed to do business in the Philippines, executed in Manila
a contract of employment with Maritess Guapa under which
the latter was hired as a stewardess on the aircraft flying the
Manila-Japan-Manila route. The contrast specifically provides
that (1) the duration of the contract shall be two (2) years, (2)
notwithstanding the above duration, JAL may terminate the
agreement at any time by giving her notice in writing ten (10)
days in advance, and (3) the contract shall be construed as
governed under and by the laws of Japan and only the court
in Tokyo, Japan shall have the jurisdiction to consider any
matter arising from or relating to the contract.
JAL dismissed Maritess on the fourth month of her
employment without giving her due notice. Maritess then filed
a complaint with the Labor Arbiter for reinstatement,
backwages and damages. The lawyer of JAL contends that
neither the Labor Arbiter nor any other agency or court in the
Philippines has jurisdiction over the case in view of the above
provision (3) of the contract which Maritess voluntarily
signed. The contract is the law between her and JAL. Decide
the issue.
B. Where under a State's own conflicts rule that domestic law
of another State should apply, may the courts of the former
nevertheless refuse to apply the latter? If so, under what
circumstance?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A, Labor Legislations are generally intended as expressions of
public policy on employer-employee relations. The contract
therefore, between Japan Air Lines (JAL) and Maritess may
apply only to the extent that its provisions are not inconsistent
with Philippine labor laws intended particularly to protect
employees.
Under the circumstances, the dismissal of Maritess without
complying with Philippine Labor law would be invalid and
any stipulation in the contract to the contrary is considered
void. Since the law of the forum in this case is the Philippine
law the issues should-be resolved in accordance with
Philippine law.
B. The third paragraph of Art. 17 of the Civil Code provides
that:
"Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or
property, and those which have for their object public
order, public policy and good customs shall not be
rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or
by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign
country."
Accordingly, a state's own conflict of laws rule may,
exceptionally be inapplicable, given public policy
considerations by the law of the forum.
Going into the specific provisions of the contract in question,
I would rule as follows:
1 The duration of the contract is not opposed to Philippine
law and it can therefore be valid as stipulated;
2 The second provision to the effect that notwithstanding
duration, Japan Air Lines (JAL) may terminate her employment is
invalid, being inconsistent with our Labor laws;
3 That the contract shall be construed as governed under and
by the laws of Japan and only the courts of Tokyo, Japan shall have
jurisdiction, is invalid as clearly opposed to the aforecited third
paragraph of Arts. 17 and 1700 of the Civil Code, which provides:
"Art. 1700. The relations between capital and labor
are not merely contractual. They are so impressed
with public interest that labor contracts must yield
to the common good. Therefore, such contracts are
subject to the special laws on labor unions,
collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts, closed
shop, wages, working conditions, hours of labor
and similar subjects."
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER;
A. When a contract has a foreign element such as in the
factual setting stated in the problem where one of the parties
is a foreign corporation, the contract can be sustained as valid
particularly the stipulation expressing that the contract is
governed by the laws of the foreign country. Given this
generally accepted principle of international law, the contract
between Maritess and JAL is valid and it should therefore be
enforced.
Applicable Laws; laws governing marriages (1992)
In 1989, Maris, a Filipino citizen, married her boss Johnson,
an American citizen, in Tokyo in a wedding ceremony
celebrated according to Japanese laws. One year later,
Johnson returned to his native Nevada, and he validly
obtained in that state an absolute divorce from his wife Maris.
After Maris received the final judgment of divorce, she
married her childhood sweetheart Pedro, also a Filipino
citizen, in a religious ceremony in Cebu City, celebrated
according to the formalities of Philippine law. Pedro later left
for the United States and became naturalized as an American
citizen. Maris followed Pedro to the United States, and after a
serious quarrel, Maris filed a suit and obtained a divorce
decree issued by the court in the state of Maryland.
Maris then returned to the Philippines and in a civil ceremony
celebrated in Cebu City according to the formalities of
Philippine law, she married her former classmate Vincent
likewise a Filipino citizen. a) Was the marriage of Maris and
Johnson valid when celebrated? Is their marriage still validly
existing now? Reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The marriage of Mans and Johnson was valid when
celebrated because all marriages solemnized outside the
Philippines (Tokyo) in accordance with the laws in force in
the country where they are solemnized (Japan), and valid
there as such, are also valid in the Philippines.
Their marriage no longer validly subsists, because it has been
dissolved by the absolute divorce validly obtained by Johnson
which capacitated Maris to remarry (Art. 26. Family Code).
Applicable Laws; laws governing marriages (2003)
Gene and Jane, Filipino, met and got married in England
while both were taking up post-graduate courses there. A few
years after their graduation, they decided to annul their
marriage. Jane filed an action to annul her marriage to Gene in
England on the ground of latter’s sterility, a ground for
annulment of marriage in England. The English court
decreed the marriage annulled. Returning to the Philippines,
Gene asked you whether or not he would be free to marry his
former girlfriend. What would your legal advice be? 5%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Gene is not free to marry his former girlfriend. His
marriage to Jane is valid according to the forms and
solemnities of British law, is valid here (Article 17, 1st par.,
NCC). However, since Gene and Jane are still Filipinos
although living in England, the dissolution of their marriage is
still governed by Philippine law (Article 15, NCC). Since,
sterility is not one of the grounds for the annulment of a
marriage under Article 45 of the Family Code, the annulment
of Gene’s marriage to Jane on that ground is not valid in the
Philippines (Article 17, NCC)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, Gene is free to marry his girlfriend because his marriage
was validly annulled in England. The issue of whether or not
a marriage is voidable, including the grounds therefore, is
governed by the law of the place where the marriage was
solemnized (lex loci celebrationis). Hence, even if sterility is
not a ground to annul the marriage under the Philippine law,
the marriage is nevertheless voidable because sterility makes
the marriage voidable under English law. Therefore,
annulment of the marriage in England is valid in the
Philippines.
Applicable Laws; Sale of Real Property (1995)
While in Afghanistan, a Japanese by the name of Sato sold to
Ramoncito, a Filipino, a parcel of land situated in the
Philippines which Sato inherited from his Filipino mother.
1. What law governs the formality in the execution of the
contract of sale? Explain your answer and give its legal basis.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under Art. 16 par. 1, NCC, real property is subject to the 3. The distribution of the personal
properties in Germany
law of the country where it is situated. Since the property is
situated in the Philippines, Philippine law applies. The rule of
lex rei sitae in Article 16 prevails over lex loci contractu in
Article 17 of the NCC.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Afghanistan law governs the formal requirements of the
contract since the execution is in Afghanistan. Art. 17 of the
Civil Code provides that the forms and solemnities of
contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be
governed by the laws of the country in which they are
executed. However, if the contract was executed before the
diplomatic or consular officials of the Republic of the
Philippines in Afghanistan, Philippine law shall apply.
Applicable Laws; Succession; Intestate & Testamentary
(2001)
Alex was born a Filipino but was a naturalized Canadian
citizen at the time of his death on December 25, 1998. He left
behind a last will and testament in which he bequeathed all
his properties, real and personal, in the Philippines to his
acknowledged illegitimate Fillpina daughter and nothing to
his two legitimate Filipino sons. The sons sought the
annulment of the last will and testament on the ground that it
deprived them of their legitimes but the daughter was able to
prove that there were no compulsory heirs or legitimes under
Canadian law. Who should prevail? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The daughter should prevail because Article 16 of the New
Civil Code provides that intestate and testamentary succession
shall be governed by the national law of the person whose
succession is under consideration.
Applicable Laws; Sucession of Aliens (1995)
Michelle, the French daughter of Penreich, a German
national, died in Spain leaving real properties in the
Philippines as well as valuable personal properties in
Germany.
1. What law determines who shall succeed the deceased?
Explain your answer and give its legal basis.
2. What law regulates the distribution of the real properties
in the Philippines? Explain your answer and give its legal
basis.
3. What law governs the distribution of the personal
properties in Germany? Explain your answer and give its
legal basis.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Assuming that the estate of the decedent is being settled in
the Philippines)
1. The national law of the decedent (French law) shall govern
in determining who will succeed to his estate. The legal basis
is Art. 16 par. 2, NCC.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
French law shall govern the distribution of his real properties
in the Philippines except when the real property is land which
may be transmitted to a foreigner only by hereditary
succession.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. The distribution of the real properties in the Philippines
shall be governed by French law. The legal basis is Art. 16,
NCC).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
shall be governed by French law. The legal basis is Art. 16,
NCC).
Applicable Laws; Wills executed abroad (1993)
A, a Filipino, executed a will in Kuwait while there as a
contract worker. Assume that under the laws of Kuwait, it is
enough that the testator affix his signature to the presence of
two witnesses and that the will need not be acknowledged
before a notary public. May the will be probated in the
Philippines?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Under Articles 815 and 17 of the Civil Code, the
formality of the execution of a will is governed by the law of
the place of execution. If the will was executed with the
formalities prescribed by the laws of Kuwait and valid there
as such, the will is valid and may be probated in the
Philippines.
Definition; Cognovit; Borrowing Statute;
Characterization(1994)
In Private International Law (Conflict of Laws) what is:
1} Cognovit? 2) A borrowing statute? 3)
Characterization?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) a) COGNOVIT is a confession of judgment whereby a
portion of the complaint is confessed by the defendant who
denies the rest thereof (Philippine law Dictionary, 3rd Ed.)
(Ocampo v. Florenciano, L-M 13553, 2/23/50).
b) COGNOVIT is a "statement of confession" Oftentimes, it
is referred to as a "power of attorney" or simply as a "power",
it is the written authority of the debtor and his direction to the
clerk of the district court, or justice of the peace to enter
judgment against the debtor as stated therein. (Words and
Phrases, vol. 7, pp. 115-166).
c) COGNOVIT is a plea in an action which acknowledges
that the defendant did undertake and promise as the plaintiff
in its declaration has alleged, and that it cannot deny that it
owes and unjustly detains from the plaintiff the sum claimed
by him in his declaration, and consents that judgment be
entered against the defendant for a certain sum. [Words and
Phrases, vol. 7, pp. 115-166).
d) COGNOVIT is a note authorizing a lawyer for confession
of judgment by defendant.
2) "BORROWING STATUTE" -Laws of the state or
jurisdiction used by another state in deciding conflicts
questioned involved in the choice of law (Black's Law
Dictionary, 5th ed. 1979).
3) a) "CHARACTERIZATION" is otherwise called
"classification" or "qualification." It is the process of assigning
a disputed question to its correct legal category (Private
International Law, Salonga).
b) "CHARACTERIZATION" is a process in determining
under what category a certain set of facts or rules fall. (Paras,
Conflict of Laws, p. 94. 1984 ed.)
Definition; forum non-conveniens; long-arm statute (1994)
1) What is the doctrine of Forum non conveniens?
2) What is a "long arm statute"?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) a) FORUM NON CONVENIENS is a principle in Private
International Law that where the ends of justice strongly
indicate that the controversy may be more suitably tried
elsewhere, then jurisdiction should be declined and the
parties relegated to relief to be sought in another forum.
(Moreno. Philippine Law Dictionary, p. 254, 1982 ed.).
b) Where in a broad sense the ends of justice strongly
indicate that the controversy may be more suitably tried
elsewhere, then jurisdiction should be declined and the
parties relegated to relief to be sought in another forum.
(Handbook on Private International Law, Aruego).
c) FORUM NON CONVENIENS means simply that a
court may resist imposition upon its jurisdiction even when
jurisdiction is authorized by the letter of a general venue
statute. (Salonga. Private International Law. p, 51. 1967 ed.)
d) Forum non conveniens is a doctrine whereby a court of
law having full Jurisdiction over a case brought in a proper
venue or district declines to determine the case on its merits
because Justice would be better served by the trial over the
case in another jurisdiction. (Webster's Dictionary)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(2} a) LONG ARM STATUTE is a legislative act which
provides for personal jurisdiction, via substituted service or
process, over persons or corporations which are nonresidents
of the state and which voluntarily go into the state, directly or
by agent or communicate with persons in the state for limited
purposes, inactions which concern claims relating to
performance or execution of those purposes (Black's Law
Dictionary, 5th Ed. 1979).
b) Long arm statute refers simply to authorized substituted
service.
Divorce; effect of divorce granted to former Filipinos; Renvoi
Doctrine (1997)
In 1977, Mario and Clara, both Filipino citizens, were married
in the Philippines. Three years later, they went to the United
States of America and established their residence in San
Francisco, California. In 1987, the couple applied for, and
were granted, U.S. citizenship. In 1989, Mario, claiming to
have been abandoned by Clara, was able to secure a decree of
divorce in Reno, Nevada, U.S.A.
In 1990, Mario returned to the Philippines and married Juana
who knew well Mario's past life.
(a) Is the marriage between Mario and Juana
valid?
(b) Would the renvoi doctrine have any relevance to the case?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Yes, because Phil law recognizes the divorce between
Mario and Clara as valid.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) No, The renvoi doctrine is relevant in cases where one country
applies the domiciliary theory and the other the
nationality theory, and the issue involved is which of the laws of the
two countries should apply to determine the order of succession,
the amount of successional rights, or, the intrinsic validity of
testamentary provisions. Such issue is not involved in this case.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes. "Renvoi" - which means "referring back" is relevant
because here, we are applying U.S. law to Mario, being already
its citizen, although the formalities of the second marriage will
be governed by Philippine law under the principle of lex loci
celebrationis.
Domiciliary theory vs. Nationality Theory (2004)
Distinguish briefly but clearly between: Domiciliary theory
and nationality theory of personal law. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
DOMICILIARY THEORY posits that the personal status
and rights of a person are governed by the law of his domicile
or the place of his habitual residence. The NATIONALITY
THEORY, on the other hand, postulates that it is the law of
the person's nationality that governs such status and rights
Forum Non Conveniens & Lex Loci Contractus (2002)
Felipe is a Filipino citizen. When he went to Sydney for
vacation, he met a former business associate, who proposed
to him a transaction which took him to Moscow. Felipe
brokered a contract between Sydney Coals Corp. (Coals), an
Australian firm, and Moscow Energy Corp. (Energy), a
Russian firm, for Coals to supply coal to Energy on a
monthly basis for three years. Both these firms were not
doing, and still do not do, business in the Philippines. Felipe
shuttled between Sydney and Moscow to close the contract.
He also executed in Sydney a commission contract with Coals
and in Moscow with Energy, under which contracts he was
guaranteed commissions by both firms based on a percentage
of deliveries for the three-year period, payable in Sydney and
in Moscow, respectively, through deposits in accounts that he
opened in the two cities. Both firms paid Felipe his
commission for four months, after which they stopped
paying him. Felipe learned from his contacts, who are
residents of Sydney and Moscow, that the two firms talked to
each other and decided to cut him off. He now files suit in
Manila against both Coals and Energy for specific
performance.
A. Define or explain the principle of ―lex loci
contractus‖. (2%)
B. Define or explain the rule of ―forum non
conveniens‖ (3%)
C. Should the Philippine court assume jurisdiction
over the case? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. LEX LOCI CONTRACTUS may be understood in two
senses, as follows:
(1) It is the law of the place where contracts, wills, and
other public instruments are executed and governs their
―forms and solemnities‖, pursuant to the first paragraph,
Article 17 of the New Civil Code; or
(2) It is the proper law of the contract; e.i., the system of
law intended to govern the entire contract, including its
essential requisites, indicating the law of the place with
which the contract has its closest connection or

where the main elements of the contract converge. As country of which they are citizens.
Since their marriage is
illustrated by Zalamea v. Court of Appeals (228 SCRA 23
[1993]), it is the law of the place where the airline ticket
was issued, where the passengers are nationals and
residents of, and where the defendant airline company
maintained its office.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A. Under the doctrine of lex loci contractus, as a general rule,
the law of the place where a contract is made or entered into
governs with respect to its nature and validity, obligation and
interpretation. This has been said to be the rule even though
the place where the contract was made is different from the
place where it is to be performed, and particularly so, if the
place of the making and the place of performance are the
same (United Airline v. CA, G.R. No. 124110, April 20, 2001).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B. FORUM NON CONVENIENS means that a court has
discretionary authority to decline jurisdiction over a cause of
action when it is of the view that the action may be justly and
effectively adjudicated elsewhere.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
C. No, the Philippine courts cannot acquire jurisdiction over
the case of Felipe. Firstly, under the rule of forum non
conveniens, the Philippine court is not a convenient forum as
all the incidents of the case occurred outside the Philippines.
Neither are both Coals and Energy doing business inside the
Philippines. Secondly, the contracts were not perfected in the
Philippines. Under the principle of lex loci contractus, the law
of the place where the contract is made shall apply. Lastly, the
Philippine court has no power to determine the facts
surrounding the execution of said contracts. And even if a
proper decision could be reached, such would have no biding
effect on Coals and Energy as the court was not able to
acquire jurisdiction over the said corporations. (Manila Hotel
Corp. v. NLRC. 343 SCRA 1, 1314[2000])
Nationality Theory (2004)
PH and LV are HK Chinese. Their parents are now Filipino
citizens who live in Manila. While still students in MNS
State, they got married although they are first cousins. It
appears that both in HK and in MNS State first cousins could
marry legally.
They plan to reside and set up business in the Philippines.
But they have been informed, however, that the marriage of
first cousins here is considered void from the beginning by
reason of public policy. They are in a dilemma. They don’t
want to break Philippine law, much less their marriage vow.
They seek your advice on whether their civil status will be
adversely affected by Philippine domestic law? What is your
advice? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
My advise is as follows: The civil status of' PH and LV will not be
adversely affected by Philippine law because they are nationals of
Hong Kong and not Filipino citizens.Being foreigners, their status,
conditions and legal capacity in the Philippines are governed by the
law of Hong Kong, the
valid under Hong Kong law, it shall be valid and respected in the
Philippines.
Naturalization (2003)
Miss Universe, from Finland, came to the Philippines on a
tourist visa. While in this country, she fell in love with and
married a Filipino doctor. Her tourist visa having been
expired and after the maximum extension allowed therefore,
the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) is
presently demanding that she immediately leave the country
but she refuses to do so, claiming that she is already a Filipino
Citizen by her marriage to a Filipino citizen. Can the BID
still order the deportation of Miss Universe? Explain. 5%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the BID can order the deportation of Miss Universe. The
marriage of an alien woman to a Filipino does not
automatically make her a Filipino Citizen. She must first
prove in an appropriate proceeding that she does not have
any disqualification for Philippine citizenship. (Yung Uan
Chu v. Republic of the Philippines, 158 SCRA 593 [1988]) . Since
Miss Universe is still a foreigner, despite her marriage to a
Filipino doctor, she can be deported upon expiry of her
allowable stay in the Philippines.
ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the Bureau of Immigration cannot order her deportation.
An alien woman marrying a Filipino, native-born or
naturalized, becomes ipso facto a Filipino if she is not
disqualified to be a citizen of the Philippines (Mo Ya Lim v
Commission of Immigration, 41 SCRA 292 [1971]), (Sec 4,
Naturalization Law). All that she has to do is prove in the
deportation proceeding the fact of her marriage and that she is
not disqualified to become a Filipino Citizen.
It depends. If she is disqualified to be a Filipino citizen, she
may be deported. If she is not disqualified to be a Filipino
citizen, she may not be deported. An alien woman who
marries a Filipino citizen becomes one. The marriage of
Miss Universe to the Filipino doctor did not automatically
make her a Filipino citizen. She still has to prove that she is
not disqualified to become a citizen.
Theory; significant relationships theory (1994)
Able, a corporation domiciled in State A, but, doing business
in the Philippines, hired Eric, a Filipino engineer, for its
project in State B. In the contract of employment executed by
the parties in State B, it was stipulated that the contract could
be terminated at the company's will, which stipulation is
allowed in State B. When Eric was summarily dismissed by
Able, he sued Able for damages in the Philippines. Will the
Philippine court apply the contractual stipulation?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Using the "SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIPS THEORY",
there are contacts significant to the Philippines. Among these are
that the place of business is the Philippines, the employee
concerned is a Filipino and the suit was filed in the Philippines,
thereby justifying the application of Philippine law. In the
American Airlines case the Court held that when what is
involved is PARAMOUNT STATE INTEREST such as the
protection of the rights of Filipino laborers, the court can natural mother as her middle
name. The Court has ruled
disregard choice of forum and choice of law. Therefore the
Philippine Court should not apply the stipulation in question.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
b) No, lex fori should be applied because the suit is filed in
Philippine courts and Eric was hired in the Philippines. The
Philippine Constitution affords full protection to labor and
the stipulation as to summary dismissal runs counter to our
fundamental and statutory laws.
Torts; Prescriptive Period (2004)
In a class suit for damages, plaintiffs claimed they suffered
injuries from torture during martial law. The suit was filed
upon President EM’s arrival on exile in HI, a U.S. state. The
court in HI awarded plaintiffs the equivalent of P100 billion
under the U.S. law on alien tort claims. On appeal, EM’s
Estate raised the issue of prescription. It argued that since
said U.S. law is silent on the matter, the court should apply:
(1) HI’s law setting a two-year limitation on tort claims; or (2)
the Philippine law which appears to require that claims for
personal injury arising from martial law be brought within
one year.
Plaintiffs countered that provisions of the most analogous
federal statute, the Torture Victims Protection Act, should be
applied. It sets ten years as the period for prescription.
Moreover, they argued that equity could toll the statute of
limitations. For it appeared that EM had procured
Constitutional amendments granting himself and those acting
under his direction immunity from suit during his tenure.
In this case, has prescription set in or not? Considering the
differences in the cited laws, which prescriptive period should
be applied: one year under Philippine law, two years under
HI’s law, ten years under U.S. federal law, or none of the
above? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The US Court will apply US law, the law of the Jorum, in
determining the applicable prescriptive period. While US law
is silent on this matter, the US Court will not apply Philippine
law in determining the prescriptive period. It is generally
affirmed as a principle in private international law that
procedural law is one of the exceptions to the application of
foreign law by the forum. Since prescription is a matter of
procedural law even in Philippine jurisprudence, (Codaltn v.
POEA/ JVLRC/Broum and Root International, 238 SCRA
721 [1994]), the US Court will apply either HI or Federal law
in determining the applicable prescriptive period and not
Philippine law. The Restatement of American law affirms this
principle.
ADOPTION
Adoption; Use of Surname of her Natural Mother (2006)
May an illegitimate child, upon adoption by her natural father,
use the surname of her natural mother as the middle name?
(2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, an illegitimate child, upon
adoption by her natural father, can use the surname of her
that there is no law prohibiting an illegitimate child adopted by
her natural father to use, as middle name, her mother's
surname. What is not prohibited is allowed. After all, the use
of the maternal name as the middle name is in accord with
Filipino culture and customs and adoption is intended for the
benefit of the adopted [In re: Adoption of Stephanie Nathy
Astorga Garcia, G.R. No. 148311, March 31, 2005; Rabuya, The
Law on Persons and Family Relations, p. 613].
Inter-Country Adoption; Formalities (2005)
Hans Berber, a German national, and his Filipino wife,
Rhoda, are permanent residents of Canada. They desire so
much to adopt Magno, an 8-year old orphaned boy and a
baptismal godson of Rhoda. Since the accidental death of
Magno's parents in 2004, he has been staying with his aunt
who, however, could hardly afford to feed her own family.
Unfortunately, Hans and Rhoda cannot come to the
Philippines to adopt Magno although they possess all the
qualifications as adoptive parents.
Is there a possibility for them to adopt Magno? How
should they go about it? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, it is possible for Hans and Rhoda to adopt Magno.
Republic Act No. 8043 or the Inter-Country Adoption Act,
allows aliens or Filipinos permanently residing abroad to
apply for inter-country adoption of a Filipino child. The law
however requires that only legally free child, or one who has
been voluntarily or involuntarily committed to the DSWD or
any of its accredited agencies, may be subject of intercountry
adoption. The law further requires that aside from possessing
all the qualifications, the adoptive parents must come from a
country where the Philippines has diplomatic relations and
that the government maintains a similarly accredited agency
and that adoption is allowed under the national law of the
alien. Moreover, it must be further shown that all possibilities
for a domestic adoption have been exhausted and the
inter-country adoption is best for the interest of the child.
Hans and Rhoda have to file an application to adopt Magno,
either with the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over
Magno or with the Inter-Country Adoption Board in Canada.
Hans and Rhoda will then undergo a trial custody for six (6)
months from the time of placement. It is only after the lapse
of the trial custody that the decree of adoption can be issued.
Parental Authority; Rescission of Adoption (1994)
In 1975, Carol begot a daughter Bing, out of wedlock. When
Bing was ten years old, Carol gave her consent for Bing's
legal adoption by Norma and Manuel, which was granted by
the court in 1990. In 1991, Carol learned that Norma and
Manuel were engaged in a call-girl-ring that catered to
tourists. Some of the girls lived with Norma and Manuel.
Carol got Bing back, who in the first place wanted to return
to her natural mother. 1) Who has a better right to the
custody of Bing, Carol or Norma? 2) Aside from taking
physical custody of Bing, what legal actions can Carol take to
protect Bing?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) a) It depends on whether or not Bing was at least 18
years old at the time Carol asserts the prerogative to take
custody of Bing. If she was at least 18 years old, then she is
no longer under parental authority and neither Carol nor
Norma can assert the prerogative to take custody. However,
if she was less than 18 years old, then Norma has a better
right since the adoption by Norma of Bing terminates the
parental authority of Carol over Bing.
b) The natural mother, Carol, should have the better right in
light of the principle that the child's welfare is the paramount
consideration in custody rights. Obviously, Bing's continued
stay in her adopting parents' house, where interaction with the
call girls is inevitable, would be detrimental to her moral and
spiritual development. This could be the reason for Bing's
expressed desire to return to her natural mother. It should be
noted, however, that Bing is no longer a minor, being 19 years
of age now. It is doubtfu1 that a court can still resolve the
question of custody over one who is sui juris and not
otherwise incapacitated.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2) a) On the assumption that Bing is still a minor or
otherwise incapacitated, Carol may petition the proper court
for resolution or rescission of the decree of adoption on the
ground that the adopting parents have exposed, or are
exposing, the child to corrupt influence, tantamount to giving
her corrupting orders or examples. She can also ask for the
revesting in her of parental authority over Bing. If However,
Bing is already 19 years of age and therefore no longer a
minor, it is not Carol but Bing herself who can petition the
court for judicial rescission of the adoption, provided she can
show a ground for disinheritance of an ascendant.
b) Carol may file an action to deprive Norma of parental
authority under Article 231 of the Family Code or file an
action for the rescission of the adoption under Article 191 in
relation to Article 231 (2) of the Family Code.
Qualification of Adopter (2005)
In 1984, Eva, a Filipina, went to work as a nurse in the USA.
There, she met and fell in love with Paul, an American citizen,
and they got married in 1985. Eva acquired American
citizenship in 1987. During their sojourn in the Philippines in
1990, they filed a joint petition for the adoption of Vicky, a
7-year old daughter of Eva's sister. The government, through
the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the petition on
the ground that the petitioners, being both foreigners, are
disqualified to adopt Vicky.
a) Is the government's opposition tenable? Explain.
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The government's position is untenable. Under paragraph 3,
Article 184 of the Family Code, an alien, as a general rule
cannot adopt. However, an alien who is a former Filipino
citizen and who seeks to adopt a relative by consanguinity is
qualified to adopt, (par. 3[a], Art. 184, Family Code)
In the given problem, Eva, a naturalized American citizen
would like to adopt Vicky, a 7-year old daughter of her
sister. Thus, under the above-cited provision, Eva is qualified
to adopt Vicky.
b) Would your answer be the same if they sought to
adopt Eva's illegitimate daughter? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
My answer will still be the same. Paragraph 3(a) of Article 184
of the Family Code does not make any distinction. The
provision states that an alien who is a former Filipino citizen
is qualified to adopt a relative by consanguinity.
c) Supposing that they filed the petition to adopt Vicky in
the year 2000, will your answer be the same? Explain.
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, my answer will still be the same. Under Sec. 7(b), Art. III
of the New Domestic Adoption Act, an alien who possesses
all the qualifications of a Filipino national who is qualified to
adopt may already adopt provided that his country has
diplomatic relations with the Philippines, that he has been
living in the Philippines for at least three (3) continuous years
prior to the filing of the application for adoption and
maintains such residence until the adoption decree is entered,
that he has been certified by his diplomatic or consular office
or any appropriate government agency that he has the legal
capacity to adopt in his country, and that his government
allows the adoptee to enter his country as his adopted child.
Qualification of Adopter; Applicable Law (2001)
A German couple filed a petition for adoption of a minor
Filipino child with the Regional Trial Court of Makati under
the provisions of the Child and Youth Welfare Code which
allowed aliens to adopt. Before the petition could be heard,
the Family Code, which repealed the Child and Youth
Welfare Code, came into effect. Consequently, the Solicitor
General filed a motion to dismiss the petition, on the ground
that the Family Code prohibits aliens from adopting. If you
were the judge, how will you rule on the motion? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion to dismiss the petition for adoption should be
denied. The law that should govern the action is the law in
force at the time of filing of the petition. At that time, it was
the Child and Youth Welfare Code that was in effect, not the
Family Code. Petitioners have already acquired a vested right
on their qualification to adopt which cannot be taken away by
the Family Code. (Republic v. Miller G.R. No. 125932, April 21,
1999, citing Republic v. Court of Appeals,
205 SCRA 356)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The motion has to be granted. The new law shall govern their
qualification to adopt and under the new law, the German
couple is disqualified from adopting. They cannot claim that
they have already acquired a vested right because adoption is
not a right but a mere privilege. No one acquires a vested
right on a privilege.
[Note: If the examinee based his answer on the current law, RA 8552, his
answer should be considered correct. This question is based on the repealed
provision of the Family Code on Adoption.]
Qualifications of Adopter (2000)
Sometime in 1990, Sarah, born a Filipino but by then a
naturalized American citizen, and her American husband
Tom, filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court of Makati,
for the adoption of the minor child of her sister, a Filipina.
Can the petition be granted? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(per dondee) It depends. Rules on Adoption effective August
22, 2002 provides the following; SEC. 4. Who may adopt. –
The following may adopt: Any Filipino Citizen
of legal age,
in possession of full civil capacity and legal rights,
of good moral character,
has not been convicted of any crime involving moral
turpitude;
who is emotionally and psychologically capable of caring
for children,
at least sixteen (16) years older than the adoptee,
and who is in a position to support and care for his children
in keeping with the means of the family.
• The requirement of a 16-year difference between the age of
the adopter and adoptee may be waived when the adopter is
the biological parent of the adoptee or is the spouse of the
adoptee’s parent;
Any Alien possessing the same qualifications as above-stated
for Filipino nationals: Provided, a) That his country has
diplomatic relations with the
Republic of the Philippines,
b) that he has been living in the Philippines for at least
three (3) continuous years prior to the filing of the petition for
adoption and maintains such residence until the adoption
decree is entered,
c) that he has been certified by his diplomatic or
consular office or any appropriate government agency to have
the legal capacity to adopt in his country,
d) and that his government allows the adoptee to enter
his country as his adopted child.
Provided, further, That the requirements on residency and
certification of the alien’s qualification to adopt in his country
may be waived for the following: a) a former Filipino citizen
who seeks to adopt a relative
within the fourth (4th) degree of consanguinity or affinity; or b)
one who seeks to adopt the legitimate child of his Filipino
spouse; or
c) one who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to
adopt jointly with his spouse a relative within the fourth (4th)
degree of consanguinity or affinity of the Filipino spouse.
Qualifications of Adopter (2003)
Lina, a former Filipina who became an American citizen
shortly after her marriage to an American husband, would
like to adopt in the Philippines, jointly with her husband, one
of her minor brothers. Assuming that all the required
consents have been obtained, could the contemplated joint
adoption in the Philippine prosper? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Lina and her American husband can jointly adopt a minor
brother of Lina because she and her husband are both qualified to
adopt. Lina, as a former Filipino citizen, can adopt her minor
brother under Sec. 7(b)(i) of RA 8552 (Domestic Adoption Act of
1998), or under Art. 184 (3)(1) of the Family Code. The alien
husband can now adopt
under Sec. 7(b) of RA8552. The Supreme Court has held in
several cases that when husband and wife are required to
adopt jointly, each one of them must be qualified to adopt in
his or her own right (Republic v. Toledano, 233 SCRA 9 (1994).
However, the American husband must comply with the
requirements of the law including the residency requirement
of three (3) years. Otherwise, the adoption will not be allowed.
Successional Rights of Adopted Child (2004)
A Filipino couple, Mr. and Mrs. BM, Jr., decided to adopt
YV, an orphan from St. Claire’s orphanage in New York City.
They loved and treated her like a legitimate child for they
have none of their very own. However, BM, Jr., died in an
accident at sea, followed to the grave a year later by his sick
father, BM, Sr. Each left a sizable estate consisting of bank
deposits, lands and buildings in Manila. May the adopted
child, YV, inherit from BM, Jr.? May she also inherit from
BM, Sr.? Is there a difference? Why? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
YV can inherit from BM, Jr. The succession to the estate of
BM, Jr. is governed by Philippine law because he was a
Filipino when he died (Article 16, Civil Code). Under Article
1039 of the Civil Code, the capacity of the heir to succeed is
governed by the national law of the decedent and not by the
national law of the heir. Hence, whether or not YV can
inherit from BM, Jr. is determined by Philippine law. Under
Philippine law, the adopted inherits from the adopter as a
legitimate child of the adopter.
YV, however, cannot inherit, in his own right, from the father
of the adopter, BM, Sr., because he is not a legal heir of BM,
Sr. The legal fiction of adoption exists only between the
adopted and the adopter. (Teotico v. Del Val 13 SCRA 406
[1965]). Neither may he inherit from BM, Sr. by representing
BM, Jr. because in representation, the representative must be
a legal heir not only of the person he is representing but also
of the decedent from whom the represented was supposed to
inherit (Article 973, Civil Code).
FAMILY CODE
Emancipation (1993)
Julio and Lea, both 18 years old, were sweethearts. At a party
at the house of a mutual friend. Lea met Jake, also 18 years
old, who showed interest in her. Lea seemed to entertain Jake
because she danced with him many times. In a fit of jealousy,
Julio shot Jake with his father's 38 caliber revolver which,
before going to the party he was able to get from the
unlocked drawer inside his father's bedroom. Jake died as a
result of the lone gunshot wound he sustained. His parents
sued Julio's parents for damages arising from quasi-delict. At
the time of the incident, Julio was 18 years old living with his
parents. Julio's parents moved to dismiss the complaint
against them claiming that since Julio was already of majority
age, they were no longer liable for his acts. 1) Should the
motion to dismiss be granted? Why? 2) What is the liability of
Julio's parents to Jake's parents? Explain your answer.
Page 23 of 119
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) No, the Motion to Dismiss should not be granted. Article
236 of the Family Code as amended by Republic Act 6809,
provides in the third paragraph that "nothing in this Code
shall be construed to derogate from the duty or responsibility
of parents and guardians for children and wards below
twenty-one years of age mentioned in the second and third
paragraphs of Article 2180 of the Civil Code". 2) The liability
of Julio's parents to Jake's parents arises from quasi-delict
(Arts. 2176 and 2180 Civil Code) and shall cover specifically
the following:
a) P50,000.00 for the death of the son;
b) such amount as would correspond to lost earning
capacity; and
c) moral damages.
Family Code; Retroactive Application; Vested Rights (2000)
On April 15, 1980, Rene and Angelina were married to each
other without a marriage settlement. In 1985, they acquired a
parcel of land in Quezon City. On June 1, 1990, when
Angelina was away in Baguio, Rene sold the said lot to
Marcelo. Is the sale void or voidable? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The sale is void. Since the sale was executed in 1990, the
Family Code is the law applicable. Under Article 124 of the
FC, the sale of a conjugal property by a spouse without the
consent of the other is void.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The sale is voidable. The provisions of the Family Code may
apply retroactively but only if such application will not impair
vested rights. When Rene and Angelina got married in 1980,
the law that governed their property relations was the New
Civil Code. Under the NCC, as interpreted by the Supreme
Court in Heirs of Felipe v. Aldon, 100 SCRA 628 and reiterated
in Heirs of Ayuste v. Malabonga, G.R No, 118784, 2 September
1999, the sale executed by the husband without the consent of
the wife is voidable. The husband has already acquired a
vested right on the voidable nature of dispositions made
without the consent of the wife. Hence, Article 124 of the
Family Code which makes the sale void does not apply.
Family Home; Dwelling House (1994)
In 1991, Victor established judicially out of conjugal property,
a family home in Manila worth P200.000.00 and extrajudicially
a second family home in Tagaytay worth P50.000.00. Victor
leased the family home in Manila to a foreigner. Victor and
his family transferred to another house of his in Pasig. Can
the two family homes be the subject of execution on a
judgment against Victor's wife for non-payment of the
purchase in 1992 of household appliances?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The two (2) so-called family homes can be the subject of
execution. Neither of the abodes are considered family homes
because for purposes of availing the benefits under the
Family Code, there can only be one (1) family home which is
defined as the "dwelling house" where the husband and the
wife and their family actually "reside" and the land on which
it is situated. (Arts. 152 and 161, Family Code)
Family; Constitutional Mandates; Divorce (1991)
A. How does the 1987 Constitution strengthen the family
as an Institution?
B. Do the Constitutional policy on the family and the
provision that marriage is the foundation of the family and
shall be protected by the State bar Congress from enacting a
law allowing divorce in the Philippines?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Sec, 2, Article II of the Constitution provides that: The
State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect
and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social
institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and
the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and
primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth
for civic efficiency and the development of moral character
shall receive the support of the Government.
Section I, Article XV, further provides that: The State
recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation.
Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively
promote its total development.
(Note: The Committee recommends that a citation of either one of
the provisions be credited as a complete answer).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B, No, the Constitutional policy, as well as the supporting
provision, does not amount to a prohibition to Congress to
enact a law on divorce. The Constitution only meant to help
the marriage endure, to "strengthen its solidarity and actively
promote its total development."
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
B. Yes. Congress is barred from enacting a law allowing
divorce, since Section 2 of Article XV provides: "Sec. 2.
Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation
of the family and shall be protected by the State." Since
marriage is "Inviolable", it cannot be dissolved by an absolute
divorce.
Marriage; Annulment; Effects; Requisites Before Remarriage
(1990)
The marriage of H and W was annulled by the competent
court. Upon finality of the judgment of nullity. H began
looking for his prospective second mate. He fell in love with
a sexy woman S who wanted to be married as soon as
possible, i.e., after a few months of courtship. As a young
lawyer, you were consulted by H,
(a) How soon can H be joined in lawful wedlock to his
girlfriend S? Under existing laws, are there certain requisites
that must be complied with before he can remarry? What
advice would you give H?
(b) Suppose that children were born from the union of H
and W, what would be the status of said children? Explain
your answer.
(c) If the subsequent marriage of H to S was
contracted before compliance with the statutory condition
for its validity, what are the rights of the children of the first
marriage (i.e., of H and W) and of the children of the
subsequent marriage (of H and S)?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) H, or either spouse for that matter, can marry again after
complying with the provisions of Article 52 of the Family
Code, namely, there must be a partition and distribution, of
the properties of the spouses, and the delivery of the
children's presumptive legitimes which should be recorded sexually-transmissible disease,
found to be serious and
in the appropriate civil registry and registries of property. H
should be so advised.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: for (a)
The following are the requisites prescribed by law and I
advice to H is to comply with them, namely:
1) If either spouse contracted the marriage in bad faith,
his or her share of the net profits of the community property :
or conjugal partnership property shall be forfeited in favor of
the common children or, if there are none, the children of the
guilty spouse by a previous marriage or, in default of children,
the innocent spouse;
2) Donations by reason of marriage shall remain valid
except that if the donee contracted the marriage in bad faith,
such donations made to said donee are revoked by operation
of law;
3) The spouse who contracted the subsequent marriage
in bad faith shall be disqualified to inherit from the innocent
spouse by testate and intestate succession;
4) If both spouses of the subsequent marriage acted in
bad faith all donations by reason of marriage and
testamentary dispositions made by one in favor of the other
are revoked by operation of law.
5) The judgment of annulment of the marriage, the
partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses,
and the delivery of the children's presumptive legitimes shall
be recorded in the appropriate civil registry and registers of
property, (Articles 53. 52, 43.
44. Family Code).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) The children born from the union of H and W would be
legitimate children if conceived or born before the decree of
annulment of the marriage (under Art. 45 of the Family
Code) has become final and executory (Art. 54, Family
Code}.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(c) The children of the first marriage shall be considered
legitimate children if conceived or born before the Judgment
of annulment of the marriage of H and W has become final
and executory. Children conceived or born of the subsequent
marriage shall likewise be legitimate even if the marriage of H
and S be null and void for failure to comply with the requisites
of Article 52 of the Family Code (Article 53, Family Code). As
legitimate children, they have the following rights;
a) To bear the surnames of the father and the
mother in conformity with the provisions of the Civil
Code on Surnames;
b) To receive support from their parents, their
ascendants, and in proper cases, their brothers and
sisters, in conformity with the provisions of this Code on
Support; and
c) To be entitled to the legitime and other
successional rights granted to them by the Civil Code
(Article 174, Family Code).
Marriage; Annulment; Grounds (1991)
One of the grounds for annulment of marriage is that either party,
at the time of their marriage was afflicted with a
appears incurable. Two (2) years after their marriage, which took
place on 10 October 1988, Bethel discovered that her husband
James has a sexually-transmissible disease which he contracted
even prior to their marriage although James did not know it
himself until he was examined two [2) years later when a child
was already born to them. Bethel sues James for annulment of
their marriage. James opposes the annulment on the ground that
he did not even know that he had such a disease so that there
was no fraud or bad faith on his part. Decide.
B. Suppose that both parties at the time of their marriage
were similarly afflicted with sexually-transmissible diseases,
serious and incurable, and both knew of their respective
infirmities, can Bethel or James sue for annulment of their
marriage?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. The marriage can be annulled, because good faith is not a
defense when the ground is based upon
sexually-transmissible disease on the part of either party.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B. Yes, the marriage can still be annulled because the fact
that both of them are afflicted with sexually-transmissible
diseases does not efface or nullity the ground.
Alternative Answer:
B. No, the marriage can no longer be annulled, because the
fact that both were afflicted and that both knew of their
respective infirmities constitutes a waiver of that ground.
Marriage; Annulment; Judicial Declaration (1993)
Maria and Luis, both Filipinos, were married by a Catholic
priest in Lourdes Church, Quezon City in 1976, Luis was
drunk on the day of his wedding. In fact, he slumped at the
altar soon after the ceremony. After marriage, Luis never had
a steady job because he was drunk most of the time. Finally,
he could not get employed at all because of drunkenness.
Hence, it was Maria who had to earn a living to support
herself and her child begotten with Luis. In 1986, Maria filed a
petition in the church matrimonial court in Quezon City to
annul her marriage with Luis on the ground of psychological
incapacity to comply with his marital obligation. Her petition
was granted by the church matrimonial court. 1) Can Maria
now get married legally to another man under Philippine laws
after her marriage to Luis was annulled by the church
matrimonial court? Explain. 2) What must Maria do to
enable her to get married lawfully to another man under
Philippine laws?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) No, Maria cannot validly contract a subsequent marriage
without a court declaration of nullity of the first marriage.
The law does not recognize the church declaration of nullity
of a marriage.
2) To enable Maria to get married lawfully to another man.
she must obtain a judicial declaration of nullity of the prior
marriage under Article 36 Family Code.
Marriage; Annulment; Legal Separation; Prescription of
Actions (1996)
2) Bert and Baby were married to each other on December
23, 1988. Six months later, she discovered that he was a
drug addict. Efforts to have him rehabilitated were In 1989, Maris, a Filipino citizen,
married her boss Johnson,
unsuccessful. Can Baby ask for annulment of marriage, or
legal separation? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Baby cannot ask for annulment of her marriage or for
legal separation because both these actions had already
prescribed.
While concealment of drug addiction existing at the
time of marriage constitutes fraud under Art. 46 of the
FC which makes the marriage voidable under Art. 45
of the FC, the action must, however, be brought within
5 years from the discovery thereof under Article 47(3),
FC, Since the drug addiction of Bert was discovered
by Baby in June 1989, the action had already
prescribed in June of 1994. Although drug addiction is
a ground for legal separation under Art. 55(5) and Art.
57 of the FC requires that the action must be brought
within 5 years from the occurrence of the cause.
Since Bert had been a drug addict from the time of the
celebration of the marriage, the action for legal
separation must have been brought not later than 23
December 1993. Hence, Baby cannot, now, bring the
action for legal separation.
Marriage; Annulment; Proper Party (1990)
D and G, age 20 and 19, respectively, and both single, eloped
and got married to each other without parental consent in the
case of G, a teenaged student of an exclusive college for girls.
Three years later, her parents wanted to seek judicial
annulment on that ground. You were consulted and asked to
prepare the proper complaint. What advice would you give
G's parents? Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
G himself should file the complaint under Article 45 of the
Family Code, and no longer the parents because G is already
22 years of age.
Marriage; Annulment; Proper Party (1995)
Yvette was found to be positive for HIV virus, considered
sexually transmissible, serious and incurable. Her boyfriend
Joseph was aware of her condition and yet married her. After
two (2) years of cohabiting with Yvette, and in his belief that
she would probably never be able to bear him a healthy child,
Joseph now wants to have his marriage with Yvette annulled.
Yvette opposes the suit contending that Joseph is estopped
from seeking annulment of their marriage since he knew even
before their marriage that she was afflicted with HIV virus.
Can the action of Joseph for annulment of his marriage with
Yvette prosper? Discuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Joseph knew that Yvette was HIV positive at the time of
the marriage. He is, therefore, not an injured party. The FC
gives the right to annul the marriage only to an injured party.
[Art. 47 (5), FC]
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The action for annulment can prosper because the
prescriptive period of five (5) years has not yet lapsed. [Art. 45
(6), FC].
Marriage; Divorce Decree; Void Marriages (1992)
an American citizen, in Tokyo in a wedding ceremony
celebrated according to Japanese laws. One year later, Johnson
returned to his native Nevada, and he validly obtained in that
state an absolute divorce from his wife Maris. After Maris
received the final judgment of divorce, she married her
childhood sweetheart Pedro, also a Filipino citizen, in a
religious ceremony in Cebu City, celebrated according to the
formalities of Philippine law. Pedro later left for the United
States and became naturalized as an American citizen. Maris
followed Pedro to the United States, and after a serious
quarrel, Marts filed a suit and obtained a divorce decree issued
by the court in the state of Maryland. Maris then returned to
the Philippines and in a civil ceremony celebrated in Cebu
City according to the formalities of Philippine law, she
married her former classmate Vincent likewise a Filipino
citizen. b) Was the marriage of Maris and Pedro valid when
celebrated? Is their marriage still valid existing now? Reasons.
c) Was the marriage of Marts and Vincent valid when
celebrated? Is their marriage still validly existing now?
Reasons. d) At this point in time, who is the lawful husband
of Marts? Reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) The marriage of Maris and Pedro was valid when
celebrated because the divorce validly obtained by Johnson in
Manila capacitated Maris to marry Pedro. The marriage of
Maris and Pedro is still validly existing, because the marriage
has not been validly dissolved by the Maryland divorce [Art.
26, Family Code).
(c) The marriage of Maris and Vincent is void ab initio
because it is a bigamous marriage contracted by Maris during
the subsistence of her marriage with Pedro (Art 25 and 41,
Family Code). The marriage of Maris and Vincent does not
validly exist because Article 26 does not apply. Pedro was not
a foreigner at the time of his marriage with marts and the
divorce abroad (in Maryland) was initiated and obtained not
by the alien spouse, but by the Filipino spouse. Hence, the
Maryland divorce did not capacitate Marts to marry Vincent.
(d) At this point in time, Pedro is still the lawful husband of
Maris because their valid marriage has not been dissolved by
any valid cause (Art. 26. Family Code)
Marriage; Divorce Decrees; Filiation of Children (2005)
In 1985, Sonny and Lulu, both Filipino citizens, were married
in the Philippines. In 1987, they separated, and Sonny went to
Canada, where he obtained a divorce in the same year. He
then married another Filipina, Auring, in Canada on January
1,1988. They had two sons, James and John. In 1990, after
failing to hear from Sonny, Lulu married Tirso, by whom she
had a daughter, Verna. In 1991, Sonny visited the Philippines
where he succumbed to heart attack..
a) Discuss the effect of the divorce obtained by Sonny
and Lulu in Canada. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The divorce is not valid. Philippine law does not provide for
absolute divorce. Philippine courts cannot grant it. A marriage
between two (2) Filipinos cannot be dissolved by a divorce
obtained abroad. (Garcia v. Redo, G.R. No. 138322, October 2,
2001). Philippine laws apply to Sonny and Lulu. Under Article
15 of the New Civil Code, laws relating to family rights and
duties, status, and capacity of persons are binding upon
citizens of the Philippines wherever they may be. Thus, the
marriage of Sonny and Lulu is still valid and subsisting.
b) Explain the status of the marriage between Sonny
and Auring. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Since the decree of divorce obtained by Lulu and Sony in
Canada is not recognized here in the Philippines, the marriage
between Sonny and Auring is void. (Art. 35, Family Code)
Any marriage subsequently contracted during the lifetime of
the first spouse shall be illegal and void, subject only to the
exception in the cases of absence or where the prior marriage
was dissolved or annulled. (Ninal
v. Bayadog, G.R. No. 133778, March 14, 2000) The marriage of
Sonny and Auring does not fall within the exception.
c) Explain the status of the marriage between Lulu and
Tirso. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The marriage of Lulu and Tirso is also void. Mere absence of
the spouse does not give rise to a right of the present spouse
to remarry. Article 41 of the Family Code provides for a valid
bigamous marriage only where a spouse has been absent for
four consecutive years before the second marriage and the
present spouse had a well-founded belief that the absent
spouse is already dead. (Republic v. Nolasco,
G.R. No. 94053, March 17, 1993)
d) Explain the respective filiation of James, John and
Verna. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
James, John and Verna are illegitimate children since their
parents are not validly married. Under Article 165 of the
Family Code, children conceived and born outside a valid
marriage are illegitimate, unless otherwise provided in this
Code.
e) Who are the heirs of Sonny? Explain. (2%) Suggested
answer:
Sonny's heirs include James, John, and Lulu. Article 887 of
the Civil Code provides that the compulsory heirs of the
deceased are among others, his widow and his illegitimate
children. The widow referred to in Article 887 is the legal wife
of the deceased. Lulu is still a compulsory heir of Sonny
because the divorce obtained by Sonny in Canada cannot be
recognized in the Philippines. The legitime of each illegitimate
child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a legitimate
child. (Art. 176, Family Code)
Marriage; Divorce Decrees; Filipino Spouses becoming Alien
(1996)
Flor and Virgillo were married to each other in Roxas City in
198O. In 1984, Flor was offered a teaching Job in Canada,
which she accepted. In 1989, she applied for and was granted
Canadian citizenship. The following year, she sued for divorce
from Virgilio in a Canadian court. After Virgilio was served
with summons, the Canadian court tried the case and decreed
the divorce. Shortly thereafter, Flor married a Canadian. Can
Virgilio marry again in the Philippines? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Virgilio cannot validly remarry. His case is not covered
by Article 26 of the Family Code, For said Article to be
applicable, the spouse who filed for divorce must be a
foreigner at the time of the marriage. Since both of them
were Filipinos at the time of the marriage, the divorce
obtained by Flor did not capacitate Virgilio to remarry. The
fact that Flor was already an alien at the time she obtained the
divorce does not give Virgilio the capacity to remarry under
Philippine Law.
a) Yes, Virgilio can validly remarry. Art. 26 of the FC, merely
States the alien spouse without taking into consideration his or
her nationality at the time of the marriage. While his case is
not covered by the letter of Article 26 FC, it is, however,
covered by the spirit of said Article, the injustice to the
Filipino spouse sought to be cured by said Article is present in
this case. (Department of Justice Opinion No. 134 Series of
1993).
b) Although the marriage originally involved Filipino citizens,
it eventually became a marriage between an alien and a
Filipino after Flor became a Canadian citizen. Thus, the
divorce decree was one obtained by an alien spouse married
to a Filipino. Although nothing is said about whether such
divorce did capacitate Flor to remarry, that fact may as well
be assumed since the problem states that she married a
Canadian shortly after obtaining the divorce. Hence, Virgillo
can marry again under Philippine law, pursuant to Art. 26. FC
which applies because Flor was already an alien at the time of
the divorce.
Marriage; Divorce Decrees; Filipino Spouses becoming Alien
(1999)
Ben and Eva were both Filipino citizens at the time of their
marriage in 1967, When their marriage turned sour, Ben went
to a small country in Europe, got himself naturalized there,
and then divorced Eva in accordance with the law of that
country, Later, he returned to the Philippines with his new
wife. Eva now wants to know what action or actions she can
file against Ben. She also wants to know if she can likewise
marry again. What advice can you give her? {5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Considering that Art. 26(2nd par.) contemplates a divorce
between a foreigner and a Filipino, who had such respective
nationalities at the time of their marriage, the divorce in
Europe will not capacitate the Filipino wife to remarry. The
advice we can give her is either to file a petition for legal
separation, on the ground of sexual infidelity and of
contracting a bigamous marriage abroad, or to file a petition
to dissolve the conjugal partnership or absolute community of
property as the case maybe.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Eva may file an action for legal separation on the grounds of
sexual infidelity of her husband and the contracting by her
husband of a bigamous marriage abroad.
She may remarry. While a strict interpretation of Article 26 of
the Family Code would capacitate a Filipino spouse to
remarry only when the other spouse was a foreigner at the
time of the marriage, the DOJ has issued an opinion (Opinion
134 s. of 1993) that the same injustice sought to be cured by
Article 26 is present in the case of spouses who were both
Filipino at the time of the marriage but one became an alien
subsequently. Said injustice is the anomaly of Eva remaining
married to her husband who is no longer married to her.
Hence, said Opinion makes Article 26 applicable to her case
and the divorce obtained abroad by her former Filipino
husband would capacitate her to remarry. To contract a
subsequent marriage, all she needs to do is present to the civil
registrar the decree of divorce when she applies for a marriage
license under Article 13 of the Family Code.
Marriage; Donations by Reason of Marriage; Effect of
Declaration of Nullity (1996)
1) On the occasion of Digna's marriage to George, her father
gave her a donation propter nuptias of a car. Subsequently,
the marriage was annulled because of the psychological
immaturity of George. May Digna's father revoke the
donation and get back the car? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Digna's father may not revoke the donation because
Digna was not in bad faith, applying Art. 86(3) of the Family
Code.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
a) Yes, the donation is revocable. Since the ground for the
annulment of the marriage is the psychological immaturity of
George, the judgment was in the nature of a declaration of
nullity under Art. 36 of the FC and, therefore, the donation
may be revoked under Art. 86( 1) of the FC for the reason
that the marriage has been judicially declared void ab initio.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
b) No, the donation cannot be revoked. The law provides
that a donation by reason of marriage may be revoked by the
donor if among other cases, the marriage is judicially declared
void ab initio [par. (1) Art. 86. Family Code], or when the
marriage is annulled and the donee acted in bad faith [par. (3),
Id.]. Since the problem states that the marriage was annulled
and there is no intimation of bad faith on the part of the
donee Digna, the conclusion is that the donor cannot revoke
the donation.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
c) Yes, the donation can be revoked. The ground used in dissolving
the marriage was the psychological immaturity of George, which is
not a ground for annulment of marriage. If this term is equated with
psychological incapacity as used in Art. 36 of the Family Code,
then it is a ground for declaration of nullity of the marriage.
Consequently, par. (1) of Art. 86, FC, is the applicable law. Since
Art. 86 of the FC makes no qualification as to who furnished the
ground or who was in bad faith in connection with the nullification of
the marriage, the conclusion is that Digna's father may revoke the
donation and get back the car.
Marriage; Grounds; Declaration of Nullity: Annulment: Legal
Separation: Separation of Property (2003)
Which of the following remedies, i.e., (a) declaration of nullity
of marriage, (b) annulment of marriage, (c) legal separation,
and/or (d) separation of property, can an aggrieved spouse
avail himself/herself of-
(i) If the wife discovers after the marriage that her
husband has ―AIDS‖.
(ii) If the wife goes (to) abroad to work as a nurse and
refuses to come home after the expiration of her three-year
contract there.
(iii) If the husband discovers after the marriage that
his wife has been a prostitute before they got married.
(iv) If the husband has a serious affair with his
secretary and refuses to stop notwithstanding advice from
relatives and friends.
(v) If the husband beats up his wife every time he
comes home drunk. 5%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(i) Since AIDS is a serious and incurable
sexually-transmissible disease, the wife may file an action for
annulment of the marriage on this ground whether such fact
was concealed or not from the wife, provided that the disease
was present at the time of the marriage. The marriage is
voidable even though the husband was not aware that he had
the disease at the time of marriage.
(ii) If the wife refuses to come home for three (3) months
from the expiration of her contract, she is presumed to have
abandoned the husband and he may file an action for judicial
separation of property . If the refusal continues for more than
one year from the expiration of her contract, the husband may
file the action for legal separation under Art. 55 (10) of the
Family Code on the ground of abandonment of petitioner by
respondent without justifiable cause for more than one year.
The wife is deemed to have abandoned the husband when she
leaves the conjugal dwelling without any intention of
returning (Article 101, FC). The intention not to return
cannot be presumed during the 30year period of her contract.
(iii) If the husband discovers after the marriage that his wife
was a prostitute before they got married, he has no remedy.
No misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank,
fortune or chastity shall constitute fraud as legal ground for
an action for the annulment of marriage (Article 46 FC).
(iv) The wife may file an action for legal separation . The
husband’s sexual infidelity is a ground for legal separation
9Article 55, FC). She may also file an action for judicial
separation of property for failure of her husband to comply
with his martial duty of fidelity (Article 135 (4), 101, FC).
(v) The wife may file an action for legal separation on the
ground of repeated physical violence on her person (Article
55 (1), FC). She may also file an action for judicial
separation of property for failure of the husband to comply
with his marital duty of mutual respect (Article 135 (4), Article
101, FC). She may also file an action for declaration of nullity
of the marriage if the husband’s behavior constitute
psychological incapacity existing at the time of the celebration
of marriage.
Marriage; Grounds; Nullity; Annulment; Legal Separation
(1997)
Under what conditions, respectively, may drug addiction be a
ground, if at all, (a) for a declaration of nullity of marriage,
(b) for an annulment of the marriage contract, and (c) for
legal separation between the spouses?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Declaration of nullity of marriage:
1) The drug addiction must amount to
psychological incapacity to comply with the essential
obligations of marriage;
2) It must be antecedent (existing at the time of
marriage), grave and incurable:
3) The case must be filed before August 1, 1998.
Because if they got married before August 3, 1998, it
must be filed before August 1, 1998.
(b) Annulment of the Marriage Contract: 1) The drug
addiction must be concealed; 2) It must exist at the time of
marriage; 3) There should be no cohabitation with full
knowledge of the drug addiction; 4) The case is filed
within five (5) years from discovery.
(c) Legal Separation; 1) There should be no condonation or
consent to the drug addiction; 2) The action must be filed
within five (5) years from the occurrence of the cause.
3) Drug addiction arises during the marriage and
not at the time of marriage.
Marriage; Legal Separation; Declaration of Nullity (2002)
If drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or
homosexuality should occur only during the marriage, would
this constitute grounds for a declaration of nullity or for legal
separation, or would they render the marriage voidable? (1%).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In accordance with law, if drug addiction, habitual alcoholism,
lesbianism or homosexuality should occur only during the
marriage, they: a) Will not constitute as ground for declaration
of nullity
(Art. 36, Family Code); b) Will constitute as grounds
for legal separation (Art. 56, FC) and c) will not
constitute as grounds to render the marriage voidable
(Art.45and 46, FC)
Marriage; Legal Separation; Grounds; Prescriptive Period
(1994)
Rosa and Ariel were married in the Catholic Church of Tarlac,
Tarlac on January 5. 1988. In 1990, Ariel went to
Saudi Arabia to work. There, after being converted into Islam,
Ariel married Mystica, Rosa learned of the second marriage of
Ariel on January 1, 1992 when Ariel returned to the Philippines
with Mystica. Rosa filed an action for legal separation on
February 5, 1994, 1) Does Rosa have legal grounds to ask for
legal separation? 2) Has the action prescribed?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) a) Yes, the abandonment of Rosa by Ariel for more than
one (1) year is a ground for legal separation unless upon
returning to the Philippines, Rosa agrees to cohabit with
Ariel which is allowed under the Muslim Code. In this case,
there is condonation. b) Yes. The contracting of a
subsequent bigamous marriage whether in the Philippines or
abroad is a ground for legal separation under Article 55(7) of
the Family Code. Whether the second marriage is valid or
not, Ariel having converted into Islam, is immaterial.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2) No. Under Article 57 of the Family Code, the aggrieved
spouse must file the action within five (5) years from the
occurrence of the cause. The subsequent marriage of Ariel
could not have occurred earlier than 1990, the time he went to
Saudi Arabia. Hence, Rosa has until 1995 to bring the action
under the Family Code.
Marriage; Legal Separation; Mutual guilt (2006)
Saul, a married man, had an adulterous relation with Tessie.
In one of the trysts, Saul's wife, Cecile, caught them in
flagrante. Armed with a gun, Cecile shot Saul in a fit of
extreme jealousy, nearly killing him. Four (4) years after the
incident, Saul filed an action for legal separation against Cecile
on the ground that she attempted to kill him.
(1) If you were Saul's counsel, how will you argue his
case? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As the counsel of Saul, I will argue that an attempt by the
wife against the life of the husband is one of the grounds
enumerated by the Family Code for legal separation and
there is no need for criminal conviction for the ground to be
invoked (Art. 55, par. 9, Family Code).
(2) If you were the lawyer of Cecile, what will be your
defense? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As the counsel of Cecile, I will invoke the adultery of Saul.
Mutual guilt is a ground for the dismissal of an action for
legal separation (Art. 56, par. 4, Family Code). The rule is
anchored on a well-established principle that one must come
to court with clean hands.
(3) If you were the judge, how will you decide the case?
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the judge, I will dismiss the action on the ground of
mutual guilt of the parties. The Philippine Constitution
protects marriage as an inviolable social institution (Art. XV,
Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution). An action for legal separation
involves public interest and no such decree should be issued if
any legal obstacle thereto appears on record. This is in line
with the policy that in case of doubt,
the court shall uphold the validity and sanctity of marriage the preceding Article, only the
properties acquired by both
(Brown v. Yambao, G.R. No. L-10699, October 18, 1957).
Marriage; Non-Bigamous Marriages (2006)
Marvin, a Filipino, and Shelley, an American, both residents
of California, decided to get married in their local parish. Two
years after their marriage, Shelley obtained a divorce in
California. While in Boracay, Marvin met Manel, a Filipina,
who was vacationing there. Marvin fell in love with her. After
a brief courtship and complying with all the requirements,
they got married in Hongkong to avoid publicity, it being
Marvin's second marriage. Is his marriage to Manel valid?
Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. The marriage will not fall under Art. 35(4) of the Family
Code on bigamous marriages, provided that Shelley obtained
an absolute divorce, capacitating her to remarry under her
national law. Consequently, the marriage between Marvin and
Manel may be valid as long as it was solemnized and valid in
accordance with the laws of Hongkong [Art. 26, paragraphs 1
and 2, Family Code].
Marriage; Property Relations; Void Marriages (1991)
In June 1985, James married Mary. In September 1988, he
also married Ophelia with whom he begot two (2) children,
A and B. In July 1989, Mary died. In July 1990, he married
Shirley and abandoned Ophelia, During their union. James
and Ophelia acquired a residential lot worth P300,000.00.
Ophelia sues James for bigamy and prays that his marriage
with Shirley be declared null and void. James, on the other
hand, claims that since his marriage to Ophelia was
contracted during the existence of his marriage with Mary, the
former is not binding upon him, the same being void ab initio
he further claims that his marriage to Shirley is valid and
binding as he was already legally capacitated at the time he
married her. a) Is the contention of James correct? b) What
property Relations governed the union of James
and Ophelia? c) Is the estate of Mary entitled to a share in the
residential lot acquired by James and Ophelia?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Yes. His marriage to Ophelia is void ab initio because of
his subsisting prior marriage to Mary. His marriage to Shirley,
after Mary's death, is valid and binding.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A. No. The contention of James is not correct. Art. 40, Family
Code, provides that the "absolute nullity of a previous
marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the
basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous
marriage void." It can be said, therefore, that the marriage of
James to Shirley is void since his previous marriage to
Ophelia, although itself void, had not yet been judicially
declared void,
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A. No. The contention of James is not correct. He cannot
set up as a defense his own criminal act or wrongdoing-
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B. The provisions of Art 148 of the Family Code, shall govern: Art.
148. In cases of cohabitation not falling under
of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money,
property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in
proportion to their respective contributions. In the absence, of proof
to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are
presumed to be equal. The same rule and presumption shall apply
to joint deposits of money and evidences of credit.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
C. It should be distinguished when the property was
acquired.
• If it was acquired before Mary's death, the
estate of Mary is entitled to 1/2 of the share of James.
• If it was acquired after Mary's death, there
will be no share at all for the estate of Mary.
Marriage; Psychological Incapacity (1996)
On April 15, 1983, Jose, an engineer, and Marina, a nurse,
were married to each other in a civil ceremony in Boac.
Marinduque. Six months after their marriage, Jose was
employed in an oil refinery in Saudi Arabia for a period of
three years. When he returned to the Philippines, Marina was
no longer living in their house, but in Zamboanga City,
working in a hospital. He asked her to come home, but she
refused to do so, unless he agreed not to work overseas
anymore because she cannot stand living alone. He could not
agree as in fact, he had signed another three year contract.
When he returned in 1989, he could not locate Marina
anymore. In 1992, Jose filed an action served by publication
in a newspaper of general circulation. Marina did not file any
answer, a possible collusion between the parties was ruled out
by the Public Prosecutor. Trial was conducted and Marina
neither appeared nor presented evidence in her favor. If you
were the judge, will you grant the annulment. Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As judge, I will not grant the annulment. The facts do not
show any taint of personality disorder on the part of the wife
Marina so as to lend substance to her husband's averment of
psychological incapacity within the meaning of Art 36 of the
Family Code. In Santos vs. CA (240 SCRA 20), this particular
ground for nullity of marriage was held to be limited only to
the most serious cases of personality disorders (clearly
demonstrative of utter sensitivity or inability to give meaning
and significance to the marriage. Marina's refusal to come
home to her husband unless he agreed not to work overseas,
far from being indicative of an insensitivity to the meaning of
marriage, or of a personality disorder, actually shows a
sensitive awareness on her part of the marital duty to live
together as husband and wife. Mere refusal to rejoin her
husband when he did not accept the condition imposed by
her does not furnish any basis for concluding that she was
suffering from psychological incapacity to discharge the
essential marital obligations.
Mere intention to live apart does not fall under Art. 36, FC.
Furthermore, there is no proof that the alleged psychological
incapacity existed at the time of the marriage.
Page 30 of 119
Gemma filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of her
marriage with Arnell on the ground of psychological
incapacity. She alleged that after 2 months of their marriage,
Arnell showed signs of disinterest in her, neglected her and
went abroad. He returned to the Philippines after 3 years but
did not even get in touch with her. Worse, they met several
times in social functions but he snubbed her. When she got
sick, he did not visit her even if he knew of her confinement
in the hospital. Meanwhile, Arnell met an accident which
disabled him from reporting for work and earning a living to
support himself. Will Gemma's suit prosper? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Gemma's suit will not prosper. Even if taken as true, the
grounds, singly or collectively, do not constitute "psychological
incapacity." In Santos v. CA, G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995, the
Supreme Court clearly explained that "psychological incapacity
must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and
(c) incurability"
(Ferraris v. Ferraris, G.R. No. 162368, July 17, 2006; Choa v. Choa,
G.R. No. 143376, November 26, 2002). The illness must be shown
as downright incapacity or inability to perform one's marital
obligations, not a mere refusal, neglect, difficulty or much less, ill
will. Moreover, as ruled in Republic v. Molina, GR No. 108763,
February 13, 1997, it is essential that the husband is capable of
meeting his marital responsibilities due to psychological and not
physical illness
(Antonio v. Reyes, G.R. No. 155800, March 10, 2006; Republic
v. Quintero-Hamano, G.R. No. 149498, May 20, 2004).
Furthermore, the condition complained of did not exist at
the time of the celebration of marriage.
Article 36 of the Family Code provides that a marriage contracted by any
party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage,
shall be void. Choose the spouse listed below who is psychologically
incapacitated. Explain. (2.5%) a) Nagger b) Gay or Lesbian c)
Congenital sexual pervert d) Gambler e) Alcoholic SUGGESTED
ANSWER: The best answers are B and C. To be sure, the existence and
concealment of these conditions at the inception of marriage renders the
marriage contract voidable (Art. 46, Family Code). They may serve as
indicia of psychological incapacity, depending on the degree and severity
of the disorder (Santos v. CA, G.R. No. 112019, Jan. 4, 1995). Hence, if the
condition of homosexuality, lesbianism or sexual perversion, existing at
the inception of the marriage, is of such a degree as to prevent any form
of sexual intimacy, any of them may qualify as a ground for psychological
incapacity. The law provides that the husband and wife are obliged to live
together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity (Art. 68, Family Code).
The mandate is actually the spontaneous, mutual affection between the
spouses. In the natural order it is sexual intimacy which brings the
spouses wholeness and oneness (Chi Ming Tsoi
v. CA, G.R. No. 119190, January 16,1997).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
None of them are necessarily psychologically incapacitated. Being
a nagger, etc. are at best only physical manifestations indicative of
psychological incapacity. More than just showing the
manifestations of incapacity, the petitioner must show that the
respondent is incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations of marriage and that it is also essential that he must
be shown to be incapable of doing so due to some psychological,
not physical illness
(Republic v. Quintero-Hamano, G.R. No. 149498, May 20,
2004).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A congenital sexual pervert may be psychologically incapacitated
if his perversion incapacitates him from discharging his
marital obligations. For instance, if his perversion is of such a
nature as to preclude any normal sexual activity with his
spouse.
Marriage; Requisites (1995)
Isidro and Irma, Filipinos, both 18 years of age, were
passengers of Flight No. 317 of Oriental Airlines. The plane
they boarded was of Philippine registry. While en route from
Manila to Greece some passengers hijacked the plane, held
the chief pilot hostage at the cockpit and ordered him to fly
instead to Libya. During the hijacking Isidro suffered a heart
attack and was on the verge of death. Since Irma was already
eight months pregnant by Isidro, she pleaded to the hijackers
to allow the assistant pilot to solemnize her marriage with
Isidro. Soon after the marriage, Isidro expired. As the plane
landed in Libya Irma gave birth. However, the baby died a
few minutes after complete delivery. Back in the Philippines
Irma immediately filed a claim for inheritance. The parents of
Isidro opposed her claim contending that the marriage
between her and Isidro was void ab initio on the following
grounds: (a) they had not given their consent to the marriage
of their son; (b) there was no marriage license; (c) the
solemnizing officer had no authority to perform the marriage;
and, (d) the solemnizing officer did not file an affidavit of
marriage with the proper civil registrar.
1. Resolve each of the contentions ([a] to [d]) raised by the
parents of Isidro. Discuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. (a) The fact that the parents of Isidro and of Irma did
not give their consent to the marriage did not make the
marriage void ab initio. The marriage is merely voidable
under Art 45 of the FC.
(b) Absence of marriage license did not make the marriage
void ab initio. Since the marriage was solemnized in articulo
mortis, it was exempt from the license requirement under
Art. 31 of the FC.
(c) On the assumption that the assistant pilot was acting for
and in behalf of the airplane chief who was under disability,
and by reason of the extraordinary and exceptional
circumstances of the case [ie. hostage situation), the marriage
was solemnized by an authorized officer under Art. 7 (3) and
Art. 31. of the FC.
(d) Failure of the solemnizing officer to file the affidavit of
marriage did not affect the validity of the marriage. It is
merely an irregularity which may subject the solemnizing
officer to sanctions.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Considering that the solemnizing officer has no authority to
perform the marriage because under Art. 7 the law authorizes
only the airplane chief, the marriage is void, hence, a, c, and d
are immaterial.
Marriage; Requisites (1999)
What is the status of the following marriages and why?
(a) A marriage between two 19-year olds without
parental consent, (2%)
(b) A marriage between two 21-year olds without
parental advice. (2%)
(c) A marriage between two Filipino first cousins in
Spain where such marriage is valid. (2%)
(d) A marriage between two Filipinos in Hongkong
before a notary public. (2%)
(e) A marriage solemnized by a town mayor three
towns away from his jurisdiction, (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The marriage is voidable. The consent of the parties to
the marriage was defective. Being below 21 years old, the
consent of the parties is not full without the consent of their
parents. The consent of the parents of the parties to the
marriage is indispensable for its validity.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) Between 21-year olds, the marriage is valid despite the
absence of parental advice, because such absence is merely
an irregularity affecting a formal requisite i.e., the marriage
license and does not affect the validity of the marriage itself.
This is without prejudice to the civil, criminal, or
administrative liability of the party responsible therefor.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(c) By reason of public policy, the marriage between Filipino
first cousins is void [Art. 38, par. (1), Family Code], and the
fact that it is considered a valid marriage in a foreign country
in this case, Spain— does not validate it, being an exception
to the general rule in Art. 96 of said Code which accords
validity to all marriage solemnized outside the Philippine x x x
and valid there as such.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
The marriage it void. Under Article 96 of the Family Code, a
marriage valid where celebrated is valid in the Philippines
except those marriages enumerated in said Article which
marriages will remain void even though valid where
solemnized. The marriage between first cousins is one of
those marriages enumerated therein, hence, it is void even
though valid in Spain where it was celebrated.
By reason of Art. 15 in relation to Article 38 of the Civil
Code, which applies to Filipinos wherever they are, the
marriage is void.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(d) It depends. If the marriage before the notary public is
valid under Hongkong Law, the marriage is valid in the
Philippines. Otherwise, the marriage that is invalid in
Hongkong will be invalid in the Philippines.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
If the two Filipinos believed in good faith that the Notary
Public is authorized to solemnize marriage, then the marriage
is valid.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(e) Under the Local Government Code, a town mayor may
validly solemnize a marriage but said law is silent as to the
territorial limits for the exercise by a town mayor of such
authority. However, by analogy, with the authority of
members of the Judiciary to solemnize a marriage, it would
seem that the mayor did not have the requisite authority to
solemnize a marriage outside of his territorial jurisdiction.
Hence, the marriage is void, unless it was contracted with
either or both parties believing in good faith that the mayor
had the legal authority to solemnize this particular marriage
(Art 35, par 2 Family Code).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The marriage is valid. Under the Local Government Code, the
authority of a mayor to solemnize marriages is not restricted
within his municipality implying that he has the authority even
outside the territory thereof. Hence, the marriage he
solemnized outside his municipality is valid. And even
assuming that his authority is restricted within his municipality,
such marriage will nevertheless, be valid because solemnizing
the marriage outside said municipality is a mere irregularity
applying by analogy the case of Navarro v Domagtoy, 259 Scra
129. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the celebration
by a judge of a marriage outside the jurisdiction of his court is
a mere irregularity that did not affect the validity of the
marriage notwithstanding Article 7 of the Family Code which
provides that an incumbent member of the judiciary is
authorized to solemnize marriages only within the court’s
jurisdiction.
Marriage; Requisites; Marriage License (1996)
On Valentine's Day 1996, Ellas and Fely, both single and 25
years of age, went to the city hall where they sought out a
fixer to help them obtain a quickie marriage. For a fee, the
fixer produced an ante-dated marriage license for them,
Issued by the Civil Registrar of a small remote municipality.
He then brought them to a licensed minister in a restaurant
behind the city hall, and the latter solemnized their marriage
right there and then. 1) Is their marriage valid, void or
voidable? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The marriage is valid. The irregularity in the issuance of a
valid license does not adversely affect the validity of the
marriage. The marriage license is valid because it was in fact
issued by a Civil Registrar (Arts. 3 and 4. FC).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
It depends. If both or one of the parties was a member of the
religious sect of the solemnizing officer, the marriage is valid.
If none of the parties is a member of the sect and both of
them were aware of the fact, the marriage is void. They
cannot claim good faith in believing that the solemnizing
officer was authorized because the scope of the authority of
the solemnizing officer is a matter of law. If, however, one of
the parties believed in good faith that the other was a member
of the sect, then the marriage is valid
under Article 35 (2), FC. In that case, the party in good faith This is different from the case
of Nināl V. Bayadog, (328
is acting under a mistake of fact, not a mistake of law,
2) Would your answer be the same if it should turn out that
the marriage license was spurious? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the answer would not be the same. The marriage would
be void because of the absence of a formal requisite. In such
a case, there was actually no valid marriage license.
Marriage; Requisites; Marriage License (2002)
On May 1, 1978 Facundo married Petra, by whom he had a
son Sotero. Petra died on July 1, 1996, while Facundo died on
January 1, 2002. Before his demise, Facundo had married, on
July 1, 2002, Quercia. Having lived together as husband and
wife since July 1, 1990, Facundo and Quercia did not secure a
marriage license but executed the requisite affidavit for the
purpose. To ensure that his inheritance rights are not
adversely affected by his father second marriage, Sotero now
brings a suit to seek a declaration of the nullity of the
marriage of Facundo and Quercia, grounded on the absence
of a valid marriage license. Quercia contends that there was
no need for a marriage license in view for her having lived
continuously with Facundo for five years before their
marriage and that has Sotero has no legal personality to seek a
declaration of nullity of the marriage since Facundo is now
deceased.
A. Is the marriage of Facundo and Quercia valid, despite the
absence of a marriage license? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. The marriage with Quercia is void. The exemption from
the requirement of a marriage license under Art, 34, Family
Code, requires that the man and woman must have lived
together as husband and wife for at least five years and
without any legal impediment to marry each other during
those five years. The cohabitation of Facundo and Quercia
for six years from 1990 to July 1, 1996 when Petra died was
one with a legal impediment hence, not in compliance with
the requirement of law. On other hand, the cohabitation
thereafter until the marriage on July 1, 2000, although free
from legal impediment, did not meet the 5-year cohabitation
requirement.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The marriage of Facundo and Quercia is VALID. The second
marriage was solemnized on July 1, 2000, when the Family
code was already affective. The family code took effect on
August 3, 1988. Under the Family Code, no marriage license is
required if the parties have been cohabiting for the period of
five years and there is no legal impediment. There must no
legal impediment ONLY AT THE TIME OF THE
SOLEMNIZATION OF THE MARRIAGE, and not the whole
five years period. This is clearly the intent of the code framers
(see Minutes of the 150th joint Civil Code of the Family Law
Committees held on August 9, 1986). Also, in Manzano V.
Sanchez, AM NO. MT –00-129, March 8, 2001, the Supreme
Court said that, as one of the requisites for the exception to
apply, there must be no legal impediment at the time of the
marriage. The Supreme Court did not say that the legal
impediment must exist all throughout the five-year period.
SCRA 122 [2000]). In the said case, the situation occurred
during the Relations of the new Civil Code where Article 76
thereof clearly provides that during the five-year cohabitation,
the parties must be unmarried. This is not so anymore in the
Family Code. The Change in the Family Code is significant. If
the second marriage occurred before the effectivity of the
Family Code, the answer would that be that the marriage is
void.
B. Does Sotero have the personality to seek the declaration
of nullity of the marriage, especially now that Facundo is
already deceased? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B. A void marriage may be questioned by any interested party
in any proceeding where the resolution of the issue is material.
Being a compulsory heir, Soterro has the personality to
question the validity of the marriage of Facundo and Quercia.
Otherwise, his participation in the estate on Facundo would
be affected. (Ninãl V. Bayadog, 328 SCRA 122 [2000] ).
Marriage; Requisites; Solemnizing Officers (1994)
1} The complete publication of the Family Code was made
on August 4, 1987. On September 4, 1987, Junior Cruz and
Gemma Reyes were married before a municipal mayor. Was
the marriage valid? 2) Suppose the couple got married on
September 1, 1994 at the Manila Hotel before the Philippine
Consul General to Hongkong, who was on vacation in
Manila. The couple executed an affidavit consenting to the
celebration of the marriage at the Manila Hotel. Is the
marriage valid?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) a) Yes, the marriage is valid. The Family Code took
effect on August 3, 1988. At the time of the marriage on
September 4, 1987, municipal mayors were empowered to
solemnize marriage under the Civil Code of 1950.
2) a) The marriage is not valid. Consuls and vice-consuls
are empowered to solemnize marriages between Philippine
citizens abroad in the consular office of the foreign country to
which they were assigned and have no power to solemnize
marriage on Philippine soil.
b) A Philippine consul is authorized by law to solemnize
marriages abroad between Filipino citizens. He has no
authority to solemnize a marriage in the Philippines.
Consequently, the marriage in question is void, unless either
or both of the contracting parties believed in good faith that
the consul general had authority to solemnize their marriage
in which case the marriage is valid.
Marriage; Requisites; Void Marriage (1993)
A and B, both 18 years old, were sweethearts studying in
Manila. On August 3, 1988, while in first year college, they
eloped. They stayed in the house of a mutual friend in town
X, where they were able to obtain a marriage license. On
August 30, 1988, their marriage was solemnized by the town
mayor of X in his office. Thereafter, they returned to Manila
and continued to live separately in their respective boarding
houses, concealing from their parents, who were living in the
province what they had done. In 1992, after graduation
from college, A and B decided to break their relation and Philippine Law, his marriage to
Anne is void because of a
parted ways. Both went home to their respective towns to
live and work. 1) Was the marriage of A and B solemnized
on August 30, 1988 by the town mayor of X in his office a
valid marriage? Explain your answer. 2) Can either or both
of them contract marriage with another person without
committing bigamy? Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) The marriage of A and B is void because the solemnizing
officer had no legal authority to solemnize the marriage. But
if either or both parties believed in good faith that the
solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so, the
marriage is voidable because the marriage between the
parties, both below 21 years of age, was solemnized without
the consent of the parents. (Art. 35, par. (2) and Art. 45 par.
(1), Family Code)
2) Either or both of the parties cannot contract marriage in
the Philippines with another person without committing
bigamy, unless there is compliance with the requirements of
Article 52 Family Code, namely: there must be a judgment of
annulment or absolute nullity of the marriage, partition and
distribution of the properties of the spouses and the delivery
of their children's presumptive legitimes, which shall be
recorded in the appropriate Civil Registry and Registry of
Property, otherwise the same shall not affect third persons
and the subsequent marriage shall be null and void. (Arts. 52
and 53. Family Code)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
2) Yes, they can. The subsequent marriage contracted by one
of the parties will not give rise to bigamy even in the absence
of a court declaration of nullity of the first marriage. The
subsistence of a prior valid marriage is an indispensable
element of the crime of bigamy. The prior court declaration
of nullity of the first marriage is required by the Family Code
only for the purpose of the validity of the subsequent
marriage, not as an element of the crime of bigamy.
Marriage; Void Marriages (2004)
A. BONI and ANNE met while working overseas. They
became sweethearts and got engaged to be married on New
Year’s Eve aboard a cruise ship in the Caribbean. They took
the proper license to marry in New York City, where there is
a Filipino consulate. But as planned the wedding ceremony
was officiated by the captain of the Norwegian-registered
vessel in a private suite among selected friends.
Back in Manila, Anne discovered that Boni had been married
in Bacolod City 5 years earlier but divorced in Oslo only last
year. His first wife was also a Filipina but now based in
Sweden. Boni himself is a resident of Norway where he and
Anne plan to live permanently.
Anne retains your services to advise her on whether her
marriage to Boni is valid under Philippine law? Is there
anything else she should do under the circumstances? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If Boni is still a Filipino citizen, his legal capacity is governed by
Philippine Law (Art. 15 Civil Code). Under
prior existing marriage which was not dissolved by the divorce
decreed in Oslo. Divorce obtained abroad by a Filipino is not
recognized.
If Boni was no longer a Filipino citizen, the divorce is valid.
Hence, his marriage to Anne is valid if celebrated in
accordance with the law of the place where it was celebrated.
Since the marriage was celebrated aboard a vessel of
Norwegian registry, Norwegian law applies. If the Ship
Captain has authority to solemnize the marriage aboard his
ship, the marriage is valid and shall be recognized in the
Philippines.
As to the second question, if Boni is still a Filipino, Anne can
file an action for declaration of nullity of her marriage to
him.
Marriage; Void Marriages (2006)
Gigi and Ric, Catholics, got married when they were 18 years
old. Their marriage was solemnized on August 2, 1989 by
Ric's uncle, a Baptist Minister, in Calamba, Laguna. He
overlooked the fact that his license to solemnize marriage
expired the month before and that the parties do not belong
to his congregation. After 5 years of married life and blessed
with 2 children, the spouses developed irreconcilable
differences, so they parted ways. While separated, Ric fell in
love with Juliet, a 16 year-old sophomore in a local college
and a Seventh-Day Adventist. They decided to get married
with the consent of Juliet's parents. She presented to him a
birth certificate showing she is 18 years old. Ric never
doubted her age much less the authenticity of her birth
certificate. They got married in a Catholic church in Manila. A
year after, Juliet gave birth to twins, Aissa and Aretha.
(1) What is the status of the marriage between Gigi and
Ric — valid, voidable or void? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Even if the Minister's license expired, the
marriage is valid if either or both Gigi and Ric believed in good
faith that he had the legal authority to solemnize marriage. While
the authority of the solemnizing officer is a formal requisite of
marriage, and at least one of the parties must belong to the
solemnizing officer's church, the law provides that the good faith
of the parties cures the defect in the lack of authority of the
solemnizing officer
(Art. 35 par. 2, Family Code; Sempio-Diy, p. 34; Rabuya, The
Law on Persons and Family Relations, p. 208).
The absence of parental consent despite their having married
at the age of 18 is deemed cured by their continued
cohabitation beyond the age of 21. At this point, their
marriage is valid (See Art. 45, Family Code).
(2) What is the status of the marriage between Ric and
Juliet — valid, voidable or void? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The marriage between Juliet and Ric is
void. First of all, the marriage is a bigamous marriage not
falling under Article 41 [Art. 35(4)Family Code], A subsisting
marriage constitutes a legal impediment to remarriage.
Secondly, Juliet is below eighteen years of age. The marriage is
void even if consented to by her parents
[Art. 35(1), Family Code]. The fact that Ric was not aware Under Article 213 of the Family
Code, no child under 7
of her real age is immaterial.
(3) Suppose Ric himself procured the falsified birth
certificate to persuade Juliet to marry him despite her
minority and assured her that everything is in order. He
did not divulge to her his prior marriage with Gigi. What
action, if any, can Juliet take against him? Explain.
(2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Juliet can file an action for the
declaration of nullity of the marriage on the ground that he
willfully caused loss or injury to her in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs and public policy [Art. 21,
New Civil Code]. She may also bring criminal actions for
seduction, falsification, illegal marriage and bigamy against
Ric.
(4) If you were the counsel for Gigi, what action/s will
you take to enforce and protect her interests? Explain.
(2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: I would file an action to declare the
marriage between Juliet and Ric null and void ab initio and
for Ric's share in the co-ownership of that marriage to be
forfeited in favor and considered part of the absolute
community in the marriage between Gigi and Ric [Arts. 148
& 147, Family Code]. I would also file an action for damages
against Ric on the grounds that his acts constitute an abuse of
right and they are contrary to law and morals, causing
damages to Gigi (See Arts 19, 20, 21, New Civil Code).
Marriage; Void Marriages; Psychological Incapacity (2002)
A. Give a brief definition or explanation of the term
―psychological incapacity‖ as a ground for the declaration of
nullity of a marriage. (2%)
B. If existing at the inception of marriage, would the state of
being of unsound mind or the concealment of drug
addiction, habitual alcoholism, homosexuality or lesbianism
be considered indicia of psychological incapacity? Explain.
(2%).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A.‖ PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY‖ is a mental
disorder of the most serious type showing the incapability of
one or both spouses to comply the essential marital
obligations of love, respect, cohabitation, mutual help and
support, trust and commitment. It must be characterized by
Juridical antecedence, gravity and incurability and its root
causes must be clinically identified or examined. (Santos v. CA,
240 SCRA 20 [1995]).
B. In the case of Santos v. Court of Appeals, 240 SCRA 20
(1995), the Supreme Court held that being of unsound mind,
drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or
homosexuality may be indicia of psychological incapacity,
depending on the degree of severity of the disorder. However,
the concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism,
lesbianism or homosexuality is a ground of annulment of
marriage.
Parental Authority; Child under 7 years of age (2006)
years of age shall be separated from the mother unless the
court finds compelling reasons to order otherwise.
(1) Explain the rationale of this provision. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The rationale of the 2nd paragraph of Article 213 of the Family
Code is to avoid the tragedy of a mother who sees her baby torn
away from her. It is said that the maternal affection and care
during the early years of the child are generally needed by the
child more than paternal care
(Hontiveros v. IAC, G.R. No. 64982, October 23, 1984;
Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code,
Volume One, pp. 718-719). The general rule is that a child
below 7 years old shall not be separated from his mother due
to his basic need for her loving care (Espiritu v. C.A., G.R. No.
115640, March 15,1995).
(2) Give at least 3 examples of "compelling reasons"
which justify the taking away from the mother's custody
of her child under 7 years of age. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. The mother is insane (Sempio-Diy, Handbook
on the Family Code of the Philippines, pp. 296-297);
• The mother is sick with a disease that is communicable
and might endanger the health and life of the
child;
• The mother has been maltreating the child;
• The mother is engaged in prostitution;
• The mother is engaged in adulterous
relationship;
• The mother is a drug addict;
• The mother is a habitual drunk or an
alcoholic;
Paren•t al AuthTorhitey ;m Soptheecri aisl iPna jraeiln otarl seAruvtihnogr siteyn; teLniacbe.i li ty of
Teachers (2003)
If during class hours, while the teacher was chatting with
other teachers in the school corridor, a 7 year old male pupil
stabs the eye of another boy with a ball pen during a fight,
causing permanent blindness to the victim, who could be
liable for damages for the boy’s injury: the teacher, the school
authorities, or the guilty boy’s parents? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The school, its administrators, and teachers have special
parental authority and responsibility over the minor child
while under their supervision, instruction or custody (Article
218, FC). They are principally and solidarily liable for the
damages caused by the acts or omissions of the
unemancipated minor unless they exercised the proper
diligence required under the circumstances (Article 219, FC).
In the problem, the TEACHER and the SCHOOL
AUTHORITIES are liable for the blindness of the victim,
because the student who cause it was under their special
parental authority and they were negligent. They were
negligent because they were chatting in the corridor during the
class period when the stabbing incident occurred. The incident
could have been prevented had the teacher been inside the
classroom at that time. The guilty boy’s PARENTS are
subsidiarily liable under Article 219 of the Family Code.
Parental Authority; Substitute vs. Special (2004)
Distinguish briefly but clearly between: Substitute parental sperm. After a series of test,
Andy's sperm was medically
authority and special parental authority.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In substitute parental authority, the parents lose their parental
authority in favor of the substitute who acquires it to the
exclusion of the parents.
In special parental authority, the parents or anyone exercising
parental authority does not lose parental authority. Those who
are charged with special parental authority exercise such
authority only during the time that the child is in their custody
or supervision.
Substitute parental authority displaces parental authority while
special parental authority concurs with parental authority.
Paternity & Filiation (1999)
(a) Two (2) months after the death of her husband who was
shot by unknown criminal elements on his way home from
office, Rose married her childhood boyfriend, and seven (7)
months after said marriage, she delivered a baby. In the
absence of any evidence from Rose as to who is her child's
father, what status does the law give to said child? Explain.
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The child is legitimate of the second marriage under
Article 168(2) of the Family Code which provides that a
"child born after one hundred eighty days following the
celebration of the subsequent marriage is considered to have
been conceived during such marriage, even though it be born
within three hundred days after the termination of the former
marriage."
Paternity & Filiation; Proofs (1999)
(b) Nestor is the illegitimate son of Dr. Perez. When Dr.
Perez died, Nestor intervened in the settlement of his father's
estate, claiming that he is the illegitimate son of said deceased,
but the legitimate family of Dr. Perez is denying Nestor's
claim. What evidence or evidences should Nestor present so
that he may receive his rightful share in his father's estate?
(3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) To be able to inherit, the illegitimate filiation of Nestor
must have been admitted by his father in any of the
following:
(1) the record of birth appearing in the civil register,
(2) a final judgment,
(3) a public document signed by the father, or
(4) a private handwritten document signed by the lather
(Article 17S in relation to Article 172 of the Family Code).
Paternity & Filiation; Artificial Insemination;
Formalities(2006)
Ed and Beth have been married for 20 years without children.
Desirous to have a baby, they consulted Dr. Jun Canlas, a ,
prominent medical specialist on human fertility. He advised Beth
to undergo artificial insemination. It was found that Ed’s sperm
count was inadequate to induce pregnancy Hence, the couple
looked for a willing donor. Andy the brother of Ed, readily
consented to donate his
introduced into Beth's ovary. She became pregnant and 9 months
later, gave birth to a baby boy, named Alvin.
(1) Who is the Father of Alvin? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Andy is the biological father of Alvin being the source of the
sperm. Andy is the legal father of Alvin because there was
neither consent nor ratification to the artificial insemination.
Under the law, children conceived by artificial insemination
are legitimate children of the spouses, provided, that both of
them authorized or ratified the insemination in a written
instrument executed and signed by both of them before the
birth of the child (Art. 164, Family Code).
(2) What are the requirements, if any, in order for Ed to
establish his paternity over Alvin. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The following are the requirements for Ed to establish his
paternity over Alvin:
• The artificial insemination has been authorized or
ratified by the spouses in a written instrument executed and
signed by them before the birth of the child; and
• The written instrument is recorded in the civil
registry together with the birth certificate of the child (Art.
164, 2nd paragraph, Family Code).
Paternity & Filiation; Common-Law Union (2004)
A. RN and DM, without any impediment to marry each
other, had been living together without benefit of church
blessings. Their common-law union resulted in the birth of
ZMN. Two years later, they got married in a civil ceremony.
Could ZMN be legitimated? Reason. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ZMN was legitimated by the subsequent marriage of RN and
DM because at the time he was conceived, RN and DM
could have validly married each other. Under the Family
Code children conceived and born outside of wedlock of
parents who, at the time of the former's conception, were not
disqualified by any impediment to marry each other are
legitimated by the subsequent marriage of the parents.
Paternity & Filiation; Proofs; Limitations; Adopted Child
(1995)
Abraham died intestate on 7 January 1994 survived by his son
Braulio. Abraham's older son Carlos died on 14 February
1990. Danilo who claims to be an adulterous child of Carlos
intervenes in the proceedings for the settlement of the estate
of Abraham in representation of Carlos. Danilo was legally
adopted on 17 March 1970 by Carlos with the consent of the
" latter's wife.
1. Under the Family Code, how may an illegitimate filiation
be proved? Explain.
2. As lawyer for Danilo, do you have to prove Danilo's
illegitimate filiation? Explain.
3. Can Danilo inherit from Abraham in representation of his
father Carlos? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Under Art. 172 in relation to Art. 173 andArt. 175 of the
FC, the filiation of illegitimate children may be established
in the same way and by the same evidence as legitimate recognition of an illegitimate child
can be brought at any
children. Art. 172 provides that the filiation of legitimate
children is established by any of the following: (1) the record
of birth appearing in the civil register or a final Judgment; or
(2) an admission of legitimate filiation in a public document
or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent
concerned. In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the
legitimate filiation shall be proved by: (1) the open and
continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or
(2) any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and
special laws.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. No. Since Danilo has already been adopted by Carlos, he
ceased to be an illegitimate child. An adopted child acquires
all the rights of a legitimate child under Art, 189 of the FC.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
3. No, he cannot. Danilo cannot represent Carlos as the
latter's adopted child in the inheritance of Abraham because
adoption did not make Danilo a legitimate grandchild of
Abraham. Adoption is personal between Carlos and Danilo.
He cannot also represent Carlos as the latter's illegitimate
child because in such case he is barred by Art. 992 of the
NCC from inheriting from his illegitimate grandfather
Abraham.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
An adopted child's successional rights do not include the right
to represent his deceased adopter in the inheritance of the
latter's legitimate parent, in view of Art. 973 which provides
that in order that representation may take place, the
representative must himself be capable of succeeding the
decedent. Adoption by itself did not render Danilo an heir of
the adopter's legitimate parent. Neither does his being a
grandchild of Abraham render him an heir of the latter
because as an illegitimate child of Carlos, who was a legitimate
child of Abraham, Danilo is incapable of succeeding Abraham
under Art. 992 of the Code.
Paternity & Filiation; Recognition of illegitimate Child (2005)
Steve was married to Linda, with whom he had a daughter,
Tintin. Steve fathered a son with Dina, his secretary of 20
years, whom Dina named Joey, born on September 20, 1981.
Joey's birth certificate did not indicate the father's name.
Steve died on August 13, 1993, while Linda died on
December 3, 1993, leaving their legitimate daughter, Tintin,
as sole heir. On May 16, 1994, Dina filed a case on behalf of
Joey, praying that the latter be declared an acknowledged
illegitimate son of Steve and that Joey be given his share in
Steve's estate, which is now being solely held by Tintin.
Tintin put up the defense that an action for recognition shall
only be filed during the lifetime of the presumed parents and
that the exceptions under Article 285 of the Civil Code do
not apply to him since the said article has been repealed by
the Family Code. In any case, according to Tintin, Joey's birth
certificate does not show that Steve is his father.
a) Does Joey have a cause of action against Tintin for
recognition and partition? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Joey does not have a cause of action against Tintin for
recognition and partition. Under Article 175 of the Family Code, as a
general rule, an action for compulsory
time during the lifetime of the child. However, if the action is based
on "open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate
child, the same can be filed during the lifetime of the putative
father."
In the present case, the action for compulsory recognition was
filed by Joey's mother, Dina, on May 16,1994, after the death
of Steve, the putative father. The action will prosper if Joey
can present his birth certificate that bears the signature of his
putative father. However, the facts clearly state that the birth
certificate of Joey did not indicate the father's name. A birth
certificate not signed by the alleged father cannot be taken as a
record of birth to prove recognition of the child, nor can said
birth certificate be taken as a recognition in a public
instrument. (Reyes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 39537, March
19, 1985) Consequently, the action filed by Joey's mother has
already prescribed.
b) Are the defenses set up by Tintin tenable? Explain.
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the defenses of Tintin are tenable. In Tayag v. Court of
Appeals (G.R. No. 95229, June 9,1992), a complaint to compel
recognition of an illegitimate child was brought before
effectivity of the Family Code by the mother of a minor child
based on "open and continuous possession of the status of an
illegitimate child." The Supreme Court held that the right of
action of the minor child has been vested by the filing of the
complaint in court under the regime of the Civil Code and
prior to the effectivity of the Family Code. The ruling in Tayag
v. Court of Appeals finds no application in the instant case.
Although the child was born before the effectivity of the
Family Code, the complaint was filed after its effectivity.
Hence, Article 175 of the Family Code should apply and not
Article 285 of the Civil Code.
c) Supposing that Joey died during the pendency of the
action, should the action be dismissed? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If Joey died during the pendency of the action, the action
should still be dismissed because the right of Joey or his heirs
to file the action has already prescribed. (Art. 175, Family
Code)
Paternity & Filiation; Rights of Legitimate Children (1990)
B and G (college students, both single and not disqualified to
marry each other) had a romantic affair, G was seven months
in the family way as of the graduation of B. Right after
graduation B went home to Cebu City. Unknown to G, B had
a commitment to C (his childhood sweetheart) to marry her
after getting his college degree. Two weeks after B marriage
in Cebu City, G gave birth to a son E in Metro Manila. After
ten years of married life in Cebu, B became a widower by the
sudden death of C in a plane crash. Out of the union of B
and C, two children, X and Y were born. Unknown to C
while on weekend trips to Manila during the last 5 years of
their marriage, B invariably visited G and lived at her
residence and as a result of which, they renewed their
relationship. A baby girl F was born to B and G two years
before the death of C. Bringing his family later to Manila, B Paulita left the conjugal home
because of the excessive
finally married G. Recently. G died. What are the rights of
B's four children: X and Y of his first marriage; and E and F,
his children with G? Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under the facts stated, X and Y are legitimate children of B
and C. E is the legitimate children of B and G. E is the
legitimated child of B&G. F is the illegitimate child of B and
C. As legitimate children of B and C, X and Y have the
following rights: 1) To bear the surnames of the father and
the mother, in
conformity with the provisions of the Civil Code on
Surnames; 2) To receive support from their parents, their
ascendants,
and in proper cases, their brothers and sisters, in
conformity with the provisions of the Family Code on
Support; and
3) To be entitled to the legitime and other successional
rights granted to them by the Civil Code. (Article 174, Family
Code).
E is the legitimated child of B and G. Under Art. 177 of the
Family Code, only children conceived and born outside of
wedlock of parents who, at the time of the conception of the
former, were not disqualified by any impediment to marry
each other may be legitimated. E will have the same rights
as X and Y.
F is the illegitimate child of B and G. F has the right to use
the surname of G, her mother, and is entitled to support as
well as the legitime consisting of 1/2 of that of each of X, Y
and E. (Article 176, Family Code)
Presumptive Legitime (1999)
What do you understand by "presumptive legitime", in what
case or cases must the parent deliver such legitime to the
children, and what are the legal effects in each case if the
parent fails to do so? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
PRESUMPTIVE LEGITIME is not defined in the law. Its
definition must have been taken from Act 2710, the Old
Divorce Law, which required the delivery to the legitimate
children of "the equivalent of what would have been due to
them as their legal portion if said spouse had died intestate
immediately after the dissolution of the community of
property." As used in the Family Code, presumptive legitime
is understood as the equivalent of the legitimate children's
legitimes assuming that the spouses had died immediately
after the dissolution of the community of property.
Presumptive legitime is required to be delivered to the
common children of the spouses when the marriage is
annulled or declared void ab initio and possibly, when the
conjugal partnership or absolute community is dissolved as in
the case of legal separation. Failure of the parents to deliver
the presumptive legitime will make their subsequent marriage
null and void under Article 53 of the Family Code.
Property Relations; Absolute Community (1994)
drinking of her husband, Alberto. Paulita, out of her own
endeavor, was able to buy a parcel of land which she was able
to register under her name with the addendum "widow." She
also acquired stocks in a listed corporation registered in her
name. Paulita sold the parcel of land to Rafael, who first
examined the original of the transfer certificate of title. 1) Has
Alberto the right to share in the shares of stock acquired by
Paulita? 2) Can Alberto recover the land from Rafael?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. a) Yes. The Family Code provides that all property acquired
during the marriage, whether the acquisition appears to have
been made, contracted or registered in the name of one or
both spouses, is presumed to be absolute community
property unless the contrary is proved.
b) Yes. The shares are presumed to be absolute community
property having been acquired during the marriage despite
the fact that those shares were registered only in her name.
Alberto's right to claim his share will only arise, however, at
dissolution.
c) The presumption is still that the shares of stock are
owned in common. Hence, they will form part of the
absolute community or the conjugal partnership depending
on what the property Relations is.
d) Since Paulita acquired the shares of stock by onerous title
during the marriage, these are part of the conjugal or absolute
community property, as the case maybe (depending on
whether the marriage was celebrated prior to. or after, the
effectivity of the Family Code). Her physical separation from
her husband did not dissolve the community of property.
Hence, the husband has a right to share in the shares of
stock.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2) a) Under a community of property, whether absolute or
relative, the disposition of property belonging to such
community is void if done by just one spouse without the
consent of the other or authority of the proper court.
However, the land was registered in the name of Paulita as
"widow". Hence, the buyer has the right to rely upon what
appears in the record of the Register of Deeds and should,
consequently, be protected. Alberto cannot recover the land
from Rafael but would have the right of recourse against his
wife
b) The parcel of land is absolute community property having
been acquired during the marriage and through Paulita's
industry despite the registration being only in the name of
Paulita. The land being community property, its sale to Rafael
without the consent of Alberto is void. However, since the
land is registered in the name of Paulita as widow, there is
nothing in the title which would raise a suspicion for Rafael
to make inquiry. He, therefore, is an innocent purchaser for
value from whom the land may no longer be recovered.
c) No. Rafael is an innocent purchaser in good faith who, 1. Since Bob and Sofia got
married In 1970, then the law
upon relying on the correctness of the certificate of title,
acquires rights which are to be protected by the courts.
Under the established principles of land registration law, the
presumption is that the transferee of registered land is not
aware of any defect in the title of the property he purchased.
(See Tojonera v. Court of Appeals, 103 SCRA 467). Moreover,
the person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the
correctness of its certificate of title and the law will in no way
oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine the
condition of the property. [Director of Lands v. Abache, et al.
73 Phil. 606). No strong considerations of public policy have
been presented which would lead the Court to reverse the
established and sound doctrine that the buyer in good faith of
a registered parcel of land does not have to look beyond the
Torrens Title and search for any hidden defect or inchoate
right which may later invalidate or diminish his right to what
he purchased. (Lopez v. Court of Appeals. 189 SCRA 271)
d) The parcel of land is absolute community property having
been acquired during the marriage and through Paulita's
industry despite registration only in the name of Paulita. The
land being community property, its sale to Rafael without the
consent of Alberto is void.
Property Relations; Ante Nuptial Agreement (1995)
Suppose Tirso and Tessie were married on 2 August 1988
without executing any ante nuptial agreement. One year
after their marriage, Tirso while supervising the clearing of
Tessie's inherited land upon the latter's request, accidentally
found the treasure not in the new river bed but on the
property of Tessie. To whom shall the treasure belong?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Since Tirso and Tessie were married before the effectivity of
the Family Code, their property relation is governed by
conjugal partnership of gains. Under Art. 54 of the Civil
Code, the share of the hidden treasure which the law awards
to the finder or the proprietor belongs to the conjugal
partnership of gains. The one-half share pertaining to Tessie
as owner of the land, and the one-half share pertaining to
Tirso as finder of the treasure, belong to the conjugal
partnership of gains.
Property Relations; Conjugal Partnership of Gains (1998)
In 1970, Bob and Issa got married without executing a
marriage settlement. In 1975, Bob inherited from his father a
residential lot upon which, in 1981, he constructed a
two-room bungalow with savings from his own earnings. At
that time, the lot was worth P800.000.00 while the house,
when finished cost P600,000.00. In 1989 Bob died, survived
only by his wife, Issa and his mother, Sofia. Assuming that the
relative values of both assets remained at the same
proportion:
1. State whether Sofia can rightfully claim that the house and
lot are not conjugal but exclusive property of her deceased
son. [3%]
2. Will your answer be the same if Bob died before
August 3, 1988? [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
that governs is the New Civil Code (Persons), in which case,
the property relations that should be applied as regards the
property of the spouses is the system of relative community
or conjugal partnership of gains (Article 119, Civil Code). By
conjugal partnership of gains, the husband and the wife place
in a common fund the fruits of their separate property and
the income from their work or Industry (Article 142, Civil
Code). In this instance, the lot inherited by Bob in 1975 is his
own separate property, he having acquired the same by
lucrative title (par. 2, Art. 148, Civil Code). However, the
house constructed from his own savings in 1981 during the
subsistence of his marriage with Issa is conjugal property and
not exclusive property in accordance with the principle of
"reverse accession" provided for in Art. 158, Civil Code.
ANOTHER ANSWER:
1. Sofia, being her deceased son's legal heir concurring
with his surviving spouse (Arts. 985, 986 and 997, Civil
Code), may rightfully claim that the house and lot are not
conjugal but belong to the hereditary estate of Bob. The value
of the land being more than the cost of the improvement
(Art. 120, Family Code).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. Yes, the answer would still be the same. Since Bob and Issa
contracted their marriage way back in 1970, then the property
relations that will govern is still the relative community or
conjugal partnership of gains (Article 119, Civil Code). It will
not matter if Bob died before or after August 3. 1988
(effectivity date of the Family Code], what matters is the
date when the marriage was contracted. As Bob and Issa
contracted their marriage way back in 1970. the property
relation that governs them is still the conjugal partnership of
gains. (Art. 158, Civil Code)
ANOTHER ANSWER:
2. If Bob died be fore August 3, 1988. which is the date the
Family Code took effect, the answer will not be the same.
Art. 158. Civil Code, would then apply. The land would then
be deemed conjugal, along with the house, since conjugal
funds were used in constructing it. The husband's estate
would be entitled to a reimbursement of the value of the land
from conjugal partnership funds.
Property Relations; Marriage Settlement; Conjugal Partnership
of Gains (2005)
Gabby and Mila got married at Lourdes Church in Quezon
City on July 10, 1990. Prior thereto, they executed a marriage
settlement whereby they agreed on the regime of conjugal
partnership of gains. The marriage settlement was registered
in the Register of Deeds of Manila, where Mila is a resident.
In 1992, they jointly acquired a residential house and lot, as
well as a condominium unit in Makati. In 1995, they decided
to change their property relations to the regime of complete
separation of property. Mila consented, as she was then
engaged in a lucrative business. The spouses then signed a
private document dissolving their conjugal partnership and
agreeing on a complete separation of property.
Thereafter, Gabby acquired a mansion in Baguio City, and a Bar Candidates Patricio
Mahigugmaon and Rowena Amor
5-hectare agricultural land in Oriental Mindoro, which he
registered exclusively in his name. In the year 2000, Mila's
business venture failed, and her creditors sued her for
P10,000,000.00. After obtaining a favorable judgment, the
creditors sought to execute on the spouses' house and lot and
condominium unit, as well as Gabby's mansion and
agricultural land.
a) Discuss the status of the first and the amended
marriage settlements. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The marriage settlement between Gabby and Mila adopting
the regime of conjugal partnership of gains still subsists. It is
not dissolved by the mere agreement of the spouses during
the marriage. It is clear from Article 134 of the Family Code
that in the absence of an express declaration in the marriage
settlement, the separation of property between the spouses
during the marriage shall not take place except by judicial
order.
b) Discuss the effects of the said settlements on the
properties acquired by the spouses. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The regime of conjugal partnership of gains governs the
properties acquired by the spouses. All the properties acquired
by the spouses after the marriage belong to the conjugal
partnership. Under Article 116 of the Family Code, even if
Gabby registered the mansion and 5-hectare agricultural land
exclusively in his name, still they are presumed to be conjugal
properties, unless the contrary is proved.
c) What properties may be held answerable for Mila's
obligations? Explain. (2%)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Since all the properties are conjugal, they can be held
answerable for Mila's obligation if the obligation redounded to
the benefit of the family. (Art. 121 [3], Family Code)
However, the burden of proof lies with the creditor claiming
against the properties. (Ayala Investment v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 118305, February 12,1998, reiterated in
Homeowners Savings & Loan Bank v. Dailo, G.R. No. 153802,
March 11, 2005)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Except for the residential house which is the family home, all
other properties of Gabby and Mila may be held answerable
for Mila's obligation. Since the said properties are conjugal in
nature, they can be held liable for debts and obligations
contracted during the marriage to the extent that the family
was benefited or where the debts were contracted by both
spouses, or by one of them, with the consent of the other.
A family home is a dwelling place of a person and his family.
It confers upon a family the right to enjoy such property,
which must remain with the person constituting it as a family
home and his heirs. It cannot be seized by creditors except in
special cases. (Taneo, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108532,
March 9, 1999)
Property Relations; Marriage Settlements (1991)
decided to marry each other before the last day of the 1991
Bar Examinations. They agreed to execute a Marriage
Settlement. Rowena herself prepared the document in her
own handwriting. They agreed on the following: (1) a conjugal
partnership of gains; (2) each donates to the other fifty
percent (50%) of his/her present property, (3) Rowena shall
administer the conjugal partnership property; and (4) neither
may bring an action for the annulment or declaration of
nullity of their marriage. Both signed the agreement in the
presence of two (2) witnesses. They did not, however,
acknowledge it before a notary public.
A. As to form, is the Marriage Settlement valid? May it
be registered in the registry of property? If not, what steps
must be taken to make it registerable?
B. Are the stipulations valid?
C. If the Marriage Settlement is valid as to form and
the above stipulations are likewise valid, does it now follow
that said Marriage Settlement is valid and enforceable?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Yes, it is valid as to form because it is in writing. No, it
cannot be registered in the registry of property because it is
not a public document. To make it registerable, it must be
reformed and has to be notarized.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B. Stipulations (1) and (3) are valid because they are not
contrary to law. Stipulation (4) is void because it is contrary
to law. Stipulation (2) is valid up to 1/5 of their respective
present properties but void as to the excess (Art 84, Family
Code).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
C. No. on September 15, 1991, the marriage settlement is not
yet valid and enforceable until the celebration of the
marriage, to take place before the last day of the 1991 bar
Examinations.
Property Relations; Marriage Settlements (1995)
On 10 September 1988 Kevin, a 26-year old businessman,
married Karla, a winsome lass of 18. Without the
knowledge of their parents or legal guardians, Kevin and
Karla entered into an ante-nuptial contract the day before
their marriage stipulating that conjugal partnership of gains
shall govern their marriage. At the time of their marriage
Kevin's estate was worth 50 Million while Karla's was valued
at 2 Million. A month after their marriage Kevin died in a
freak helicopter accident. He left no will, no debts, no
obligations. Surviving Kevin, aside from Karla, are his only
relatives: his brother Luis and first cousin Lilia. 1) What
property Relations governed the marriage of
Kevin and Karla? Explain. 2) Determine the value of the
estate of Kevin, 3) Who are Kevin's heirs? 4) How much
is each of Kevin's heirs entitled to
inherit?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Since the marriage settlement was entered into without the
consent and without the participation of the parents (they did
not sign the document), the marriage settlement is invalid
applying Art. 78, F.C. which provides that a minor
who according to law may contract marriage may also enter together, Rico was a salaried
employee and Mabel kept
into marriage settlements but they shall be valid only if the
person who may give consent to the marriage are made
parties to the agreement. (Karla was still a minor at the time
the marriage settlement was executed in September 1988
because the law, R.A. 6809, reducing the age of majority to
18 years took effect on 18 December 1989). The marriage
settlement being void, the property Relations governing the
marriage is, therefore, absolute community of property,
under Art. 75 of the FC.
2. All the properties which Kevin and Karla owned at the
time of marriage became community property which shall be
divided equally between them at dissolution. Since Kevin
owned 50 Million and Karla. 2 Million, at the time of the
marriage, 52 Million constituted their community property.
Upon the death of Kevin, the community was dissolved and
half of the 52 Million or 26 Million is his share in the
community. This 26 Million therefore is his estate.
3. Karla and Luis are the Intestate heirs of Kevin.
4. They are entitled to share the estate equally under Article
1001 of the NCC. Therefore. Karla gets 13 Million and Luis
gets 13 Million.
Property Relations; Obligations; Benefit of the Family (2000)
As finance officer of K and Co., Victorino arranged a loan of
P5 Million from PNB for the corporation. However, he was
required by the bank to sign a Continuing Surety Agreement
to secure the repayment of the loan. The corporation failed to
pay the loan, and the bank obtained a judgment against it and
Victorino, jointly and severally. To enforce the judgment, the
sheriff levied on a farm owned by the conjugal partnership of
Victorino and his wife Elsa. Is the levy proper or not? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The levy is not proper there being no showing that the surety
agreement executed by the husband redounded to the benefit of the
family. An obligation contracted by the husband alone is chargeable
against the conjugal partnership only when it was contracted for the
benefit of the family. When the obligation was contracted on behalf
of the family business the law presumes that such obligation will
redound to the benefit of the family. However, when the obligation
was to guarantee the debt of a third party, as in the problem, the
obligation is presumed for the benefit of the third party, not the
family. Hence, for the obligation under the surety agreement to be
chargeable against the partnership it must be proven that the family
was benefited and that the benefit was a direct result of such
agreement,
(Ayala Investment v. Ching, 286 SCRA 272)
Property Relations; Unions without Marriage (1992)
In 1989, Rico, then a widower forty (40) years of age,
cohabited with Cora, a widow thirty (30) years of age. While
living together, they acquired from their combined earnings a
parcel of riceland.
After Rico and Cora separated, Rico lived together with
Mabel, a maiden sixteen (16) years of age. While living
house for Rico and did full-time household chores for him.
During their cohabitation, a parcel of coconut land was
acquired by Rico from his savings.
After living together for one (1) year, Rico and Mabel
separated. Rico then met and married Letty, a single woman
twenty-six (26) years of age. During the marriage of Rico and
Letty, Letty bought a mango orchard out of her own personal
earnings. a) Who would own the riceland, and what
property Relations governs the ownership? Explain. b) Who
would own the coconut land, and what property Relations
governs the ownership? Explain. c) Who would own the
mango orchard, and what property Relations governs the
ownership? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Rico and Cora are the co-owners of the riceland. The
Relations is that of co-ownership (Art. 147, Family Code,
first paragraph).
(Optional Addendum: However, after Rico's marriage to Letty, the
half interest of Rico in the riceland will then become absolute
community property of Rico and Letty.)
(b) Rico is the exclusive owner of the coconut land. The
Relations is a sole/single proprietorship (Art. 148. Family
Code, first paragraph is applicable, and not Art. 147 Family
Code).
(Optional Addendum: However, after Rico's marriage to Letty, the
coconut land of Rico will then become absolute community property of
Rico and Letty.)
(c) Rico and Letty are the co-owners. The Relations is the
Absolute Community of Property (Arts, 75,90and9l, Family
Code).
Luis and Rizza, both 26 years of age and single, live
exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the
benefit of marriage, Luis is gainfully employed, Rizza is not
employed, stays at home, and takes charge of the household
chores. After living together for a little over twenty years, Luis
was able to save from his salary earnings during that period
the amount of P200,000.00 presently deposited in a bank. A
house and lot worth P500,000.00 was recently purchased for
the same amount by the couple. Of the P500.000.00 used by
the common-law spouses to purchase the property,
P200.000.00 had come from the sale of palay harvested from
the hacienda owned by Luis and P300,000.00 from the rentals
of a building belonging to Rizza. In fine, the sum of
P500.000.00 had been part of the fruits received during the
period of cohabitation from their separate property, a car
worth P100.000.00. being used by the common-law spouses,
was donated Just months ago to Rizza by her parents. Luis
and Rizza now decide to terminate their cohabitation, and
they ask you to give them your legal advice on the following:
(a) How, under the law should the bank deposit of
P200,000.00 the house and lot valued at P500.000.00 and the
car worth P100.000.00 be allocated to them?
Page 41 of 119
(b) What would your answer be (to the above question) had a) Who will be entitled to the
house and lot? (3%)
Luis and Rizza been living together all the time, ie., since
twenty years ago, under a valid marriage?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Art. 147 of the Family Code provides in part that when a
man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other,
live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without
the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages
and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the
property acquired by both of them through their work or
industry shall be governed by the rules of coownership. In the
absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while
they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained
by their Joint efforts, worker Industry, and shall be owned by
them in equal shares. A party who did not participate in the
acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed
to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the
former's efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the
family and of the household. Thus: 1) the wages and salaries
of Luis in the amount of P200,000.00 shall be divided equally
between Luis and Rizza. 2) the house and lot valued at
P500.000.00 having been acquired by both of them through
work or industry shall be divided between them in proportion
to their respective contribution, in consonance with the rules
on co-ownership. Hence, Luis gets 2\5 while Rizza gets 3\5
of P500.000.00. 3) the car worth P100,000.00 shall be
exclusively owned by Rizza, the same having been donated to
her by her parents.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) The property relations between Luis and Rizza, their
marriage having been celebrated 20 years ago (under the Civil
Code) shall be governed by the conjugal partnership of gains,
under which the husband and wife place in a common fund
the proceeds, products, fruits and income from their separate
properties and those acquired by either or both spouses
through their efforts or by chance, and upon dissolution of
the marriage or of the partnership, the net gains or benefits
obtained by either or both spouse shall be divided equally
between them (Art. 142. Civil Code). Thus: 1) The salary of
Luis deposited in the bank in the amount of P200.000.00 and
the house and lot valued at P500,000.00 shall be divided
equally between Luis and Rizza. 2) However, the car worth
P100.000,00 donated to Rizza by her parents shall be
considered to her own paraphernal property, having been
acquired by lucrative title (par. 2, Art. 148, Civil Code).
For five years since 1989, Tony, a bank Vice-president, and
Susan, an entertainer, lived together as husband and wife
without the benefit of marriage although they were
capacitated to many each other. Since Tony's salary was more
than enough for their needs, Susan stopped working and
merely "kept house". During that period, Tony was able to
buy a lot and house in a plush subdivision. However, after five
years, Tony and Susan decided to separate.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Tony and Susan are entitled to the house and lot as coowners
in equal shares. Under Article 147 of the Family Code, when a
man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other
lived exclusively with each other as husband and wife, the
property acquired during their cohabitation are presumed to
have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry
and shall be owned by them in equal shares. This is true even
though the efforts of one of them consisted merely in his or
her care and maintenance of the family and of the household.
b) Would it make any difference if Tony could not marry
Susan because he was previously married to Alice from
whom he is legally separated? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, it would make a difference. Under Article 148 of the
Family Code, when the parties to the cohabitation could not
marry each other because of an impediment, only those
properties acquired by both of them through their actual joint
contribution of money, property, or Industry shall be owned
by them in common in proportion to their respective
contributions. The efforts of one of the parties in maintaining
the family and household are not considered adequate
contribution in the acquisition of the properties.
Since Susan did not contribute to the acquisition of the house
and lot, she has no share therein. If Tony cohabited with
Susan after his legal separation from Alice, the house and lot
is his exclusive property. If he cohabited with Susan before
his legal separation from Alice, the house and lot belongs to
his community or partnership with Alice.
SUCCESSION
Amount of Successional Rights (2004)
Mr. XT and Mrs. YT have been married for 20 years.
Suppose the wife, YT, died childless, survived only by her
husband, XT. What would be the share of XT from her
estate as inheritance? Why? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under the Civil Code, the widow or widower is a legal and
compulsory heir of the deceased spouse. If the widow is the
only surviving heir, there being no legitimate ascendants,
descendants, brothers, and sisters, nephews and nieces, she
gets the entire estate.
A is the acknowledged natural child of B who died when A
was already 22 years old. When B's full blood brother, C,
died he (C) was survived by his widow and four children of
his other brother D. Claiming that he is entitled to inherit
from his father's brother C. A brought suit to obtain his
share in the estate of C. Will his action prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the action of A will not prosper. On the premise that B,
C and D are legitimate brothers, as an illegitimate child of B,
A cannot inherit in intestacy from C who is a legitimate
brother of B. Only the wife of C in her own right and the
legitimate relatives of C (i.e. the children of D as C's How will you rule on Jorge's
opposition to the probate of
legitimate nephews inheriting as collateral relatives) can
inherit in intestacy. (Arts. 992, 1001, 1OO5 and 975, Civil
Code)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The action of A will not prosper. Being an illegitimate, he is
barred by Article 992 of the Civil Code from inheriting ab
intestato from the legitimate relatives of his father.
Cristina the illegitimate daughter of Jose and Maria, died
intestate, without any descendant or ascendant. Her valuable
estate is being claimed by Ana, the legitimate daughter of
Jose, and Eduardo, the legitimate son of Maria. Is either,
both, or neither of them entitled to inherit? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Neither Ana nor Eduardo is entitled to inherit of ab intestato
from Cristina. Both are legitimate relatives of Cristina's
illegitimate parents and therefore they fall under the
prohibition prescribed by Art. 992, NCC (Manuel v. Ferrer,
242 SCRA 477; Diaz v. Court of Appeals, 182 SCRA
427).
Collation (1993)
Joaquin Reyes bought from Julio Cruz a residential lot of 300
square meters in Quezon City for which Joaquin paid Julio the
amount of P300,000.00, When the deed was about to be
prepared Joaquin told Julio that it be drawn in the name of
Joaquina Roxas, his acknowledged natural child. Thus, the
deed was so prepared and executed by Julio. Joaquina then
built a house on the lot where she, her husband and children
resided. Upon Joaquin's death, his legitimate children sought
to recover possession and ownership of the lot, claiming that
Joaquina Roxas was but a trustee of their father. Will the
action against Joaquina Roxas prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, because there is a presumed donation in favor of
Joaquina under Art. 1448 of the Civil Code (De los Santos
v. Reyes, 27 January 1992, 206 SCRA 437). However, the
donation should be collated to the hereditary estate and the
legitime of the other heirs should be preserved.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, the action against Joaquina Roxas will prosper, but only
to the extent of the aliquot hereditary rights of the legitimate
children as heirs. Joaquina will be entitled to retain her own
share as an illegitimate child, (Arts. 1440 and 1453. Civil
Code; Art. 176, F. C.)
Disinheritance vs. Preterition (1993)
Maria, to spite her husband Jorge, whom she suspected was
having an affair with another woman, executed a will,
unknown to him, bequeathing all the properties she inherited
from her parents, to her sister Miguela. Upon her death, the
will was presented for probate. Jorge opposed probate of the
will on the ground that the will was executed by his wife
without his knowledge, much less consent, and that it
deprived him of his legitime. After all, he had given her no
cause for disinheritance, added Jorge in his opposition.
Maria's will. If you were the Judge?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As Judge, I shall rule as follows: Jorge's opposition should be
sustained in part and denied in part. Jorge's omission as
spouse of Maria is not preterition of a compulsory heir in the
direct line. Hence, Art. 854 of the Civil Code does not apply,
and the institution of Miguela as heir is valid, but only to the
extent of the free portion of one-half. Jorge is still entitled to
one-half of the estate as his legitime. (Art. 1001, Civil Code)
a) As Judge, I shall rule as follows: Jorge's opposition should
be sustained in part and denied in part. This is a case of
ineffective disinheritance under Art, 918 of the Civil Code,
because the omission of the compulsory heir Jorge by Maria
was intentional. Consequently, the institution of Miguela as
heir is void only insofar as the legitime of Jorge is prejudiced.
Accordingly, Jorge is entitled to his legitime of one-half of the
estate, and Miguela gets the other half.
b) As Judge, I shall rule as follows: Jorge's opposition should
be sustained. This is a case of preterition under Article 854
Civil Code, the result of the omission of Jorge as compulsory
heir having the same right equivalent to a legitimate child "in
the direct line" is that total intestacy will arise, and Jorge will
inherit the entire estate.
c) As Judge, I shall rule as follows: the opposition should
be denied since it is predicated upon causes not recognized
by law as grounds for disallowance of a wll, to wit:
1 that the will was made without his knowledge;
2 that the will was made without his consent; and
3 that it has the effect of depriving him of his
legitime, which is a ground that goes into the intrinsic
validity of the will and need not be resolved during the
probate proceedings. However, the opposition may be
entertained for, the purpose of securing to the husband
his right to the legitime on the theory that the will
constitutes an ineffective disinheritance under Art. 918
of the Civil Code,
d) As Judge, I shall rule as follows: Jorge is entitled to
receive his legitime from the estate of his wife. He was not
disinherited in the will even assuming that he gave ground for
disinheritance, hence, he is still entitled to his legitime. Jorge,
however, cannot receive anything from the free portion. He
cannot claim preterition as he is not a compulsory heir in the
direct line. There being no preterition, the institution of the
sister was valid and the only right of Jorge is to claim his
legitime.
Disinheritance; Ineffective (1999)
Mr. Palma, widower, has three daughters D, D-l and D-2. He
executes a Will disinheriting D because she married a man he
did not like, and instituting daughters D-1 and D-2 as his
heirs to his entire estate of P 1,000,000.00, Upon Mr, Palma's
death, how should his estate be divided? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
This is a case of ineffective disinheritance because marrying 1028 for being in
consideration of her adulterous relation
a man that the father did not approve of is not a ground for
disinheriting D. Therefore, the institution of D-l and D-2
shall be annulled insofar as it prejudices the legitime of D,
and the institution of D-l and D-2 shall only apply on the
free portion in the amount of P500,000.00. Therefore, D, D-l
and D-2 will get their legitimes of P500.000.00 divided into
three equal parts and D-l and D-2 will get a reduced
testamentary disposition of P250,000.00 each. Hence, the
shares will be:
D P166,666.66
D-l P166,666.66 + P250.000.00
D-2 P166,666.66 + P250,000.00
Disinheritance; Ineffective; Preterition (2000)
In his last will and testament, Lamberto 1) disinherits his
daughter Wilma because "she is disrespectful towards me and
raises her voice talking to me", 2) omits entirely his spouse
Elvira, 3) leaves a legacy of P100,000.00 to his mistress Rosa
and P50,000.00 to his driver Ernie and 4) institutes his son
Baldo as his sole heir. How will you distribute his estate of
P1,000,000.00? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The disinheritance of Wilma was ineffective because the
ground relied upon by the testator does not constitute
maltreatment under Article 919(6) of the New Civil Code.
Hence, the testamentary provisions in the will shall be
annulled but only to the extent that her legitime was impaired.
The total omission of Elvira does not constitute preterition
because she is not a compulsory heir in the direct line. Only
compulsory heirs in the direct line may be the subject of
preterition. Not having been preterited, she will be entitled
only to her legitime.
The legacy in favor of Rosa is void under Article 1028 for
being in consideration of her adulterous relation with the
testator. She is, therefore, disqualified to receive the legacy of
100,000 pesos. The legacy of 50,000 pesos in favor of Ernie is
not inofficious not having exceeded the free portion. Hence,
he shall be entitled to receive it.
The institution of Baldo, which applies only to the free
portion, shall be respected. In sum, the estate of Lamberto
will be distributed as follows:
Baldo-----------------450,000
Wilma---------------250,000
Elvira-----------------250,000
Ernie-----------------50,000
1,000,000
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The disinheritance of Wilma was effective because disrespect of,
and raising of voice to, her father constitute maltreatment under
Article 919(6) of the New Civil Code. She is, therefore, not entitled to
inherit anything. Her inheritance will go to the other legal heirs. The
total omission of Elvira is not preterition because she is not a
compulsory heir in the direct line. She will receive only her legitime.
The legacy in favor of Rosa is void under Article
with the testator. She is, therefore, disqualified to receive the
legacy. Ernie will receive the legacy in his favor because it is not
inofficious. The institution of Baldo, which applies only to the free
portion, will be respected. In sum, the estate of Lamberto shall be
distributed as follows:
Heir Legitime Legacy Institution TOTAL
Baldo 500,000 200.000 700,000 Elvira 250,000 250,000 Ernie
50,000 50,000 TOTAL 750,000 50,000 200,000 1,000,000
ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Same answer as the first Alternative Answer except as to
distribution. Justice Jurado solved this problem differently. In
his opinion, the legitime of the heir who was disinherited is
distributed among the other compulsory heirs in proportion
to their respective legitimes, while his share in the intestate
portion. If any, is distributed among the other legal heirs by
accretion under Article 1018 of the NCC in proportion to
their respective intestate shares. In sum the distribution shall
be as follows:
Heirs; Intestate Heirs; Reserva Troncal (1995)
Isidro and Irma, Filipinos, both 18 years of age, were
passengers of Flight No. 317 of Oriental Airlines. The plane
they boarded was of Philippine registry. While en route from
Manila to Greece some passengers hijacked the plane, held
the chief pilot hostage at the cockpit and ordered him to fly
instead to Libya. During the hijacking Isidro suffered a heart
attack and was on the verge of death. Since Irma was already
eight months pregnant by Isidro, she pleaded to the hijackers
to allow the assistant pilot to solemnize her marriage with
Isidro. Soon after the marriage, Isidro expired. As the plane
landed in Libya Irma gave birth. However, the baby died a
few minutes after complete delivery. Back in the Philippines
Irma Immediately filed a claim for inheritance. The parents of
Isidro opposed her claim contending that the marriage
between her and Isidro was void ab initio on the following
grounds: (a) they had not given their consent to the marriage
of their son; (b) there was no marriage license; (c) the
solemnizing officer had no authority to perform the marriage;
and, (d) the solemnizing officer did not file an affidavit of
marriage with the proper civil registrar.
2. Does Irma have any successional rights at all? Discuss
fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. Irma succeeded to the estate of Isidro as his surviving
spouse to the estate of her legitimate child. When Isidro
Heir
Legitime
Distribution
of
Wilma’s
Legacy
Institution
TOTAL
Legitime
Bald
o 250,0000 125,000 200,000 575,000
Wil
ma
(250.000)
Elvi
ra
250,000 125.000 375.000
Erni
e
50,000 50.000
TO
TAL 500,000 250,000
50,0
00
200,00
0 1,000,000
died, he was succeeded by his surviving wife Irma, and his
legitimate unborn child. They divided the estate equally
between them, the child excluding the parents of Isidro. An
unborn child is considered born for all purposes favorable to
it provided it is born later. The child was considered born
because, having an intra-uterine life of more than seven
months, it lived for a few minutes after its complete delivery.
It was legitimate because it was born within the valid marriage
of the parents. Succession is favorable to it. When the child
died, Irma inherited the share of the child. However, the
share of the child in the hands of Irma is subject to reserva
troncal for the benefit of the relatives of the child within the
third degree of consanguinity and who belong to the line of
Isidro.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
If the marriage is void. Irma has no successional rights with
respect to Isidro but she would have successional rights with
respect to the child.
Heirs; Intestate Heirs; Shares (2003)
Luis was survived by two legitimate children, two illegitimate
children, his parents, and two brothers. He left an estate of P1
million. Luis died intestate. Who are his intestate heirs, and
how much is the share of each in his estate?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The intestate heirs are the two (2) legitimate children and the
two (2) illegitimate children. In intestacy the estate of the
decedent is divided among the legitimate and illegitimate
children such that the share of each illegitimate child is one
-half the share of each legitimate child.
Their share are : For each legitimate child –
P333,333.33 For each illegitimate child –
P166,666.66
(Article 983, New Civil Code; Article 176, Family Code)
Intestate Succession (1992)
F had three (3) legitimate children: A, B, and C. B has one
(1) legitimate child X. C has two (2) legitimate children: Y
and Z. F and A rode together in a car and perished together
at the same time in a vehicular accident, F and A died, each
of them leaving substantial estates in intestacy.
a) Who are the intestate heirs of F? What are their
respective fractional shares?
b) Who are the intestate heirs of A? What are their
respective fractional shares?
c) If B and C both predeceased F, who are F’s intestate
heirs? What are their respective fractional shares? Do
they inherit in their own right or by representation?
Explain your answer.
d) If B and C both repudiated their shares in the estate of
F who are F's intestate heirs? What are their respective
fractional shares? Do they inherit in their own right or by
representation? Explain your answer,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) B =
1/2
(b) B = 1/2 Z = 1/4 by representation of C C= 1/2 Article 982
of the Civil Code provides that grandchildren inherit by right
of representation.
(c) X = 1/2 by representation of B C=l/2 Y = 1/4 by
representation of C
(d) X - 1/3 in his own right Y- 1/3 in his own right 2 - 1/3
in his own right
Article 977 of the Civil Code provides that heirs who
repudiate their share cannot be represented.
"T" died intestate on 1 September 1997.He was survived by
M (his mother), W (his widow), A and B (his legitimate
children), C (his grandson, being the legitimate son of B), D
(his other grandson, being the son of E who was a legitimate
son of, and who predeceased, "T"), and F (his grandson,
being the son of G, a legitimate son who repudiated the
inheritance from "T"). His distributable net estate is
P120.000.00. How should this amount be shared in intestacy
among the surviving heirs?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The legal heirs are A, B, D, and W. C is excluded by B who is
still alive. D inherits in representation of E who predeceased.
F is excluded because of the repudiation of G, the
predecessor. M is excluded by the legitimate children of
T. The answer may be premised on two theories: the Theory
of Exclusion and the Theory of Concurrence.
Under the Theory of Exclusion the legitimes of the heirs
are accorded them and the free portion will be given
exclusively to the legitimate descendants. Hence under the
Exclusion Theory: A will get P20.000.00. and P 13.333.33 (1/3
of the free portion) B will get P 20,000.00. and P13. 333.33 (1/3
of the free portion) D will get P20.000.00. and P13. 333.33 (1/3
of the free portion)
W, the widow is limited to the legitime of P20.000.00 Under
the Theory of Concurrence. In addition to their legitimes,
the heirs of A, B, D and W will be given equal shares in the
free portions:
A: P20.000.00 plus P10.000.00 (1 /4 of the free portion)
B: P20,000.00 plus P10.000.00 (l/4 of the free portlon)
C: P20,000.00 plus P10.000.00 (1/4 of the free portion)
W: P20,000.00 plus P10,000.00 (l/4 of the free portion) Alternative
Answer: Shares in Intestacy T - decedent Estate: P120.000.00
Survived by: M - Mother............................None W -
Widow.............................P 30,000.00 A - Son.................................P 30,000.00 B
- Son.................................P30.000.00 C - Grandson (son of B).............None D -
Grandson (son of E who predeceased T)................P 30,000.00 F - Grandson
(son of G who repudiated the Inheritance from"T").......................None
Explanation:
a) The mother (M) cannot inherit from T because
under Art. 985 the ascendants shall inherit in default of
legitimate children and descendants of the deceased.
b) The widow's share is P30.000.00 because under Art,
996 it states that if the widow or widower and legitimate
children or descendants are left, the surviving
spouse has in the succession the same share as that of be set aside as Mario's conjugal
share from the community
each of the children, c) C has no share because his father is
still alive hence succession by representation shall not apply
(Art. 975).
d) D inherits P30.000 which is the share of his father
E who predeceased T by virtue of Art. 981 on the right of
representation.
e) F has no share because his father G repudiated the
inheritance. Under Article 977 heirs who repudiate their
share may not be represented.
Enrique died, leaving a net hereditary estate of P1.2 million.
He is survived by his widow, three legitimate children, two
legitimate grandchildren sired by a legitimate child who
predeceased him, and two recognized illegitimate children.
Distribute the estate in intestacy. [5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under the theory of Concurrence, the shares are as follows:
A (legitimate child) = P200,000 B (legitimate child) =
P200,000 C (legitimate child) = P200,000 D (legitimate
child) = O (predeceased] E (legitimate child of D) = P100,000 -
by right of representation F (legitimate child of D) = P100,000 - by
right of representation G (illegitimate child) = P100,000 - 1/2
share of the legitimate child H (illegitimate child) = P100,000 - 1/2
share of the legitimate child W (Widow) = P200.000 - same share
as legitimate child
ANOTHER ANSWER:
Under the theory of Exclusion the free portion (P300,000) is
distributed only among the legitimate children and is given to
them in addition to their legitime. All other Intestate heirs are
entitled only to their respective legitimes. The distribution is as
follows:
Legitime Free Portion Total
A [legitimate child) P150.000 + P 75,000 - P225.000 B {legitimate
child) P150.000 + P150.000 - P225.000 C (legitimate child)
P150.000 + P 75.000 - P225.000 D (legitimate child) 0 0 0 E
(legitimate child of D) P 75,000 + P35.500 - P112,500 F
(legitimate child of D) P 75.000 + P 37.500 - P112,500 G
(illegitimate child) P 75.000 0 -P 75,500 H (illegitimate
child) P 75.000 0 - P 75,500 W (Widow) P150,000 0
-P150.000
Tessie died survived by her husband Mario, and two nieces,
Michelle and Jorelle, who are the legitimate children of an
elder sister who had predeceased her. The only property she
left behind was a house and lot worth two million pesos,
which Tessie and her husband had acquired with the use of
Mario's savings from his income as a doctor. How much of
the property or its value, if any, may Michelle and Jorelle
claim as their hereditary shares? [5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Article 1001 of the Civil Code provides, "Should brothers and
sisters or their children survive with the widow or widower, the latter
shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and
sisters or their children to the other half." Tessie's gross estate
consists of a house and lot acquired during her marriage, making it
part of the community property. Thus, one-half of the said property
would have to
property. The other half, amounting to one million pesos, is her
conjugal share (net estate), and should be distributed to her
intestate heirs. Applying the above provision of law, Michelle and
Jorelle, Tessie's nieces, are entitled to one-half of her conjugal
share worth one million pesos, or 500,000 pesos, while the other
one-half amounting to P500,000 will go to Mario, Tessie's surviving
spouse. Michelle and Jorelle are then entitled to P250,000 pesos
each as their hereditary share.
Mr. and Mrs. Cruz, who are childless, met with a serious
motor vehicle accident with Mr. Cruz at the wheel and Mrs.
Cruz seated beside him, resulting in the instant death of Mr.
Cruz. Mrs. Cruz was still alive when help came but she also
died on the way to the hospital. The couple acquired
properties worth One Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos during
their marriage, which are being claimed by the parents of
both spouses in equal shares. Is the claim of both sets of
parents valid and why? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) No, the claim of both parents is not valid. When Mr. Cruz
died, he was succeeded by his wife and his parents as his
intestate heirs who will share his estate equally. His estate
was 0.5 Million pesos which is his half share in the absolute
community amounting to 1 Million Pesos. His wife, will,
therefore, inherit O.25 Million Pesos and his parents will
inherit 0.25 Million Pesos.
When Mrs. Cruz died, she was succeeded by her parents as
her intestate heirs. They will inherit all of her estate consisting
of her 0.5 Million half share in the absolute community and
her 0.25 Million inheritance from her husband, or a total of
0.750 Million Pesos.
In sum, the parents of Mr. Cruz will inherit 250,000 Pesos
while the parents of Mrs. Cruz will inherit 750,000 Pesos.
Eugenio died without issue, leaving several parcels of land in
Bataan. He was survived by Antonio, his legitimate brother;
Martina, the only daughter of his predeceased sister Mercedes;
and five legitimate children of Joaquin, another predeceased
brother. Shortly after Eugenio's death, Antonio also died,
leaving three legitimate children. Subsequently, Martina, the
children of Joaquin and the children of Antonio executed an
extrajudicial settlement of the estate of Eugenio, dividing it
among themselves. The succeeding year, a petition to annul
the extrajudicial settlement was filed by Antero, an illegitimate
son of Antonio, who claims he is entitled to share in the
estate of Eugenio. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss
on the ground that Antero is barred by Article 992 of the
Civil Code from inheriting from the legitimate brother of his
father. How will you resolve the motion? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion to dismiss should be granted. Article 992 does
not apply. Antero is not claiming any inheritance from
Eugenio. He is claiming his share in the inheritance of his
father consisting of his father's share in the inheritance of
Eugenio (Dela Merced v. Dela Merced, Gr No. 126707, 25 5M inherited by Mrs. Luna from
Mr. Luna will be inherited
February 1999).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
It depends. If Antero was not acknowledged by Antonio, the
motion to dismiss should be granted because Antero is not a
legal heir of Antonio. If Antero was acknowledged, the
motion should be denied because Article 992 is not
applicable. This is because Antero is claiming his inheritance
from his illegitimate father, not from Eugenio.
Intestate Succession; Reserva Troncal (1999)
Mr. Luna died, leaving an estate of Ten Million (P1
0,000,000.00) Pesos. His widow gave birth to a child four
months after Mr, Luna's death, but the child died five hours
after birth. Two days after the child's death, the widow of Mr.
Luna also died because she had suffered from difficult
childbirth. The estate of Mr. Luna is now being claimed by his
parents, and the parents of his widow. Who is entitled to Mr.
Luna'a estate and why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Half of the estate of Mr. Luna will go to the parents of Mrs.
Luna as their inheritance from Mrs. Luna, while the other
half will be inherited by the parents of Mr. Luna as the
reservatarios of the reserved property inherited by Mrs. Luna
from her child.
When Mr. Luna died, his heirs were his wife and the unborn
child. The unborn child inherited because the inheritance was
favorable to it and it was born alive later though it lived only
for five hours. Mrs. Luna inherited half of the 10 Million
estate while the unborn child inherited the other half. When
the child died, it was survived by its mother, Mrs. Luna. As
the only heir, Mrs. Luna inherited, by operation of law, the
estate of the child consisting of its 5 Million inheritance from
Mr. Luna. In the hands of Mrs. Luna, what she inherited
from her child was subject to reserva troncal for the benefit
of the relatives of the child within the third degree of
consanguinity and who belong to the family of Mr. Luna, the
line where the property came from.
When Mrs. Luna died, she was survived by her parents as her
only heirs. Her parents will inherit her estate consisting of the
5 Million she inherited from Mr. Luna. The other 5 Million
she inherited from her child will be delivered to the parents of
Mr. Luna as beneficiaries of the reserved property.
In sum, 5 Million Pesos of Mr. Luna's estate will go to the
parents of Mrs. Luna, while the other 5 Million Pesos will go
to the parents of Mr. Luna as reservatarios.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
If the child had an intra-uterine life of not less than 7 months, it
inherited from the father. In which case, the estate of 10M will be
divided equally between the child and the widow as legal heirs.
Upon the death of the child, its share of 5M shall go by operation of
law to the mother, which shall be subject to reserva troncal. Under
Art. 891, the reserva is in favor of relatives belonging to the
paternal line and who are within 3 degrees from the child. The
parents of Mr, Luna are entitled to the reserved portion which is 5M
as they are 2 degrees related from child. The
from her by her parents.
However, if the child had intra-uterine life of less than 7
months, half of the estate of Mr. Luna, or 5M, will be
inherited by the widow (Mrs. Luna), while the other half, or
5M, will be inherited by the parents of Mr. Luna. Upon the
death of Mrs. Luna, her estate of 5M will be inherited by her
own parents.
Legitime (1997)
"X", the decedent, was survived by W (his widow). A (his
son), B (a granddaughter, being the daughter of A) and C and
D (the two acknowledged illegitimate children of the
decedent). "X" died this year (1997) leaving a net estate of
P180,000.00. All were willing to succeed, except A who
repudiated the inheritance from his father, and they seek your
legal advice on how much each can expect to receive as their
respective shares in the distribution of the estate. Give your
answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The heirs are B, W, C and D. A inherits nothing because of his
renunciation. B inherits a legitime of P90.000.00 as the nearest
and only legitimate descendant, inheriting in his own right not
by representation because of A's renunciation. W gets a
legitime equivalent to one-half (1 / 2) that of B amounting to
P45.000. C and D each gets a legitime equivalent to one-half
(1/2) that of B amounting to P45.000.00 each. But since the
total exceeds the entire estate, their legitimes would have to be
reduced corresponding to P22.500.00 each (Art. 895. CC).
The total of all of these amounts to P180.000.00.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
INTESTATE SUCCESSION
ESTATE: P180,000.00
W- (widow gets 1/2 share) P90.000.00 (Art. 998) A- (son who
repudiated his inheritance) None Art. 977) B - (Granddaughter)
None C - (Acknowledged illegitimate child) P45.000.00 (Art.998)
D - (Acknowledged illegitimate child) P45,000.00 (Art. 998) The
acknowledged illegitimate child gets 1/2 of the share of each
legitimate child.
Legitime; Compulsory Heirs (2003)
Luis was survived by two legitimate children, two illegitimate
children, his parents, and two brothers. He left an estate of P1
million. Who are the compulsory heirs of Luis, how much is
the legitime of each, and how much is the free portion of his
estate, if any?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The compulsory heirs are the two legitimate children and the
two illegitimate children. The parents are excluded by the
legitimate children, while the brothers are not compulsory
heirs at all. Their respective legitimate are: a) The legitime of
the two (2) legitimate children is one
half (1/2) of the estate (P500,000.00) to be divided
between them equally, or P250,000.00 each. b) The legitimate
of each illegitimate child is one-half
(1/2) the legitime of each legitimate child or
P125,000.00.
c) Since the total legitime of the compulsory heirs is legitime of the legitimate children and
it follows that the
P750,000.00, the balance of P250,000.00 is the free
portion.
Legitime; Compulsory Heirs vs. Secondary Compulsory
Heirs (2005)
Emil, the testator, has three legitimate children, Tom, Henry
and Warlito; a wife named Adette; parents named Pepe and
Pilar; an illegitimate child, Ramon; brother, Mark; and a sister,
Nanette. Since his wife Adette is well-off, he wants to leave to
his illegitimate child as much of his estate as he can legally do.
His estate has an aggregate net amount of Pl,200,000.00, and
all the above-named relatives are still living. Emil now comes
to you for advice in making a will. How will you distribute his
estate according to his wishes without violating the law on
testamentary succession? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
P600,000.00 — legitime to be divided equally between Tom,
Henry and Warlito as the legitimate children. Each will be
entitled to P200,000.00. (Art. 888, Civil Code) P100,000.00 --
share of Ramon the illegitimate child. Equivalent to 1/2 of
the share of each legitimate child. (Art. 176, Family Code)
P200,000.00 — Adette the wife. Her share is equivalent to the
share of one legitimate child. (Art. 892, par. 2, Civil Code)
Pepe and Pilar, the parents are only secondary compulsory
heirs and they cannot inherit if the primary compulsory heirs
(legitimate children) are alive. (Art. 887, par. 2, Civil Code)
Brother Mark and sister Nanette are not compulsory heirs
since they are not included in the enumeration under Article
887 of the Civil Code.
The remaining balance of P300,000.00 is the free portion
which can be given to the illegitimate child Ramon as an
instituted heir. (Art. 914, Civil Code) If so given by the
decedent, Ramon would receive a total of P400,000.00.
Preterition (2001)
Because her eldest son Juan had been pestering her for
capital to start a business, Josefa gave him P100,000. Five
years later, Josefa died, leaving a last will and testament in
which she instituted only her four younger children as her
sole heirs. At the time of her death, her only properly left was
P900,000.00 in a bank. Juan opposed the will on the ground
of preterition. How should Josefa's estate be divided among
her heirs? State briefly the reason(s) for your answer. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There was no preterition of the oldest son because the
testatrix donated 100,000 pesos to him. This donation is
considered an advance on the son's inheritance. There being
no preterition, the institutions in the will shall be respected
but the legitime of the oldest son has to be completed if he
received less.
After collating the donation of P100.000 to the remaining
property of P900,000, the estate of the testatrix is P1,000,000.
Of this amount, one-half or P500,000, is the
legitime of one legitimate child is P100,000. The legitime,
therefore, of the oldest son is P100,000. However, since the
donation given him was P100,000, he has already received in
full his legitime and he will not receive anything anymore
from the decedent. The remaining P900,000, therefore, shall
go to the four younger children by institution in the will, to
be divided equally among them. Each will receive P225,000.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Assuming that the donation is valid as to form and substance,
Juan cannot invoke preterition because he actually had
received a donation inter vivos from the testatrix (III
Tolentino 188,1992 ed.). He would only have a right to a
completion of his legitime under Art. 906 of the Civil Code.
The estate should be divided equally among the five children
who will each receive P225,000.00 because the total hereditary
estate, after collating the donation to Juan (Art. 1061, CC),
would be P1 million. In the actual distribution of the net
estate, Juan gets nothing while his siblings will get
P225,000.00 each.
Preterition; Compulsory Heir (1999)
(a) Mr, Cruz, widower, has three legitimate children, A, B
and C. He executed a Will instituting as his heirs to his estate
of One Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos his two children A and
B, and his friend F. Upon his death, how should Mr. Cruz's
estate be divided? Explain. (3%)
(b) In the preceding question, suppose Mr. Cruz instituted his
two children A and B as his heirs in his Will, but gave a legacy
of P 100,000.00 to his friend F. How should the estate of Mr,
Cruz be divided upon his death? Explain, (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Assuming that the institution of A, B and F were to the
entire estate, there was preterition of C since C is a
compulsory heir in the direct line. The preterition will result
in the total annulment of the institution of heirs. Therefore,
the institution of A, B and F will be set aside and Mr. Cuz's
estate will be divided, as in intestacy, equally among A, B and
C as follows: A - P333,333.33; B - P333.333.33; and C -
P333,333.33.
(b) On the same assumption as letter (a), there was preterition
of C. Therefore, the institution of A and B is annulled but the
legacy of P100.000.00 to F shall be respected for not being
inofficious. Therefore, the remainder of P900.000.00 will be
divided equally among A, B and C.
Proceedings; Intestate Proceedings; Jurisdiction (2004)
In his lifetime, a Pakistani citizen, ADIL, married three times
under Pakistani law. When he died an old widower, he left
behind six children, two sisters, three homes, and an estate
worth at least 30 million pesos in the Philippines. He was
born in Lahore but last resided in Cebu City, where he had a
mansion and where two of his youngest children now live
and work. Two of his oldest children are farmers in Sulu,
while the two middle-aged children are employees in
Zamboanga City. Finding that the deceased left no will, the
youngest son wanted to file intestate proceedings before the
Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. Two other siblings
objected, arguing that it should be in Jolo before a Shari’a mother, in favor of another
sister, with their mother not
court since his lands are in Sulu. But Adil’s sisters in
Pakistan want the proceedings held in Lahore before a
Pakistani court. Which court has jurisdiction and is the
proper venue for the intestate proceedings? The law of
which country shall govern succession to his estate? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In so far as the properties of the decedent located in the
Philippines are concerned, they are governed by Philippine
law (Article 16, Civil Code). Under Philippine law, the proper
venue for the settlement of the estate is the domicile of the
decedent at the time of his death. Since the decedent last
resided in Cebu City, that is the proper venue for the intestate
settlement of his estate.
However, the successional rights to the estate of ADIL are
governed by Pakistani law, his national law, under Article 16
of the Civil Code.
Succession; Death; Presumptive Legitime (1991)
a) For purposes of succession, when is death deemed to
occur or take place? b) May succession be conferred by
contracts or acts inter
vivos? Illustrate. c) Is there any law which allows the delivery
to
compulsory heirs of their presumptive legitimes during
the lifetime of their parents? If so, in what instances?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Death as a fact is deemed to occur when it actually takes
place. Death is presumed to take place in the circumstances
under Arts. 390-391 of the Civil Code. The time of death is
presumed to be at the expiration of the 10year period as
prescribed by Article 390 and at the moment of disappearance
under Article 391.
B. Under Art. 84 of the Family Code amending Art 130 of
the Civil Code, contractual succession is no longer possible
since the law now requires that donations of future property
be governed by the provisions on the testamentary succession
and formalities of wills.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
B. In the case of Coronado vs.CA(l91 SCRA81), it was ruled
that no property passes under a will without its being
probated, but may under Article 1058 of the Civil Code of
1898, be sustained as a partition by an act inter vivos
[Many-Oy vs. CA 144SCRA33).
And in the case of Chavez vs, IAC 1191 SCRA211), it was ruled
that while the law prohibits contracts upon future inheritance,
the partition by the parent, as provided in Art. 1080 is a case
expressly authorized by law. A person has two options in
making a partition of his estate: either by an act inter vivos or
by will. If the partition is by will, it is imperative that such
partition must be executed in accordance with the provisions
of the law on wills; if by an act inter vivos, such partition may
even be oral or written, and need not be in the form of a will,
provided the legitime is not prejudiced.
"Where several sisters execute deeds of sale over their 1 /6
undivided share of the paraphernal property of their
only giving her authority thereto but even signing said deeds,
there is a valid partition inter vivos between the mother and
her children which cannot be revoked by the mother. Said
deeds of sale are not contracts entered into with respect to
future inheritance.
"It would be unjust for the mother to revoke the sales to a
son and to execute a simulated sale in favor of a daughter
who already benefited by the partition."
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
C. Yes, under Arts. 51 and 52 of the New Family Code. In
case of legal separation, annulment of marriage, declaration
of nullity of marriage and the automatic termination of a
subsequent marriage by the reappearance of the absent
spouse, the common or community property of the spouses
shall be dissolved and liquidated.
Art, 51. In said partition, the value of the presumptive
legitimes of all common children, computed as of the date of
the final judgment of the trial court, shall be delivered in
cash, property or sound securities, unless the parties, by
mutual agreement, judicially approved, had already provided
for such matters.
The children of their guardian, or the trustee of their
property, may ask for the enforcement of the judgment.
The delivery of the presumptive legitimes herein prescribed
shall in no way prejudice the ultimate successional rights of
the children accruing upon the death of either or both of the
parents; but the value of the properties already received
under the decree of annulment or absolute nullity shall be
considered as advances on their legitime.
Art. 52. The judgment of annulment or of absolute nullity of
the marriage, the partition and distribution of the properties
of the spouses, and the delivery of the children's presumptive
legitimes shall be recorded in the appropriate civil registry and
registries of property; otherwise, the same shall not affect
third persons.
Wills; Codicil; Institution of Heirs; Substitution of Heirs
(2002)
By virtue of a Codicil appended to his will, Theodore devised
to Divino a tract of sugar land, with the obligation on the part
of Divino or his heirs to deliver to Betina a specified volume
of sugar per harvest during Betina’s lifetime. It is also stated
in the Codicil that in the event the obligation is not fulfilled,
Betina should immediately seize the property from Divino or
latter’s heirs and turn it over to Theodore’s compulsory heirs.
Divino failed to fulfill the obligation under the Codicil. Betina
brings suit against Divino for the reversion of the tract of
land. a) Distinguish between modal institution and
substation
of heirs. (3%) b) Distinguish between simple and
fideicommissary
substitution of heirs. (2%) c) Does Betina have a cause of
action against Divino?
Explain (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. A MODAL INSTITUTION is the institution of
an heir made for a certain purpose or cause (Arts. 871 and
882, NCC). SUBSTITUTION is the appointment of another
heir so that he may enter into the inheritance in default of the
heir originality instituted. (Art. 857, NCC).
B. In a SIMPLE SUBSTITUTION of heirs, the testator
designates one or more persons to substitute the heirs
instituted in case such heir or heirs should die before him, or
should not wish or should be incapacitated to accept the
inheritance. In a FIDEICOMMISSARY SUBSTITUTION,
the testator institutes a first heir and charges him to preserve
and transmit the whole or part of the inheritance to a second
heir. In a simple substitution, only one heir inherits. In a
fideicommissary substitution, both the first and second heirs
inherit. (Art. 859 and 869, NCC)
C. Betina has a cause of action against Divino. This is a case
of a testamentary disposition subject to a mode and the will
itself provides for the consequence if the mode is not
complied with. To enforce the mode, the will itself gives
Betina the right to compel the return of the property to the
heirs of Theodore. (Rabadilla v. Conscoluella, 334 SCRA 522
[2000] GR 113725, 29 June 2000).
Wills; Formalities (1990)
(1) If a will is executed by a testator who is a Filipino citizen,
what law will govern if the will is executed in the Philippines?
What law will govern if the will is executed in another
country? Explain your answers.
(2) If a will is executed by a foreigner, for instance, a
Japanese, residing in the Philippines, what law will govern if
the will is executed in the Philippines? And what law will
govern if the will is executed in Japan, or some other country,
for instance, the U.S.A.? Explain your answers.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(1) a. If the testator who is a Filipino citizen executes his will
in the Philippines, Philippine law will govern the formalities.
b. If said Filipino testator executes his will in another country,
the law of the country where he maybe or Philippine law will
govern the formalities. (Article 815, Civil Code}
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(2) a. If the testator is a foreigner residing in the Philippines
and he executes his will in the Philippines, the law of the
country of which he is a citizen or Philippine law will govern
the formalities.
b. If the testator is a foreigner and executes his will in a
foreign country, the law of his place of residence or the law of
the country of which he is a citizen or the law of the place of
execution, or Philippine law will govern the formalities
(Articles 17. 816. 817. Civil Code).
POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL ANSWERS:
a. In the case of a Filipino citizen, Philippine law shall
govern substantive validity whether he executes his will in the
Philippines or in a foreign country.
b. In the case of a foreigner, his national law shall govern
substantive validity whether he executes his will in the
Philippines or in a foreign country.
Wills; Holographic Wills; Insertions & Cancellations (1996)
Vanessa died on April 14, 1980, leaving behind a holographic
will which is entirely written, dated and signed in her own
handwriting. However, it contains insertions and cancellations
which are not authenticated by her signature. For this reason,
the probate of Vanessa's will was opposed by her relatives
who stood to inherit by her intestacy. May Vanessa's
holographic will be probated? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the will as originally written may be probated. The
insertions and alterations were void since they were not
authenticated by the full signature of Vanessa, under Art. 814,
NCC. The original will, however, remains valid because a
holographic will is not invalidated by the unauthenticated
insertions or alterations (Ajero v. CA, 236 SCRA 468].
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
It depends. As a rule, a holographic will is not adversely
affected by Insertions or cancellations which were not
authenticated by the full signature of the testator (Ajero v. CA,
236 SCRA 468). However, when the insertion or cancellation
amounts to revocation of the will, Art.814 of the NCC does
not apply but Art. 830. NCC. Art. 830 of the NCC does not
require the testator to authenticate his cancellation for the
effectivity of a revocation effected through such cancellation
(Kalaw v. Relova, 132 SCRA 237). In the Kalaw case, the
original holographic will designated only one heir as the only
substantial provision which was altered by substituting the
original heir with another heir. Hence, if the unauthenticated
cancellation amounted to a revocation of the will, the will may
not be probated because it had already been revoked.
Wills; Holographic Wills; Witnesses (1994)
On his deathbed, Vicente was executing a will. In the room
were Carissa, Carmela, Comelio and Atty. Cimpo, a notary
public. Suddenly, there was a street brawl which caught
Comelio's attention, prompting him to look out the window.
Cornelio did not see Vicente sign a will. Is the will valid?
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
a) Yes, The will is valid. The law does not require a witness to
actually see the testator sign the will. It is sufficient if the
witness could have seen the act of signing had he chosen to
do so by casting his eyes to the proper direction.
b) Yes, the will is valid. Applying the "test of position",
although Comelio did not actually see Vicente sign the will,
Cornelio was in the proper position to see Vicente sign if
Cornelio so wished.
Wills; Joint Wills (2000)
Manuel, a Filipino, and his American wife Eleanor, executed
a Joint Will in Boston, Massachusetts when they were residing
in said city. The law of Massachusetts allows the execution of
joint wills. Shortly thereafter, Eleanor died. Can the said Will
be probated in the Philippines for the settlement of her
estate? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the will may be probated in the Philippines insofar as
the estate of Eleanor is concerned. While the Civil Code
prohibits the execution of Joint wills here and abroad, such
prohibition applies only to Filipinos. Hence, the joint will
which is valid where executed is valid in the Philippines but
only with respect to Eleanor. Under Article 819, it is void
with respect to Manuel whose joint will remains void in the
Philippines despite being valid where executed.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The will cannot be probated in the Philippines, even though
valid where executed, because it is prohibited under Article
818 of the Civil Code and declared void under Article 819,
The prohibition should apply even to the American wife
because the Joint will is offensive to public policy. Moreover,
it is a single juridical act which cannot be valid as to one
testator and void as to the other.
Wills; Probate; Intrinsic Validity (1990)
H died leaving a last will and testament wherein it is stated
that he was legally married to W by whom he had two
legitimate children A and B. H devised to his said forced
heirs the entire estate except the free portion which he gave
to X who was living with him at the time of his death.
In said will he explained that he had been estranged from his
wife W for more than 20 years and he has been living with X
as man and wife since his separation from his legitimate
family.
In the probate proceedings, X asked for the issuance of
letters testamentary in accordance with the will wherein she is
named sole executor. This was opposed by W and her
children.
(a) Should the will be admitted in said probate proceedings?
(b) Is the said devise to X valid?
(c) Was it proper for the trial court to consider the intrinsic
validity of the provisions of said will? Explain your answers,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Yes, the will may be probated if executed according to the
formalities prescribed by law.
(b) The institution giving X the free portion is not valid,
because the prohibitions under Art. 739 of the Civil Code on
donations also apply to testamentary dispositions (Article
1028, Civil Code), Among donations which are considered
void are those made between persons who were guilty of
adultery or concubinage at the time of the donation.
(c) As a general rule, the will should be admitted in probate
proceedings if all the necessary requirements for its extrinsic
validity have been met and the court should not consider the
intrinsic validity of the provisions of said will. However, the
exception arises when the will in effect contains only one
testamentary disposition. In effect, the only testamentary
disposition under the will is the giving of the free portion to X,
since legitimes are provided by law. Hence, the trial court may
consider the intrinsic validity of the provisions of said will.
(Nuguid v. Nuguid, etal.. No. L23445, June 23, 1966, 17 SCRA;
Nepomuceno v. CA, L-62952,
9 October 1985. 139 SCRA 206).
Wills; Probate; Notarial and Holographic Wills (1997)
Johnny, with no known living relatives, executed a notarial
will giving all his estate to his sweetheart. One day, he had a
serious altercation with his sweetheart. A few days later, he
was introduced to a charming lady who later became a dear
friend. Soon after, he executed a holographic will expressly
revoking the notarial will and so designating his new friend as
sole heir. One day when he was clearing up his desk, Johnny
mistakenly burned, along with other papers, the only copy of
his holographic will. His business associate, Eduardo knew
well the contents of the will which was shown to him by
Johnny the day it was executed. A few days after the burning
incident, Johnny died. Both wills were sought to be probated
in two separate petitions. Will either or both petitions
prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The probate of the notarial will will prosper. The holographic
will cannot be admitted to probate because a holographic will
can only be probated upon evidence of the will itself unless
there is a photographic copy. But since the holographic will
was lost and there was no other copy, it cannot be probated
and therefore the notarial will will be admitted to probate
because there is no revoking will.
ADDITIONAL ANSWERS:
1. In the case of Gan vs. Yap (104 Phil 509), the execution
and the contents of a lost or destroyed holographic will
may not be proved by the bare testimony of witnesses
who have seen or read such will. The will itself must be
presented otherwise it shall produce no effect. The law
regards the document itself as material proof of
authenticity. Moreover, in order that a will may be
revoked by a subsequent will, it is necessary that the
latter will be valid and executed with the formalities
required for the making of a will. The latter should
possess all the requisites of a valid will whether it be
ordinary or a holographic will, and should be probated in
order that the revocatory clause thereof may produce
effect. In the case at bar, since the holographic will itself
cannot be presented, it cannot therefore be probated.
Since it cannot be probated, it cannot revoke the notarial
will previously written by the decedent.
2. On the basis of the Rules of Court, Rule 76, Sec. 6,
provides that no will shall be proved as a lost or
destroyed will unless its provisions are clearly and
distinctly proved by at least two (2) credible witnesses.
Hence, if we abide strictly by the two-witness rule to
prove a lost or destroyed will, the holographic will which
Johnny allegedly mistakenly burned, cannot be probated,
since there is only one witness, Eduardo, who can be
called to testify as to the existence of the will. If the
holographic will, which purportedly, revoked the earlier
notarial will cannot be proved because of the absence of
the required witness, then the petition for the probate of
the notarial will should prosper.
Wills; Revocation of Wills; Dependent Relative Revocation
(2003)
Mr. Reyes executed a will completely valid as to form. A week
later, however, he executed another will which expressly
revoked his first will, which he tore his first will to pieces.
Upon the death of Mr. Reyes, his second will was presented
for probate by his heirs, but it was denied probate
due to formal defects. Assuming that a copy of the first will excluded by a legitimate son of
the decedent [Art. 887, New
is available, may it now be admitted to probate and given
effect? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the first will may be admitted to probate and given
effect. When the testator tore first will, he was under the
mistaken belief that the second will was perfectly valid and he
would not have destroyed the first will had he known that the
second will is not valid. The revocation by destruction
therefore is dependent on the validity of the second will.
Since it turned out that the second will was invalid, the tearing
of the first will did not produce the effect of revocation. This
is known as the doctrine of dependent relative revocation
(Molo v. Molo, 90 Phil 37.)
No, the first will cannot be admitted to probate. While it is true
that the first will was successfully revoked by the second will
because the second will was later denied probate, the first will
was, nevertheless, revoked when the testator destroyed it after
executing the second invalid will.
(Diaz v. De Leon, 43 Phil 413 [1922]).
Wills; Testamentary Disposition (2006)
Don died after executing a Last Will and Testament leaving
his estate valued at P12 Million to his common-law wife
Roshelle. He is survived by his brother Ronie and his
half-sister Michelle.
(1) Was Don's testamentary disposition of his estate in
accordance with the law on succession? Whether you agree or
not, explain your answer. Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Don's testamentary disposition
of his estate is in accordance with the law on succession. Don
has no compulsory heirs not having ascendants, descendants
nor a spouse [Art. 887, New Civil Code]. Brothers and sisters
are not compulsory heirs. Thus, he can bequeath his entire
estate to anyone who is not otherwise incapacitated to inherit
from him. A common-law wife is not incapacitated under the
law, as Don is not married to anyone.
(2) If Don failed to execute a will during his lifetime, as his
lawyer, how will you distribute his estate? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: After paying the legal obligations of
the estate, I will give Ronie, as full-blood brother of Don, 2/3
of the net estate, twice the share of Michelle, the half-sister
who shall receive 1/3. Roshelle will not receive anything as
she is not a legal heir [Art. 1006 New Civil Code].
(3) Assuming he died intestate survived by his brother Ronie,
his half-sister Michelle, and his legitimate son Jayson, how will
you distribute his estate? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Jayson will be entitled to the entire
P12 Million as the brother and sister will be excluded by a
legitimate son of the decedent. This follows the principle of
proximity, where "the nearer excludes the farther."
(4) Assuming further he died intestate, survived by his father
Juan, his brother Ronie, his half-sister Michelle, and his
legitimate son Jayson, how will you distribute his estate?
Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Jayson will still be entitled to the
entire P12 Million as the father, brother and sister will be
Civil Code]. This follows the principle that the descendants
exclude the ascendants from inheritance.
Wills; Testamentary Intent (1996)
Alfonso, a bachelor without any descendant or ascendant,
wrote a last will and testament in which he devised." all the
properties of which I may be possessed at the time of my
death" to his favorite brother Manuel. At the time he wrote
the will, he owned only one parcel of land. But by the time he
died, he owned twenty parcels of land. His other brothers and
sisters insist that his will should pass only the parcel of land
he owned at the time it was written, and did not cover his
properties acquired, which should be by intestate succession.
Manuel claims otherwise. Who is correct? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Manuel is correct because under Art. 793, NCC, property
acquired after the making of a will shall only pass thereby, as
if the testator had possessed it at the time of making the will,
should it expressly appear by the will that such was his
intention. Since Alfonso's intention to devise all properties he
owned at the time of his death expressly appears on the will,
then all the 20 parcels of land are included in the devise.
DONATION
Donation vs. Sale (2003)
a) May a person sell something that does not belong to
him? Explain. b) May a person donate something that does
not belong
to him? Explain. 5%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Yes, a person may sell something which does not belong
to him. For the sale to be valid, the law does not require the
seller to be the owner of the property at the time of the sale.
(Article 1434, NCC). If the seller cannot transfer ownership
over the thing sold at the time of delivery because he was not
the owner thereof, he shall be liable for breach of contact.
(b) As a general rule, a person cannot donate something which
he cannot dispose of at the time of the donation (Article 751,
New Civil Code).
Donations; Condition; Capacity to Sue (1996)
Sometime in 1955, Tomas donated a parcel of land to his
stepdaughter Irene, subject to the condition that she may not
sell, transfer or cede the same for twenty years. Shortly
thereafter, he died. In 1965, because she needed money for
medical expenses, Irene sold the land to Conrado. The
following year, Irene died, leaving as her sole heir a son by
the name of Armando. When Armando learned that the land
which he expected to inherit had been sold by Irene to
Conrado, he filed an action against the latter for annulment
of the sale, on the ground that it violated the restriction
imposed by Tomas. Conrado filed a motion to dismiss, on
the ground that Armando did not have the legal capacity to
sue. If you were the Judge, how will you rule on this motion
to dismiss? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As judge, I will grant the motion to dismiss. Armando has no
personality to bring the action for annulment of the sale to
Conrado. Only an aggrieved party to the contract may bring
the action for annulment thereof (Art. 1397. NCC). While
Armando is heir and successor-in-interest of his mother (Art.
1311, NCC), he [standing in place of his mother) has no
personality to annul the contract. Both are not aggrieved
parties on account of their own violation of the condition of,
or restriction on, their ownership imposed by the donation.
Only the donor or his heirs would have the personality to
bring an action to revoke a donation for violation of a
condition thereof or a restriction thereon. (Garrido u. CA, 236
SCRA 450). Consequently, while the donor or his heirs were
not parties to the sale, they have the right to annul the
contract of sale because their rights are prejudiced by one of
the contracting parties thereof [DBP v. CA, 96 SCRA 342;
Teves vs. PHHC. 23 SCRA 114]. Since Armando is neither the
donor nor heir of the donor, he has no personality to bring
the action for annulment.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
As judge, I will grant the motion to dismiss. Compliance with
a condition imposed by a donor gives rise to an action to
revoke the donation under Art. 764, NCC. However, the right
of action belongs to the donor. Is transmissible to his heirs,
and may be exercised against the donee's heirs. Since
Armando is an heir of the donee, not of the donor, he has no
legal capacity to sue for revocation of the donation. Although
he is not seeking such revocation but an annulment of the sale
which his mother, the donee, had executed in violation of the
condition imposed by the donor, an action for annulment of a
contract may be brought only by those who are principally or
subsidiarily obliged thereby (Art. 1397, NCC). As an exception
to the rule, it has been held that a person not so obliged may
nevertheless ask for annulment if he is prejudiced in his rights
regarding one of the contracting parties (DBP us. CA. 96
SCRA 342 and other cases) and can show the detriment which
would result to him from the contract in which he had no
intervention, (Teves vs. PHHC, 23 SCRA 1141).
Such detriment or prejudice cannot be shown by Armando.
As a forced heir, Armando's interest in the property was, at
best, a mere expectancy. The sale of the land by his mother
did not impair any vested right. The fact remains that the
premature sale made by his mother (premature because only
half of the period of the ban had elapsed) was not voidable at
all, none of the vices of consent under Art. 139 of the NCC
being present. Hence, the motion to dismiss should be
granted.
Donations; Conditions; Revocation (1991)
Spouses Michael and Linda donated a 3-hectare residential
land to the City of Baguio on the condition that the city
government would build thereon a public park with a boxing
arena, the construction of which shall commence within six
(6) months from the date the parties ratify the donation. The
donee accepted the donation and the title to the property was
transferred in its name. Five years elapsed but the public park
with the boxing arena was never started. Considering the
failure of the donee to comply with the condition of the
donation, the donor-spouses sold the
property to Ferdinand who then sued to recover the land
from the city government. Will the suit prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ferdinand has no right to recover the land. It is true that the
donation was revocable because of breach of the conditions.
But until and unless the donation was revoked, it remained
valid. Hence, Spouses Michael and Linda had no right to sell
the land to Ferdinand. One cannot give what he does not
have. What the donors should have done first was to have the
donation annulled or revoked. And after that was done, they
could validly have disposed of the land in favor of Ferdinand.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A. Until the contract of donation has been resolved or
rescinded under Article 1191 of the Civil Code or revoked
under Art. 764 of the Civil Code, the donation stands
effective and valid. Accordingly, the sale made by the donor
to Ferdinand cannot be said to have conveyed title to
Ferdinand, who, thereby, has no cause of action for recovery
of the land acting for and in his behalf.
B. The donation is onerous, And being onerous, what applies
is the law on contracts, and not the law on donation (De
Luna us. Abrigo, 81 SCRA 150). Accordingly, the
prescriptive period for the filing of such an action would be
the ordinary prescriptive period for contacts which may
either be six or ten depending upon whether it is verbal or
written. The filing of the case five years later is within the
prescriptive period and, therefore, the action can prosper,
Alternative Answer:
The law on donation lays down a special prescriptive period
in the case of breach of condition, which is four years from
non-compliance thereof (Article 764 Civil Code). Since the
action has prescribed, the suit will not prosper,
Donations; Effect; illegal & immoral conditions (1997)
Are the effects of illegal and immoral conditions on simple
donations the same as those effects that would follow when
such conditions are imposed on donations con causa
onerosa?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, they don't have the same effect. Illegal or impossible
conditions in simple and remuneratory donations shall be
considered as not imposed. Hence the donation is valid. The
donation will be considered as simple or pure. The condition
or mode is merely an accessory disposition, and its nullity
does not affect the donation, unless it clearly appears that the
donor would not have made the donation without the mode
or condition.
Donations con causa onerosa is governed by law on
obligations and contracts, under which an impossible or Illicit
condition annuls the obligation dependent upon the
condition where the condition is positive and suspensive. If
the impossible or illicit condition is negative, it is simply
considered as not written, and the obligation is converted into
a pure and simple one. However, in order that an illegal
condition may annul a contract, the impossibility must exist at
the time of the creation of the obligation; a supervening
impossibility does not affect the existence of the obligation.
ADDITIONAL ANSWER:
No. In simple or pure donation, only the illegal or irrevocable, the latter is revocable. In the
problem given, all
impossible condition is considered not written but the
donation remains valid and becomes free from conditions.
The condition or mode being a mere accessory disposition.
Its nullity does not affect the donation unless it clearly
appears that the donor would not have made the donation
without the mode or condition. On the other hand, onerous
donation is governed by the rules on contracts. Under Article
1183, Impossible or illegal conditions shall annul the
obligation which depends upon them. In these cases, both the
obligation and the condition are void.
Donations; Formalities; Mortis Causa (1990)
B donated to M a parcel of land in 1980. B made the deed of
donation, entitled ―Donation Inter Vivos,‖ in a public
instrument and M accepted the donation in the same
document. It was provided in the deed that the land donated
shall be immediately delivered to M and that M shall have the
right to enjoy the fruits fully. The deed also provided that B
was reserving the right to dispose of said land during his (B’s)
lifetime, and that M shall not register the deed of donation
until after B’s death. Upon B’s death, W, B’s widow and sole
heir, filed an action for the recovery of the donated land,
contending that the donation made by B is a donation mortis
causa and not a donation inter vivos. Will said action prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the action will prosper. The donation is a donation
mortis causa because the reservation is to dispose of all the
property donated and, therefore, the donation is revocable at
will. Accordingly, the donation requires the execution of a
valid will, either notarial or holographic (Arts 755, 728 NCC).
Donations; Formalities; Mortis Causa (1998)
Ernesto donated in a public instrument a parcel of land to
Demetrio, who accepted it in the same document. It is there
declared that the donation shall take effect immediately, with
the donee having the right to take possession of the land and
receive its fruits but not to dispose of the land while Ernesto
is alive as well as for ten years following his death. Moreover,
Ernesto also reserved in the same deed his right to sell the
property should he decide to dispose of it at any time - a right
which he did not exercise at all. After his death, Ernesto's
heirs seasonably brought an action to recover the property,
alleging that the donation was void as it did not comply with
the formalities of a will. Will the suit prosper? [5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the suit will prosper as the donation did not comply with
the formalities of a will. In this instance, the fact that the
donor did not intend to transfer ownership or possession of
the donated property to the donee until the donor's death,
would result in a donation mortis causa and in this kind of
disposition, the formalities of a will should be complied with,
otherwise, the donation is void. In this Instance, donation
mortis causa embodied only in a public instrument without
the formalities of a will could not have transferred ownership
of disputed property to another.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
One of the essential distinctions between a donation inter vivos
and a donation mortis causa is that while the former is
the clauses or conditions mentioned in the deed of donation,
except one, are consistent with the rule of irrevocability and
would have sustained the view that the donation is inter vivos
and therefore valid. The lone exception is the clause which
reserves the donor's right to sell the property at any time
before his death. Such a reservation has been held to render
the donation revocable and, therefore, becomes a donation
mortis causa (Puig vs. Penqflorida, 15 SCRA 276, at p. 286).
That the right was not exercised is immaterial; its reservation
was an implied recognition of the donor's power to nullify the
donation anytime he wished to do so. Consequently, it should
have been embodied in a last will and testament. The suit for
nullity will thus prosper.
Donations; Inter Vivos; Acceptance (1993)
On January 21, 1986, A executed a deed of donation inter
vivos of a parcel of land to Dr. B who had earlier constructed
thereon a building in which researches on the dreaded disease
AIDS were being conducted. The deed, acknowledged before
a notary public, was handed over by A to Dr. B who received
it. A few days after, A flew to Davao City. Unfortunately, the
airplane he was riding crashed on landing killing him. Two
days after the unfortunate accident. Dr. B, upon advice of a
lawyer, executed a deed acknowledged before a notary public
accepting the donation. Is the donation effective? Explain
your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the donation is not effective. The law requires that the
separate acceptance of the donee of an immovable must be
done in a public document during the lifetime of the donor
(Art. 746 & 749, Civil Code) In this case, B executed the
deed of acceptance before a notary public after the donor
had already died.
Donations; Perfection (1998)
On July 27, 1997, Pedro mailed in Manila a letter to his
brother, Jose, a resident of Ilollo City, offering to donate a
vintage sports car which the latter had long been wanting to
buy from the former. On August 5, 1997, Jose called Pedro
by cellular phone to thank him for his generosity and to
inform him that he was sending by mail his letter of
acceptance. Pedro never received that letter because it was
never mailed. On August 14, 1997, Pedro received a telegram
from Iloilo informing him that Jose had been killed in a road
accident the day before (August 13, 1997)
1. Is there a perfected donation? [2%]
2. Will your answer be the same if Jose did mail his
acceptance letter but it was received by Pedro in Manila days
after Jose's death? [3%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. None. There is no perfected donation. Under Article 748
of the Civil Code, the donation of a movable may be made
orally or in writing. If the value of the personal property
donated exceeds five thousand pesos, the donation and the
acceptance shall be made in writing. Assuming that the value
of the thing donated, a vintage sports car, exceeds P5,000.00
then the donation and the acceptance must be in writing. In
this instance, the acceptance of Jose was not in writing,
therefore, the donation is void. Upon the other
hand, assuming that the sports car costs less than P5,000.00 Code which requires the
donation and the acceptance
then the donation maybe oral, but still, the simultaneous
delivery of the car is needed and there being none, the
donation was never perfected.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. Yes, the answer is the same. If Jose's mail containing his
acceptance of the donation was received by Pedro after the
former's death, then the donation is still void because under
Article 734 of the Civil Code, the donation is perfected the
moment the donor knows of the acceptance by the donee.
The death of Jose before Pedro could receive the acceptance
indicates that the donation was never perfected. Under Article
746 acceptance must be made during the lifetime of both the
donor and the donee.
Donations; Requisites; Immovable Property
Anastacia purchased a house and lot on installments at a
housing project in Quezon City. Subsequently, she was
employed in California and a year later, she executed a deed of
donation, duly authenticated by the Philippine Consulate in
Los Angeles, California, donating the house and lot to her
friend Amanda. The latter brought the deed of donation to
the owner of the project and discovered that Anastacia left
unpaid installments and real estate taxes. Amanda paid these
so that the donation in her favor can be registered in the
project owner's office. Two months later, Anastacia died,
leaving her mother Rosa as her sole heir. Rosa filed an action
to annul the donation on the ground that Amanda did not
give her consent in the deed of donation or in a separate
public instrument. Amanda replied that the donation was an
onerous one because she had to pay unpaid installments and
taxes; hence her acceptance may be implied. Who is correct?
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Rosa is correct because the donation is void. The property
donated was an immovable. For such donation to be valid,
Article 749 of the New Civil Code requires both the donation
and the acceptance to be in a public instrument. There being
no showing that Amanda's acceptance was made in a public
instrument, the donation is void. The contention that the
donation is onerous and, therefore, need not comply with
Article 749 for validity is without merit. The donation is not
onerous because it did not impose on Amanda the obligation
to pay the balance on the purchase price or the arrears in real
estate taxes. Amanda took it upon herself to pay those
amounts voluntarily. For a donation to be onerous, the
burden must be imposed by the donor on the donee. In the
problem, there is no such burden imposed by the donor on
the donee. The donation not being onerous, it must comply
with the formalities of Article 749.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Neither Rosa nor Amanda is correct. The donation is onerous
only as to the portion of the property corresponding to the
value of the installments and taxes paid by Amanda.
The portion in excess thereof is not onerous. The onerous
portion is governed by the rules on contracts which do not
require the acceptance by the donee to be in any form. The
onerous part, therefore, is valid. The portion which is not
onerous must comply with Article 749 of the New Civil
thereof to be in a public instrument in order to be valid. The
acceptance not being in a public instrument, the part which is
not onerous is void and Rosa may recover it from Amanda.
Donations; Unregistered; Effects; Non-Compliance; Resolutory
Condition (2006)
Spouses Alfredo and Racquel were active members of a
religious congregation. They donated a parcel of land in favor
of that congregation in a duly notarized Deed of Donation,
subject to the condition that the Minister shall construct
thereon a place of worship within 1 year from the acceptance
of the donation. In an affidavit he executed on behalf of the
congregation, the Minister accepted the donation. The Deed
of Donation was not registered with the Registry of Deeds.
However, instead of constructing a place of worship, the Minister
constructed a bungalow on the property he used as his residence.
Disappointed with the Minister, the spouses revoked the donation
and demanded that he vacate the premises immediately. But the
Minister refused to leave, claiming that aside from using the
bungalow as his residence, he is also using it as a place for worship
on special occasions. Under the circumstances, can Alfredo and
Racquel evict the Minister and recover possession of the
property? If you were the couple's counsel, what action you
take to protect the interest of your clients? (5%)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, Alfredo and Racquel can bring an action for ejectment against
the Minister for recovery of possession of the property evict the
Minister and recover possession of the property. An action for
annulment of the donation, reconveyance and damages should be
filed to protect the interests of my client. The donation is an onerous
donation and therefore shall be governed by the rules on contracts.
Because there was no fulfillment or compliance with the condition
which is resolutory in character, the donation may now be revoked
and all rights which the donee may have acquired under it shall be
deemed lost and extinguished
(Central Philippine University, G.R. No. 112127, July 17,1995).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, an action for ejectment will not prosper. I would advice
Alfredo and Racquel that the Minister, by constructing a
structure which also serves as a place of worship, has pursued
the objective of the donation. His taking up residence in the
bungalow may be regarded as a casual breach and will not
warrant revocation of the donation. Similarily, therefore, an
action for revocation of the donation will be denied (C. J. Yulo
& Sons, Inc. v. Roman Catholic Bishop, G.R. No. 133705,
March 31, 2005; Heirs ofRozendo Sevilla v. De Leon, G.R. No.
149570, March 12,
2004).
Donations; Validity; Effectivity; for Unborn Child (1999)
Elated that her sister who had been married for five years
was pregnant for the first time, Alma donated P100,000.00 to
the unborn child. Unfortunately, the baby died one hour
after delivery. May Alma recover the P100.000.00 that she
had donated to said baby before it was born considering not been fixed in the Deed of
Donation, the donee is not
that the baby died? Stated otherwise, is the donation valid
and binding? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The donation is valid and binding, being an act favorable to
the unborn child, but only if the baby had an intra-uterine life
of not less than seven months and provided there was due
acceptance of the donation by the proper person representing
said child. If the child had less than seven months of
intra-uterine life, it is not deemed born since it died less than
24 hours following its delivery, in which ease the donation
never became effective since the donee never became a
person, birth being determinative of personality.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Even if the baby had an intra-uterine life of more than seven
months and the donation was properly accepted, it would be
void for not having conformed with the proper form. In
order to be valid, the donation and acceptance of personal
property exceeding five thousand pesos should be in writing.
(Article 748, par. 3)
Donations; with Resolutory Condition (2003)
In 1950, Dr. Alba donated a parcel of land to Central
University on condition that the latter must establish a
medical college on the land to be named after him. In the
year 2000, the heirs of Dr. Alba filed an action to annul the
donation and for the reconveyance of the property donated
to them for the failure, after 50 years, of the University to
established on the property a medical school named after
their father. The University opposed the action on the
ground of prescription and also because it had not used the
property for some purpose other than that stated in the
donation. Should the opposition of the University to the
action of Dr. Alba’s heirs be sustained? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The donation may be revoked. The non-established of the medical
college on the donated property was a resolutory condition imposed
on the donation by the donor. Although the Deed of Donation did
not fix the time for the established of the medical college, the failure
of the donee to establish the medical college after fifty (50) years
from the making of the donation should be considered as occurrence
of the resolutory condition, and the donation may now be revoked.
While the general rule is that in case the period is not fixed in the
agreement of the parties, the period must be fixed first by the court
before the obligation may be demanded, the period of fifty (50) years
was more than enough time for the donee to comply with the
condition. Hence, in this case, there is no more need for the court to
fix the period because such procedure with the condition. (Central
Philippine University v. CA. 246 SCRA 511).
The donation may not as yet revoked. The establishment of
a medical college is not a resolutory or suspensive condition
but a ―charge‖, obligation‖, or a ―mode‖. The noncompliance
with the charge or mode will give the donor the
right to revoke the donation within four (4) years from the
time the charge was supposed to have been complied with, or
to enforce the charge by specific performance within ten
(10) years from the time the cause of action accrued.
Inasmuch as the time to established the medical college has
yet default in his obligation until the period is fixed by order
of the court under Article 1197 of the New Civil Code. Since
the period has not been fixed as yet, the donee is not yet
default, and therefore the donor has no cause of action to
revoke the donation. (Dissenting opinion of Davide, CJ,
Central Philippine University v. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA
511 [1995])
PROPERTY
Accretion; Alluvion (2001)
For many years, the Rio Grande river deposited soil along its
bank, beside the titled land of Jose. In time, such deposit
reached an area of one thousand square meters. With the
permission of Jose, Vicente cultivated the said area. Ten years
later, a big flood occurred in the river and transferred the
1000 square meters to the opposite bank, beside the land of
Agustin. The land transferred is now contested by Jose and
Agustin as riparian owners and by Vicente who claims
ownership by prescription. Who should prevail,? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jose should prevail. The disputed area, which is an alluvium,
belongs by right of accretion to Jose, the riparian owner (Art.
457 CC). When, as given in the problem, the very same area"
was "transferred" by flood waters to the opposite bank, it
became an avulsion and ownership thereof is retained by Jose
who has two years to remove it (Art. 459, CC). Vicente's claim
based on prescription is baseless since his possession was by
mere tolerance of Jose and, therefore, did not adversely affect
Jose's possession and ownership (Art. 537, CC). Inasmuch as
his possession is merely that of a holder, he cannot acquire the
disputed area by prescription.
Accretion; Avulsion (2003)
Andres is a riparian owner of a parcel of registered land. His
land, however, has gradually diminished in area due to the
current of the river, while the registered land of Mario on the
opposite bank has gradually increased in area by 200square
meters.
(a) Who has the better right over the 200-square meter area
that has been added to Mario’s registered land, Mario or
Andres?
(b) May a third person acquire said 200-square meter land by
prescription?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. Mario has a better right over the 200 square meters increase
in area by reason of accretion, applying Article 457 of the
New Civil Code, which provides that ―to the owners of lands
adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion which they
gradually received from the effects of the current of the
waters‖.
Andres cannot claim that the increase in Mario’s land is his
own, because such is an accretion and not result of the
sudden detachment of a known portion of his land and its
attachment to Mario’s land, a process called ―avulsion‖. He
can no longer claim ownership of the portion of his registered
land which was gradually and naturally eroded due to the
current of the river, because he
had lost it by operation of law. That portion of the land has reasonable rent, if the owner of
the land does not choose to
become part of the public domain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b. Yes, a third party may acquire by prescription the 200
square meters, increase in area, because it is not included in
the Torrens Title of the riparian owner. Hence, this does not
involve the imprescriptibility conferred by Section 47,
P.D. No. 1529. The fact that the riparian land is registered
does not automatically make the accretion thereto a registered
land. (Grande v. CA, 115 521 (1962); Jagualing v. CA, 194 SCRA
607 (1991).
Builder; Good Faith (1992)
A owns a parcel of residential land worth P500,000.00
unknown to A, a residential house costing P 100,000.00 is
built on the entire parcel by B who claims ownership of the
land. Answer all the following questions based on the premise
that B is a builder in good faith and A is a landowner in good
faith. a) May A acquire the house built by B? If so, how? b) If
the land increased in value to P500,000.00 by reason
of the building of the house thereon, what amount
should be paid by A in order to acquire the house from
B?
c) Assuming that the cost of the house was P90,000.00
and not P100,000.00, may A require B to buy the land?
d) If B voluntarily buys the land as desired by A, under
what circumstances may A nevertheless be entitled to have
the house removed?
e) In what situation may a "forced lease" arise between
A and B. and what terms and conditions would govern the
lease?
Give reasons for your answers.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Yes, A may acquire the house build by B by paying
indemnity to B. Article 448 of the Civil Code provides that
the owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown
or planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as
his own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the
indemnity provided for in Articles 546 and 546 of the Civil
Code.
(b) A should pay B the sum of P500,000. Article 548 of the
Civil Code provides that useful expenses shall be refunded to
the possessor in good faith with the right of retention, the
person who has defeated him in the possession having the
option of refunding the amount of the expenses or of paying
the increase in value which the thing may have acquired by
reason thereof. The increase in value amounts to P500,000.00.
(c) Yes, A may require B to buy the land. Article 448 of the
Civil Code provides that the owner of the land on which
anything has been built in good faith shall have the right to
oblige the one who built to pay the price of the land if its
value is not considerably more than that of the building,
(d) If B agrees to buy land but fails to pay, A can have the
house removed ( Depra vs. Dumlao, 136 SCRA 475).
(e) Article 448 of the Civil Code provides that the builder
cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably
more than that of the building. In such case, he shall pay
appropriate the building after proper indemnity. The parties
shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of
disagreement, the court fix the terms thereof.
Builder; Good Faith vs. Bad Faith (1999)
(a) Because of confusion as to the boundaries of the
adjoining lots that they bought from the same subdivision
company, X constructed a house on the adjoining lot of Y in
the honest belief that it is the land that he bought from the
subdivision company. What are the respective rights of X
and Y with respect to X's house? (3%)
(b) Suppose X was in good faith but Y knew that X was
constructing on his (Y's) land but simply kept quiet about it,
thinking perhaps that he could get X's house later. What are
the respective rights of the parties over X's house in this
case? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The rights of Y, as owner of the lot, and of X, as builder
of a house thereon, are governed by Art. 448 of the Civil
Code which grants to Y the right to choose between two
remedies: (a) appropriate the house by indemnifying X for its
value plus whatever necessary expenses the latter may have
incurred for the preservation of the land, or (b) compel X to
buy the land if the price of the land is not considerably more
than the value of the house. If it is, then X cannot be obliged
to buy the land but he shall pay reasonable rent, and in case
of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms of the lease.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) Since the lot owner Y is deemed to be in bad faith (Art
453), X as the party in good faith may (a) remove the house
and demand indemnification for damages suffered by him, or
(b) demand payment of the value of the house plus
reparation for damages (Art 447, in relation to Art 454). Y
continues as owner of the lot and becomes, under the second
option, owner of the house as well, after he pays the sums
demanded.
Builder; Good Faith vs. Bad Faith (2000)
In good faith, Pedro constructed a five-door commercial
building on the land of Pablo who was also in good faith.
When Pablo discovered the construction, he opted to
appropriate the building by paying Pedro the cost thereof.
However, Pedro insists that he should be paid the current
market value of the building, which was much higher because
of inflation. 1) Who is correct Pedro or Pablo?(1%) 2) In the
meantime that Pedro is not yet paid, who is entitled to the
rentals of the building, Pedro or Pablo? (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pablo is correct. Under Article 448 of the New Civil Code in
relation to Article 546, the builder in good faith is entitled to
a refund of the necessary and useful expenses incurred by
him, or the increase in value which the land may have
acquired by reason of the improvement, at the option of the
landowner. The builder is entitled to a refund of the expenses
he incurred, and not to the market value of the improvement
The case of Pecson v. CA, 244 SCRA 407, is not applicable to square meters. Jose claims
that Mike is a builder in bad faith
the problem. In the Pecson case, the builder was the owner
of the land who later lost the property at a public sale due to
non-payment of taxes. The Court ruled that Article 448 does
not apply to the case where the owner of the land is the
builder but who later lost the land; not being applicable, the
indemnity that should be paid to the buyer must be the fair
market value of the building and not just the cost of
construction thereof. The Court opined in that case that to
do otherwise would unjustly enrich the new owner of the
land.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Pedro is correct. In Pecson vs. CA, it was held that Article
546 of the New Civil Code does not specifically state how the
value of useful improvements should be determined in fixing
the amount of indemnity that the owner of the land should
pay to the builder in good faith. Since the objective of the law
is to adjust the rights of the parties in such manner as "to
administer complete justice to both of them in such a way as
neither one nor the other may enrich himself of that which
does not belong to him", the Court ruled that the basis of
reimbursement should be the fair market value of the
building.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2) Pablo is entitled to the rentals of the building. As the
owner of the land, Pablo is also the owner of the building
being an accession thereto. However, Pedro who is entitled to
retain the building is also entitled to retain the rentals. He,
however, shall apply the rentals to the indemnity payable to
him after deducting reasonable cost of repair and
maintenance.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Pablo is entitled to the rentals. Pedro became a possessor in
bad faith from the time he learned that the land belongs to
Pablo. As such, he loses his right to the building, including
the fruits thereof, except the right of retention.
Builder; Good Faith vs. Bad Faith; Accession (2000)
a) Demetrio knew that a piece of land bordering the beach
belonged to Ernesto. However, since the latter was studying
in Europe and no one was taking care of the land, Demetrio
occupied the same and constructed thereon nipa sheds with
tables and benches which he rented out to people who want
to have a picnic by the beach. When Ernesto returned, he
demanded the return of the land. Demetrio agreed to do so
after he has removed the nipa sheds. Ernesto refused to let
Demetrio remove the nipa sheds on the ground that these
already belonged to him by right of accession. Who is
correct? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ernesto is correct, Demetrio is a builder in bad faith because
he knew beforehand that the land belonged to Ernesto, under
Article 449 of the New Civil Code, one who builds on the
land of another loses what is built without right to indemnity.
Ernesto becomes the owner of the nipa sheds by right of
accession. Hence, Ernesto is well within his right in refusing
to allow the removal of the nipa sheds.
Builder; Good Faith vs. Bad Faith; Presumption (2001)
Mike built a house on his lot in Pasay City. Two years later, a
survey disclosed that a portion of the building actually stood on
the neighboring land of Jose, to the extent of 40
because he should know the boundaries of his lot, and demands
that the portion of the house which encroached on his land should
be destroyed or removed. Mike replies that he is a builder in good
faith and offers to buy the land occupied by the building instead.
1) Is Mike a builder in good faith or bad faith? Why? (3%) 2)
Whose preference should be followed? Why? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) Yes, Mike is a builder in good faith. There is no showing
that when he built his house, he knew that a portion thereof
encroached on Jose's lot. Unless one is versed in the science
of surveying, he cannot determine the precise boundaries or
location of his property by merely examining his title. In the
absence of contrary proof, the law presumes that the
encroachment was done in good faith [Technogas Phils, v.
CA, 268 SCRA 5, 15 (1997)].
2} None of the preferences shall be followed. The preference
of Mike cannot prevail because under Article 448 of the Civil
Code, it is the owner of the land who has the option or
choice, not the builder. On the other hand, the option
belongs to Jose, he cannot demand that the portion of the
house encroaching on his land be destroyed or removed
because this is not one of the options given by law to the
owner of the land. The owner may choose between the
appropriation of what was built after payment of indemnity,
or to compel the builder to pay for the land if the value of the
land is not considerably more than that of the building.
Otherwise, the builder shall pay rent for the portion of the
land encroached.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
1) Mike cannot be considered a builder in good faith
because he built his house without first determining the
corners and boundaries of his lot to make sure that his
construction was within the perimeter of his property. He
could have done this with the help of a geodetic engineer as
an ordinary prudent and reasonable man would do under the
circumstances.
2) Jose's preference should be followed. He may have
the building removed at the expense of Mike, appropriate the
building as his own, oblige Mike to buy the land and ask for
damages in addition to any of the three options. (Articles
449, 450, 451, CC)
Chattel Mortgage vs. Pledge (1999)
Distinguish a contract of chattel mortgage from a contract of
pledge. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In a contract of CHATTEL MORTGAGE possession
belongs to the debtor, while in a contract of PLEDGE
possession belongs to the creditor.
A chattel mortgage is a formal contract while a pledge is a
real contract.
A contract of chattel mortgage must be recorded in a public
instrument to bind third persons while a contract of pledge
must be in a public instrument containing description of the
thing pledged and the date thereof to bind third persons.
Chattel Mortgage; Immovables (1994) foreclosure sale, foreclosed the mortgage and acquired X’s
Vini constructed a building on a parcel of land he leased from
Andrea. He chattel mortgaged the land to Felicia. When he
could not pay Felicia. Felicia initiated foreclosure proceedings.
Vini claimed that the building he had constructed on the
leased land cannot be validly foreclosed because the building
was, by law, an immovable. Is Vini correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
a) The Chattel Mortgage is void and cannot be foreclosed
because the building is an immovable and cannot be an
object of a chattel mortgage.
b) It depends. If the building was intended and is built of
light materials, the chattel mortgage may be considered as
valid as between the parties and it may be considered in
respect to them as movable property, since it can be removed
from one place to another. But if the building is of strong
material and is not capable of being removed or transferred
without being destroyed, the chattel mortgage is void and
cannot be foreclosed.
c) If it was the land which Vini chattel mortgaged, such
mortgage would be void, or at least unenforceable, since he
was not the owner of the land.
If what was mortgaged as a chattel is the building, the chattel
mortgage is valid as between the parties only, on grounds of
estoppel which would preclude the mortgagor from assailing
the contract on the ground that its subject-matter is an
immovable. Therefore Vini's defense is untenable, and Felicia
can foreclose the mortgage over the building, observing,
however, the procedure prescribed for the execution of sale
of a judgment debtor's immovable under Rule 39, Rules of
Court, specifically, that the notice of auction sale should be
published in a newspaper of general circulation.
d) The problem that Vini mortgaged the land by way of a
chattel mortgage is untenable. Land can only be the subject
matter of a real estate mortgage and only an absolute owner
of real property may mortgage a parcel of land. (Article 2085
(2) Civil Code). Hence, there can be no foreclosure.
But on the assumption that what was mortgaged by way of
chattel mortgage was the building on leased land, then the
parties are treating the building as chattel. A building that is
not merely superimposed on the ground is an immovable
property and a chattel mortgage on said building is legally
void but the parties cannot be allowed to disavow their
contract on account of estoppel by deed. However, if third
parties are involved such chattel mortgage is void and has no
effect.
Chattel Mortgage; Immovables (2003)
X constructed a house on a lot which he was leasing from
Y. Later, X executed a chattel mortgage over said house in
favor of Z as security for a loan obtained from the latter. Still
later, X acquired ownership of the land where his house was
constructed, after which he mortgaged both house and land
in favor of a bank, which mortgage was annotated on the
Torrens Certificate of Title. When X failed to pay his loan to
the bank, the latter, being the highest bidder at the
house and lot. Learning of the proceedings conducted by the
bank, Z is now demanding that the bank reconvey to him X’s
house or pay X’s loan to him plus interests. Is Z’s demand
against the bank valid and sustainable? Why? 5%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Z’s demand is not valid. A building is immovable or real
property whether it is erected by the owner of the land, by a
usufructuary, or by a lessee. It may be treated as a movable by
the parties to chattel mortgage but such is binding only
between them and not on third parties (Evangelista v. Alto
Surety Col, inc. 103 Phil. 401 [1958]). In this case, since the
bank is not a party to the chattel mortgage, it is not bound by
it, as far as the Bank is concerned, the chattel mortgage, does
not exist. Moreover, the chattel mortgage does not exist.
Moreover, the chattel mortgage is void because it was not
registered. Assuming that it is valid, it does not bind the Bank
because it was not annotated on the title of the land
mortgaged to the bank. Z cannot demand that the Bank pay
him the loan Z extended to X, because the Bank was not
privy to such loan transaction.
No, Z’s demand against the bank is not valid. His demand
that the bank reconvey to him X’s house presupposes that he
has a real right over the house. All that Z has is a personal
right against X for damages for breach of the contract of
loan.
The treatment of a house, even if built on rented land, as
movable property is void insofar as third persons, such as the
bank, are concerned. On the other hand, the Bank already
had a real right over the house and lot when the mortgage
was annotated at the back of the Torrens title. The bank later
became the owner in the foreclosure sale. Z cannot ask the
bank to pay for X’s loan plus interest. There is no privity of
contract between Z and the bank.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The answer hinges on whether or not the bank is an innocent
mortgagee in good faith or a mortgagee in bad faith. In the
former case, Z’s demand is not valid. In the latter case, Z’s
demand against the bank is valid and sustainable.
Under the Torrens system of land registration, every person
dealing with registered land may rely on the correctness of
the certificate of title and the law will not in any way oblige to
him to look behind or beyond the certificate in order to
determine the condition of the title. He is not bound by
anything not annotated or reflected in the certificate. If he
proceeds to buy the land or accept it as a collateral relying on
the certificate, he is considered a buyer or a mortgagee in
good faith. On this ground, the Bank acquires a clean title to
the land and the house.
However, a bank is not an ordinary mortgagee. Unlike private
individuals, a bank is expected to exercise greater care and
prudence in its dealings. The ascertainment of the condition of a
property offered as collateral for a loan must be a standard and
indispensable part of its operation. The bank should have
conducted further inquiry regarding the house standing on the
land considering that it was already
Page 59 of 119
standing there before X acquired the title to the land. The was then valued only at P1
Million. Lawrence was declared
bank cannot be considered as a mortgagee in good faith. On
this ground, Z’s demand against the Bank is valid and
sustainable.
Chattel Mortgage; Possession (1993)
A, about to leave the country on a foreign assignment,
entrusted to B his brand new car and its certificate of
registration. Falsifying A's signature. B sold A's car to C for
P200,000.00. C then registered the car in his name. To
complete the needed amount, C borrowed P100.000.00 from
the savings and loan association in his office, constituting a
chattel mortgage on the car. For failure of C to pay the
amount owed, the savings and loan association filed in the
RTC a complaint for collection with application for issuance
of a writ of replevin to obtain possession of the vehicle so
that the chattel mortgage could be foreclosed. The RTC
issued the writ of replevin. The car was then seized from C
and sold by the sheriff at public auction at which the savings
and loan association was the lone bidder. Accordingly, the car
was sold to it. A few days later, A arrived from his foreign
assignment. Learning of what happened to his car, A sought
to recover possession and ownership of it from the savings
and loan association. Can A recover his car from the savings
and loan association? Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under the prevailing rulings of the Supreme Court, A can
recover the car from the Savings and Loan Association
provided he pays the price at which the Association bought
the car at a public auction. Under that doctrine, there has
been an unlawful deprivation by B of A of his car and,
therefore, A can recover it from any person in possession
thereof. But since it was bought at a public auction in good
faith by the Savings and Loan Association, he must reimburse
the Association at the price for which the car was bought.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, A can recover his car from the Savings and Loan
Association. In a Chattel Mortgage, the mortgagor must be
the absolute owner of the thing mortgaged. Furthermore, the
person constituting the mortgage must have the free disposal
of the property, and in the absence thereof, must be legally
authorized for the purpose. In the case at bar, these essential
requisites did not apply to the mortgagor B, hence the Chattel
Mortgage was not valid.
Chattel Mortgage; Preference of Creditors (1995)
Lawrence, a retired air force captain, decided to go into the
air transport business. He purchased an aircraft in cash except
for an outstanding balance of P500,000.00. He incurred an
indebtedness of P300,000.00 for repairs with an aircraft repair
company. He also borrowed P1 Million from a bank for
additional capital and constituted a chattel mortgage on the
aircraft to secure the loan.
While on a test flight the aircraft crashed causing physical
injuries to a third party who was awarded damages of
P200,000.00.
Lawrence's insurance claim for damage to the aircraft was
denied thus leaving him nothing else but the aircraft which
insolvent.
Assuming that the aircraft was sold for Pl Million, give the
order of preference of the creditors of Lawrence and
distribute the amount of P1 Million.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Assuming that the aircraft was sold for P1 Million, there is no
order of preference. The P1 Million will all go to the bank as
a chattel mortgagee because a chattel mortgage under Art.
2241 (4) NCC defeats Art. 2244 (12) and (14}. Art. 2241 (3)
and (5) are not applicable because the aircraft is no longer in
the possession of the creditor.
Easement vs. Usufruct (1995)
1. What is easement? Distinguish easement from usufruct.
2. Can there be (a) an easement over a usufruct? (b) a
usufruct over an easement? (c) an easement over another
easement? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. An EASEMENT or servitude is an encumbrance imposed
upon an immovable for the benefit of another immovable
belonging to a different owner. (Art. 613, NCC)
USUFRUCT gives a right to enjoy the property of another
with the obligation of preserving its form and substance,
unless the title constituting it or the law otherwise provides.
(Art. 562, NCC).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Easement is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable
for the benefit of another immovable belonging to a different
owner in which case it is called real or predial easement, or
for the benefit of a community or group of persons in which
case it is known as a personal easement.
The distinctions between usufruct and easement are:
a) Usufruct includes all uses of the property and for all
purposes, including jus fruendi. Easement is limited to a
specific use.
b) Usufruct may be constituted on immovable or
movable property. Easement may be constituted only on an
immovable property.
c) Easement is not extinguished by the death of the
owner of the dominant estate while usufruct is extinguished
by the death of the usufructuary unless a contrary intention
appears.
d) An easement contemplates two (2) estates belonging
to two (2) different owners; a usufruct contemplates only one
property (real or personal) whereby the usufructuary uses and
enjoys the property as well as its fruits, while another owns the
naked title during the period of the usufruct.
e) A usufruct may be alienated separately from the
property to which it attaches, while an easement cannot be
alienated separately from the property to which it attaches.
NOTE: It is recommended by the Committee that any
two (2) distinctions should be given full credit.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. (a) There can be no easement over a usufruct. Since an there is a degree of regularity to
indicate continuity of
easement may be constituted only on a corporeal immovable
property, no easement may be constituted on a usufruct which
is not a corporeal right
(b) There can be no usufruct over an easement. While a
usufruct maybe created over a right, such right must have an
existence of its own independent of the property. A servitude
cannot be the object of a usufruct because it has no existence
independent of the property to which It attaches.
There cannot be a usufruct over an easement since an
easement presupposes two (2) tenements belonging to
different persons and the right attaches to the tenement and
not to the owner. While a usufruct gives the usufructuary a
right to use, right to enjoy, right to the fruits, and right to
possess, an easement gives only a limited use of the servient
estate.
However, a usufruct can be constituted over a property that
has in its favor an easement or one burdened with servitude.
The usufructuary will exercise the easement during the period
of usufruct.
(c) There can be no easement over another easement for the
same reason as in (a). An easement, although it is a real right
over an immovable, is not a corporeal right. There is a
Roman maxim which says that: There can be no servitude
over another servitude.
Easement; Effects; Discontinuous Easements; Permissive
Use (2005)
Don was the owner of an agricultural land with no access to a
public road. He had been passing through the land of Ernie
with the latter's acquiescence for over 20 years. Subsequently,
Don subdivided his property into 20 residential lots and sold
them to different persons. Ernie blocked the pathway and
refused to let the buyers pass through his land.
a) Did Don acquire an easement of right of way? Explain.
(2%)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, Don did not acquire an easement of right of way. An
easement of right of way is discontinuous in nature — it is
exercised only if a man passes over somebody's land. Under
Article 622 of the Civil Code, discontinuous easements,
whether apparent or not, may only be acquired by virtue of a
title. The Supreme Court, in Abellana, Sr. v. Court of Appeals
(G.R. No. 97039, April 24, 1992), ruled that an easement of
right of way being discontinuous in nature is not acquirable by
prescription.
Further, possession of the easement by Don is only
permissive, tolerated or with the acquiescence of Ernie. It is
settled in the case of Cuaycong v. Benedicto (G.R. No. 9989,
March 13, 1918) that a permissive use of a road over the land
of another, no matter how long continued, will not create an
easement of way by prescription.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, Don acquired an easement of right of way. An easement that
is continuous and apparent can be acquired by prescription and
title. According to Professor Tolentino, an easement of right of way
may have a continuous nature if
possession and that if coupled with an apparent sign, such
easement of way may be acquired by prescription.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, Ernie could close the pathway on his land. Don has not
acquired an easement of right of way either by agreement or
by judicial grant. Neither did the buyers. Thus, establishment
of a road or unlawful use of the land of Ernie would
constitute an invasion of possessory rights of the owner,
which under Article 429 of the Civil Code may be repelled or
prevented. Ernie has the right to exclude any person from the
enjoyment and disposal of the land. This is an attribute of
ownership that Ernie enjoys.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, Ernie may close the pathway, subject however, to the
rights of the lot buyers. Since there is no access to the public
road, this results in the creation of a legal easement. The lot
buyers have the right to demand that Ernie grant them a right
of way. In turn, they have the obligation to pay the value of
the portion used as a right of way, plus damages.
c) What are the rights of the lot buyers, if any? Explain.
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Prior to the grant of an easement, the buyers of the dominant
estate have no other right than to compel grant of easement of
right of way. Since the properties of the buyers are surrounded
by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public
highway and the isolation is not due to their acts, buyers may
demand an easement of a right of way provided proper
indemnity is paid and the right of way demanded is the
shortest and least prejudicial to Ernie. (Villanueva v. Velasco,
G.R. No. 130845, November 27, 2000).
Easement; Nuisance; Abatement (2002)
Lauro owns an agricultural land planted mostly with fruit
trees. Hernando owns an adjacent land devoted to his piggery
business, which is two (2) meters higher in elevation.
Although Hernando has constructed a waste disposal lagoon
for his piggery, it is inadequate to contain the waste water
containing pig manure, and it often overflows and inundates
Lauro’s plantation. This has increased the acidity of the soil in
the plantation, causing the trees to wither and die. Lauro sues
for damages caused to his plantation. Hernando invokes his
right to the benefit of a natural easement in favor of his
higher estate, which imposes upon the lower estate of Lauro
the obligation to receive the waters descending from the
higher estate. Is Hernando correct? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Hernando is wrong. It is true that Lauro’s land is burdened
with the natural easement to accept or receive the water
which naturally and without interruption of man descends
from a higher estate to a lower estate. However, Hernando
has constructed a waste disposal lagoon for his piggery and it
is this waste water that flows downward to Lauro’s land.
Hernando has, thus, interrupted the flow of water and has
created and is maintaining a nuisance. Under Act. 697 NCC,
abatement of a nuisance does not preclude recovery of
damages by Lauro even for the past existence of a nuisance.
The claim for damages may also be premised in Art. 2191 to time. As Tomas' business
grows, the need for use of
(4) NCC.
ANOTHER ANSWER:
Hernando is not correct. Article 637 of the New Civil Code
provides that the owner of the higher estate cannot make
works which will increase the burden on the servient estate.
(Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. CA, 330 SCRA 145 [2000]) . The
owner of the higher estate may be compelled to pay damages
to the owner of the lower estate.
Easements; Classification (1998)
Distinguish between:
1. Continuous and discontinuous easements; |2%]
2. Apparent and non-apparent easements; and [2%]
3. Positive and negative easements. [1%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. CONTINUOUS EASEMENTS are those the use of
which is or may be incessant, without the intervention of any
act of man, while DISCONTINUOUS EASEMENTS are
those which are used at intervals and depend upon the acts
of man. (Art. 615, Civil Code)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. APPARENT EASEMENTS are those which are made
known and are continually kept in view by external signs that
reveal the use and enjoyment of the same, while NONAPPARENT
EASEMENTS are those which show no
external indication of their existence. (Art. 615, Civil Code)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
3. POSITIVE EASEMENTS are those which impose upon
the owner of the servient estate the obligation of allowing
something to be done or of doing it himself, while
NEGATIVE EASEMENTS are those which prohibit the
owner of the servient estate from doing something which he
could lawfully do if the easement did not exist. (Art. 615.
Civil Code)
Easements; Right of Way (1993)
Tomas Encarnacion's 3,000 square meter parcel of land,
where he has a plant nursery, is located just behind Aniceta
Magsino's two hectare parcel land. To enable Tomas to have
access to the highway, Aniceta agreed to grant him a road
right of way a meter wide through which he could pass.
Through the years Tomas' business flourished which enabled
him to buy another portion which enlarged the area of his
plant nursery. But he was still landlocked. He could not bring
in and out of his plant nursery a jeep or delivery panel much
less a truck that he needed to transport his seedlings. He now
asked Aniceta to grant him a wider portion of her property,
the price of which he was willing to pay, to enable him to
construct a road to have access to his plant nursery. Aniceta
refused claiming that she had already allowed him a previous
road right of way. Is Tomas entitled to the easement he now
demands from Aniceta?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Art. 651 of the Civil Code provides that the width of the easement
must be sufficient to meet the needs of the dominant estate, and
may accordingly change from time to time. It is the need of the
dominant estate which determines the width of the passage. These
needs may vary from time
modern conveyances requires widening of the easement.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The facts show that the need for a wider right of way arose
from the increased production owing to the acquisition by
Tomas of an additional area. Under Art. 626 of the Civil
Code, the easement can be used only for the immovable
originally contemplated. Hence, the increase in width is
justified and should have been granted.
Easements; Right of Way (2000)
The coconut farm of Federico is surrounded by the lands of
Romulo. Federico seeks a right of way through a portion of
the land of Romulo to bring his coconut products to the
market. He has chosen a point where he will pass through a
housing project of Romulo. The latter wants him to pass
another way which is one kilometer longer. Who should
prevail? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Romulo will prevail. Under Article 650 of the New Civil
Code, the easement of right of way shall be established at the
point least prejudicial to the servient estate and where the
distance from the dominant estate to a public highway is the
shortest. In case of conflict, the criterion of least prejudice prevails over
the criterion of shortest distance. Since the route chosen by
Federico will prejudice the housing project of Romulo,
Romulo has the right to demand that Federico pass another
way even though it will be longer.
Easements; Right of Way; Inseparability (2001)
Emma bought a parcel of land from Equitable-PCI Bank,
which acquired the same from Felisa, the original owner.
Thereafter, Emma discovered that Felisa had granted a right
of way over the land in favor of the land of Georgina, which
had no outlet to a public highway, but the easement was not
annotated when the servient estate was registered under the
Torrens system. Emma then filed a complaint for
cancellation of the right of way, on the ground that it had
been extinguished by such failure to annotate. How would
you decide the controversy? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The complaint for cancellation of easement of right of way
must fail. The failure to annotate the easement upon the title
of the servient estate is not among the grounds for
extinguishing an easement under Art. 631 of the Civil Code.
Under Article 617, easements are inseparable from the estate
to which they actively or passively belong. Once it attaches, it
can only be extinguished under Art. 631, and they exist even
if they are not stated or annotated as an encumbrance on the
Torrens title of the servient estate. (II Tolentino 326, 1987
ed.)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Under Section 44, PD No. 1529, every registered owner
receiving a certificate of title pursuant to a decree of
registration, and every subsequent innocent purchaser for
value, shall hold the same free from all encumbrances except
those noted on said certificate. This rule, however, admits of
exceptions.
Under Act 496, as amended by Act No. 2011, and Section 4,
Act 3621, an easement if not registered shall remain and shall
be held to pass with the land until cutoff or
extinguished by the registration of the servient estate. consistent with this rule, where the
distance to the street or
However, this provision has been suppressed in Section 44,
PD No. 1529. In other words, the registration of the servient
estate did not operate to cut-off or extinguish the right of
way. Therefore, the complaint for the cancellation of the right
of way should be dismissed.
Easements; Right of Way; Requisites (1996)
David is the owner of the subdivision in Sta. Rosa, Laguna,
without an access to the highway. When he applied for a
license to establish the subdivision, David represented that he
will purchase a rice field located between his land and the
highway, and develop it into an access road. But. when the
license was already granted, he did not bother to buy the rice
field, which remains unutilized until the present. Instead, he
chose to connect his subdivision with the neighboring
subdivision of Nestor, which has an access to the highway.
Nestor allowed him to do this, pending negotiations on the
compensation to be paid. When they failed to arrive at an
agreement, Nestor built a wall across the road connecting
with David's subdivision. David filed a complaint in court, for
the establishment of an easement of right of way through the
subdivision of Nestor which he claims to be the most
adequate and practical outlet to the highway. 1) What are the
requisites for the establishment of a compulsory easement of
a right of way?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Art, 649, NCC. The owner, or any person who by virtue of a
real right may cultivate or use any immovable which is
surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other persons
and without adequate outlet to a public highway, is entitled to
demand a right of way through the neighboring estates, after
payment of the property indemnity.
Should this easement be established in such a manner that its
use may be continuous for all the needs of the dominant
estate, establishing a permanent passage, the indemnity shall
consist of the value of the land occupied and the amount of
the damage caused to the servient estate.
In case the right of way is limited to the necessary passage for
the cultivation of the estate surrounded by others and for the
gathering of its crops through the servient estate without a
permanent way, the indemnity shall consist in the payment of
the damage cause by such encumbrance.
This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the
immovable is due to the proprietor's own acts. (564a). The
easement of right of way shall be established at the point least
prejudicial to the servient estate, and insofar as consistent
with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to
a public highway may be the shortest (Art. 650, NCC: Vda. de
Baltazar v. CA. 245 SCRA 333}
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The requisites for a compulsory easement of right of way are: (a)
the dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and is
without an adequate outlet to a public street or highway; (b) proper
indemnity must be paid; (c) the isolation must not be due to the acts
of the owner of the dominant estate; and (d) the right of way
claimed is at a point least prejudicial to the servient estate and,
insofar as is
highway is shortest.
2) Is David entitled to a right of way in this case? Why or
why not?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, David is not entitled to the right of way being claimed.
The isolation of his subdivision was due to his own act or
omission because he did not develop into an access road the
rice field which he was supposed to purchase according to
his own representation when he applied for a license to
establish the subdivision (Floro us. Llenado, 244 SCRA713).
Ejectment Suit vs. Cancellation of Title (2005)
In an ejectment case filed by Don against Cesar, can the
latter ask for the cancellation of Don's title considering that
he (Cesar) is the rightful owner of the lot? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Cesar cannot ask for the cancellation of Don's title even if he is
the rightful owner of the lot. In an action for ejectment, the only
issue involved is one of possession de facto, the purpose of
which is merely to protect the owner from any physical
encroachment from without. The title of the land or its
ownership is not involved, for if a person is in actual possession
thereof, he is entitled to be maintained and respected in it even
against the owner himself. (Garcia
v. Anas, G.R. No. L-20617, May 31, 1965)
Since the case filed by Don against Cesar is an ejectment case,
the latter cannot ask for the cancellation of Don's title. He
has to file the proper action where the issue of ownership
over the property can be raised.
Ejectment Suit; Commodatum (2006)
Alberto and Janine migrated to the United States of America,
leaving behind their 4 children, one of whom is Manny. They
own a duplex apartment and allowed Manny to live in one of
the units. While in the United States, Alberto died. His widow
and all his children executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of
Alberto's estate wherein the 2door apartment was assigned by
all the children to their mother, Janine. Subsequently, she sold
the property to George. The latter required Manny to sign a
prepared Lease Contract so that he and his family could
continue occupying the unit. Manny refused to sign the
contract alleging that his parents allowed him and his family
to continue occupying the premises.
If you were George's counsel, what legal steps will you
take? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were George's counsel, I would first demand that Manny
vacate the apartment. If Manny refuses, I will file an
ejectment suit. When Manny was allowed by his parents to
occupy the premises, without compensation, the contract of
commodatum was created. Upon the death of the father, the
contract was extinguished as it is a purely personal contract.
As the new owner of the apartment George is entitled to
exercise his right of possession over the same.
Extra-Judicial Partition; Fraud (1990)
X was the owner of a 10,000 square meter property. X
married Y and out of their union. A, B and C were born.
After the death of Y, X married Z and they begot as share allotted by law to the finder since
the phrase "by
children, D, E and F. After the death of X, the children of
the first and second marriages executed an extrajudicial
partition of the aforestated property on May 1, 1970. D, E
and F were given a one thousand square meter portion of the
property. They were minors at the time of the execution of
the document. D was 17 years old, E was 14 and F was 12;
and they were made to believe by A, B and C that unless they
sign the document they will not get any share. Z was not
present then. In January 1974, D, E and F filed an action in
court to nullify the suit alleging they discovered the fraud
only in 1973.
(a) Can the minority of D, E and F be a basis to nullify the
partition? Explain your answer.
(b) How about fraud? Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Yes, minority can be a basis to nullify the partition
because D, E and F were not properly represented by their
parents or guardians at the time they contracted the extrajudicial
partition. (Articles 1327. 1391, Civil Code).
(b) In the case of fraud, when through insidious words or
machinations of one party the other is induced to enter into
the contract without which he would not have agreed to, the
action still prosper because under Art, 1391 of the Civil
Code, in case of fraud, the action for annulment may be
brought within four years from the discovery of the fraud.
Hidden Treasure (1995)
Tim came into possession of an old map showing where a
purported cache of gold bullion was hidden. Without any
authority from the government Tim conducted a relentless
search and finally found the treasure buried in a new river
bed formerly part of a parcel of land owned by spouses Tirso
and Tessie. The old river which used to cut through the land
of spouses Ursula and Urbito changed its course through
natural causes. To whom shall the treasure belong? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The treasure was found in a property of public dominion, the
new river bed. Since Tim did not have authority from the
government and, therefore, was a trespasser, he is not
entitled to the one-half share allotted to a finder of hidden
treasure. All of it will go to the State. In addition, under Art.
438 of the NCC in order that the finder be entitled to the
1/2 share, the treasure must be found by chance, that is by
sheer luck. In this case, since Tim found the treasure not by
chance but because he relentlessly searched for it, he is not
entitled to any share in the hidden treasure.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The law grants a one-half share to a finder of hidden treasure
provided he is not a trespasser and the finding is by chance. It is
submitted that Tim is not a trespasser despite his not getting
authority from the government, because the new river bed where he
found the treasure is property for public use (Art. 420 NCC), to
which the public has legitimate access. The question, therefore,
boils down to whether or not the finding was by chance in view of
the fact that Tim "conducted a relentless search" before finding the
treasure. The strict or literal view holds that deliberate or intentional
search precludes entitlement to the one-half
chance" means "by accident", meaning an unexpected discovery.
The liberal view, however, would sustain Tim's right to the allocated
share interpreting the phrase in question as meaning "by a stroke of
good fortune", which does not rule out deliberate or intentional
search. It is submitted that the liberal view should prevail since in
practical reality, hidden treasure is hardly ever found without
conscious effort to find it, and the strict view would tend to render
the codal provision in question illusory.
Hidden Treasures (1997)
Marcelino, a treasure hunter as just a hobby, has found a map
which appears to indicate the location of hidden treasure. He
has an idea of the land where the treasure might possibly be
found. Upon inquiry, Marcelino learns that the owner of the
land, Leopoldo, is a permanent resident of Canada, Nobody,
however, could give him Leopoldo's exact address.
Ultimately, anyway, he enters the land and conducts a search.
He succeeds.
Leopoldo learning of Marcelino's "find", seeks to recover the
treasure from Marcelino but the latter is not willing to part
with it. Failing to reach an agreement, Leopoldo sues
Marcelino for the recovery of the property. Marcelino
contests the action. How would you decide the case?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would decide in favor of Marcelino since he is considered a
finder by chance of the hidden treasure, hence, he is entitled
to one-half (1/2) of the hidden treasure. While Marcelino
may have had the intention to look for the hidden treasure,
still he is a finder by chance since it is enough that he tried to
look for it. By chance in the law does not mean sheer luck
such that the finder should have no intention at all to look
for the treasure. By chance means good luck, implying that
one who intentionally looks for the treasure is embraced in
the provision. The reason is that it is extremely difficult to
find hidden treasure without looking for it deliberately.
Marcelino is not a trespasser since there is no prohibition for
him to enter the premises, hence, he is entitled to half of the
treasure.
1. Marcelino did not find the treasure by chance because he
had a map, he knew the location of the hidden treasure and
he intentionally looked for the treasure, hence, he is not
entitled to any part of the treasure.
2. Marcelino appears to be a trespasser and although there
may be a question of whether he found it by chance or not,
as he has found the hidden treasure by means of a treasure
map, he will not be entitled to a finder's share. The hidden
treasure shall belong to the owner.
3. The main rule is that hidden treasure belongs to the
owner of the land, building or other property on which it is
found. If it is found by chance by a third person and he is not
a trespasser, he is entitled to one-half (1/2). If he is a
trespasser, he loses everything.
Mortgage; Pactum Commissorium (1999)
Page 64 of 119
(a) X borrowed money from Y and gave a piece of land Are the right of redemption and the
equity of redemption
as security by way of mortgage. It was expressly agreed
between the parties in the mortgage contract that upon
nonpayment of the debt on time by X, the mortgaged
land would already belong to Y. If X defaulted in
paying, would Y now become the owner of the
mortgaged land? Why? (3%)
(b) Suppose in the preceding question, the agreement
between X and Y was that if X failed to pay the mortgage
debt on time, the debt shall be paid with the land mortgaged
by X to Y. Would your answer be the same as in the
preceding question? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) No, Y would not become the owner of the land. The
stipulation is in the nature of pactum commissorium which is
prohibited by law. The property should be sold at public
auction and the proceeds thereof applied to the indebtedness.
Any excess shall be given to the mortgagor.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(d) No, the answer would not be the same. This is a valid
stipulation and does not constitute pactum commissorium. In
pactum commissorium, the acquisition is automatic without
need of any further action. In the instant problem another act
is required to be performed, namely, the conveyance of the
property as payment (dacion en pago).
Mortgage; Pactum Commissorium (2001)
To secure a loan obtained from a rural bank, Purita assigned
her leasehold rights over a stall in the public market in favor
of the bank. The deed of assignment provides that in case of
default in the payment of the loan, the bank shall have the
right to sell Purita's rights over the market stall as her
attorney-in-fact, and to apply the proceeds to the payment of
the loan. 1) Was the assignment of leasehold rights a
mortgage or a
cession? Why? (3%)
2) Assuming the assignment to be a mortgage, does
the provision giving the bank the power to sell Purita's rights
constitute pactum commissorium or not? Why? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) The assignment was a mortgage, not a cession, of the
leasehold rights. A cession would have transferred ownership
to the bank. However, the grant of authority to the bank to
sell the leasehold rights in case of default is proof that no such
ownership was transferred and that a mere encumbrance was
constituted. There would have been no need for such
authority had there been a cession.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2) No, the clause in question is not a pactum commissorium.
It is pactum commissorium when default in the payment of the loan
automatically vests ownership of the encumbered property in the bank. In
the problem given, the bank does not automatically become
owner of the property upon default of the mortgagor. The
bank has to sell the property and apply the proceeds to the
indebtedness.
Mortgage; Right of Redemption vs. Equity of Redemption
(1999)
given by law to a mortgagor the same? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The equity of redemption is different from the right of
redemption. EQUITY OF REDEMPTION is the right of
the mortgagor after judgment in a judicial foreclosure to
redeem the property by paying to the court the amount of the
judgment debt before the sale or confirmation of the sale. On
the other hand, RIGHT OF REDEMPTION is the right of
the mortgagor to redeem the property sold at an extra-judicial
foreclosure by paying to the buyer in the foreclosure sale the
amount paid by the buyer within one year from such sale.
Nuisance; Family House; Not Nuisance per se (2006)
A drug lord and his family reside in a small bungalow where
they sell shabu and other prohibited drugs. When the police
found the illegal trade, they immediately demolished the
house because according to them, it was a nuisance per se
that should be abated. Can this demolition be sustained?
Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the demolition cannot be sustained. The house is not a
nuisance per se or at law as it is not an act, occupation, or
structure which is a nuisance at all times and under any
circumstances, regardless of location or surroundings. A
nuisance per se is a nuisance in and of itself, without regard to
circumstances [Tolentino, p. 695, citing Wheeler v. River Falls
Power Co., 215 Ala. 655, 111 So. 907].
Nuisance; Public Nuisance vs. Private Nuisance (2005)
State with reason whether each of the following is a nuisance,
and if so, give its classification, whether public or private:
Article 694 of the Civil Code defines nuisance as any act,
omission, establishment, business, condition or property, or
anything else which injures or endangers the health or safety
of others, or annoys or offends the senses, or shocks, defies
or disregards decency or morality or obstructs or interferes
with the free passage of any public highway or street or any
body of water or hinders or impairs the use of property.
It is a public nuisance if it affects a community or
neighborhood or any considerable number of persons. It is a
direct encroachment upon public rights or property which
results injuriously to the public. It is a private nuisance, if it
affects only a person or small number of persons. It violates
only private rights.
a) A squatter's hut (1%)
If constructed on public streets or riverbeds, it is a public
nuisance because it obstructs the free use by the public of said
places. (City of Manila v. Garcia, G.R. No. L-26053, February
21,1967) If constructed on private land, it is a private nuisance
because it hinders or impairs the use of the property by the
owner.
b) A swimming pool (1%)
This is not a nuisance in the absence of any unusual condition
or artificial feature other than the mere water. In
Hidalgo Enterprises v. Balandan (G.R. No. L-3422, June 13,
1952), the Supreme Court ruled that a swimming pool is but
a duplication of nature — thus, could not be considered as a (b) The mortgage shall not bind the
1/3 right and interest
nuisance.
c) A house of prostitution (1%)
Irrespective of its location and how its business is conducted,
it is a nuisance since it defies, shocks and disregards decency
and morality. It is a public nuisance because of its injury to the
public.
d) A noisy or dangerous factory in a private land (1%)
If the noise injuriously affects the health and comfort of
ordinary people in the vicinity to an unreasonable extent, it is
a nuisance. It is a public nuisance because there is a tendency
to annoy the public. (Velasco v. Manila Electric Co., G.R. No.
L-18390, August 6, 1971)
e) Uncollected garbage (1%)
It will become a nuisance if it substantially impairs the
comfort and enjoyment of the adjacent occupants. The
annoyance and the smell must be substantial as to interfere
sensibly with the use and enjoyment by persons of ordinary
sensibilities. It is a public nuisance because of its injury to the
public.
Ownership; Co-Ownership (1992)
A, B and C are the co-owners in equal shares of a residential
house and lot. During their co-ownership, the following acts
were respectively done by the co-owners: 1) A undertook the
repair of the foundation of the house,
then tilting to one side, to prevent the house from
collapsing. 2) B and C mortgaged the house and lot to secure
a loan. 3) B engaged a contractor to build a concrete fence all
around the lot. 4) C built a beautiful grotto in the
garden. 5) A and C sold the land to X for a very good
price.
(a) Is A's sole decision to repair the foundation of
the house binding on B and C? May A require B and
C to contribute their 2/3 share of the expense?
Reasons.
(b) What is the legal effect of the mortgage
contract executed by B and C? Reasons.
(c) Is B's sole decision to build the fence binding
upon A and C? May B require A and C to contribute
their 2/ 3 share of the expense? Reasons.
(d) Is C's sole decision to build the grotto binding
upon A and B? May C require A and B to contribute
their 2/ 3 share of the expense? Reasons.
(e) What are the legal effects of the contract of
sale executed by A. C and X? Reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Yes. A's sole decision to repair the foundation is binding
upon B and C. B and C must contribute 2/3 of the expense.
Each co-owner has the right to compel the other co-owners
to contribute to the expense of preservation of the thing (the
house) owned in common in proportion to their respective
interests (Arts. 485 and 488, Civil Code).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of A and shall be deemed to cover only the rights and
interests of B and C in the house and lot. The mortgage shall
be limited to the portion (2/3) which may be allotted to B
and C in the partition (Art. 493, Civil Code).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(c) B's sole decision to build the concrete fence is not binding
upon A and C. Expenses to improve the thing owned in
common must be decided upon by a majority of the
co-owners who represent the controlling interest (Arts. 489
and 492. Civil Code).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(d) C's sole decision to build the grotto is not binding upon A
and B who cannot be required to contribute to the expenses
for the embellishment of the thing owned in common if not
decided upon by the majority of the coowners who represent
the controlling interest (Arts. 489 and 492, Civil Code).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(e) The sale to X shall not bind the 1/3 share of B and shall
be deemed to cover only the 2/3 share of A and C in the
land (Art. 493, Civil Code). B shall have the right to redeem
the 2/3 share sold to X by A and C since X is a third person
(Art. 1620, Civil Code).
Ownership; Co-Ownership; Prescription (2000)
In 1955, Ramon and his sister Rosario inherited a parcel of
land in Albay from their parents. Since Rosario was gainfully
employed in Manila, she left Ramon alone to possess and
cultivate the land. However, Ramon never shared the harvest
with Rosario and was even able to sell one-half of the land in
1985 by claiming to be the sole heir of his parents. Having
reached retirement age in 1990 Rosario returned to the
province and upon learning what had transpired, demanded
that the remaining half of the land be given to her as her
share. Ramon opposed, asserting that he has already acquired
ownership of the land by prescription, and that Rosario is
barred by laches from demanding partition and reconveyance.
Decide the conflicting claims. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ramon is wrong on both counts: prescription and laches. His
possession as co-owner did not give rise to acquisitive
prescription. Possession by a co-owner is deemed not adverse
to the other co-owners but is, on the contrary, deemed
beneficial to them (Pongon v. GA, 166 SCRA 375). Ramon's
possession will become adverse only when he has repudiated
the co-ownership and such repudiation was made known to
Rosario. Assuming that the sale in 1985 where Ramon
claimed he was the sole heir of his parents amounted to a
repudiation of the co-ownership, the prescriptive period
began to run only from that time. Not more than 30 years
having lapsed since then, the claim of Rosario has not as yet
prescribed. The claim of laches is not also meritorious. Until
the repudiation of the co-ownership was made known to the
other co-owners, no right has been violated for the said
co-owners to vindicate. Mere delay in vindicating the right,
standing alone, does not constitute laches.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Ramon has acquired the land by acquisitive prescription, and
because of laches on the part of Rosario. Ramon's possession
of the land was adverse because he asserted sole ownership
thereof and never shared the harvest therefrom. His adverse
possession having been continuous and uninterrupted for
more than 30 years, Ramon has acquired the land by
prescription. Rosario is also guilty of laches not having
asserted her right to the harvest for more than 40 years.
Ownership; Co-Ownership; Prescription (2002)
Senen and Peter are brothers. Senen migrated to Canada early
while still a teenager. Peter stayed in Bulacan to take care of
their widowed mother and continued to work on the Family
farm even after her death. Returning to the country some
thirty years after he had left, Senen seeks a partition of the
farm to get his share as the only co-heir of Peter. Peter
interposes his opposition, contending that acquisitive
prescription has already set in and that estoppel lies to bar the
action for partition, citing his continuous possession of the
property for at least 10 years, for almost 30 years in fact. It
is undisputed that Peter has never openly claimed sole
ownership of the property. If he ever had the intention to do
so, Senen was completely ignorant of it. Will Senen’s action
prosper? Explain. (5%).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Senen’s action will prosper. Article 494 of the New Civil
Code provides that ―no prescription shall run in favor of a
co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long
as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the coownership nor
notified Senen of his having repudiated the same.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Senen’s action will prosper. This is a case of implied trust.
(Art 1441, NCC) For purposes of prescription under the
concept of an owner (Art. 540, NCC). There is no such
concept here. Peter was a co-owner, he never claimed sole
ownership of the property. He is therefore estopped under
Art. 1431, NCC.
Ownership; Co-Ownership; Redemption (1993)
In 1937, A obtained a loan of P20,000.00 from the National
City Bank of New York, an American-owned bank doing
business in the Philippines. To guarantee payment of his
obligation, A constituted a real estate mortgage on his 30-
hectare parcel of agricultural land. In 1939, before he could
pay his obligation. A died intestate leaving three children. B, a
son by a first marriage, and C and D, daughters by a second
marriage. In 1940, the bank foreclosed the mortgage for
non-payment of the principal obligation. As the only bidder
at the extrajudicial foreclosure sale, the bank bought the
property and was later issued a certificate of sale. The war
supervened in 1941 without the bank having been able to
obtain actual possession of the property which remained with
A's three children who appropriated for themselves the
income from it. In 1948, B bought the property from the
bank using the money he received as back pay from the U.
S. Government, and utilized the same in agribusiness. In
1960, as B's business flourished, C and D sued B for partition
and accounting of the income of the property, claiming that
as heirs of their father they were co-owners
thereof and offering to reimburse B for whatever he had
paid in purchasing the property from the bank. In brief, how
will you answer the complaint of C and D, if you were
engaged by D as his counsel?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As counsel of B, I shall answer the complaint as follows:
When B bought the property, it was not by a right of
redemption since the period therefore had already expired.
Hence, B bought the property in an independent
unconditional sale. C and D are not co-owners with B of the
property. Therefore, the suit of C and D cannot prosper.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
As counsel of B, I shall answer the complaint as follows:
From the facts described, it would appear that the Certificate
of sale has not been registered. The one-year period of
redemption begins to run from registration. In this case, it has
not yet even commenced. Under the Rules of Court, the
property may be released by the Judgment debtor or his
successor in interest. (Sec. 29, Rule 27). It has been held that
this includes a joint owner. (Ref. Magno vs.Ciola, 61 Phil. 80).
Ambrosio died, leaving his three daughters, Belen, Rosario
and Sylvia a hacienda which was mortgaged to the Philippine
National Bank due to the failure of the daughters to pay the
bank, the latter foreclosed the mortgage and the hacienda was
sold to it as the highest bidder. Six months later, Sylvia won
the grand prize at the lotto and used part of it to redeem the
hacienda from the bank. Thereafter, she took possession of
the hacienda and refused to share its fruits with her sisters,
contending that it was owned exclusively by her, having
bought it from the bank with her own money. Is she correct
or not? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Sylvia is not correct. The 3 daughters are the co-owners of
the hacienda being the only heirs of Ambrosio. When the
property was foreclosed, the right of redemption belongs
also to the 3 daughters. When Sylvia redeemed the entire
property before the lapse of the redemption period, she also
exercised the right of redemption of her co-owners on their
behalf. As such she is holding the shares of her two sisters in
the property, and all the fruits corresponding thereto, in trust
for them. Redemption by one co-owner inures to the benefit
of all (Adille v. CA.157 SCRA 455). Sylvia, however, is entitled
to be reimbursed the shares of her two sisters in the
redemption price.
Antonio, Bart, and Carlos are brothers. They purchased from
their parents specific portions of a parcel of land as evidenced
by three separates deeds of sale, each deed referring to a
particular lot in meter and bounds. When the deeds were
presented for registration, the Register of Deeds could not
issue separate certificates of Title had to be issued, therefore,
in the names of three brothers as coowners of the entire
property. The situation has not changed up to now, but each
of the brothers has been receiving rentals exclusively from the
lot actually purchased by him. Antonio sells his lot to a third
person, with notice to his brothers. To enable the buyer to
secure a new title in
his name, the deed of sale was made to refer to undivided Salvador, a timber
concessionaire, built on his lot a
interest in the property of the seller (Antonio), with the metes
and bounds of the lot sold being stated. Bart and Carlos
reacted by signifying their exercise of their right of
redemption as co owners. Antonio in his behalf and in behalf
of his buyer, contends that they are no longer coowners,
although the title covering the property has remained in their
names as such. May Bart and Carlos still redeem the lot sold
by Antonio? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, they may not redeem because there was no Coownership
among Antonio, Bart, and Carlos to start with. Their parents
already partitioned the land in selling separate portions to
them. The situation is the same as in the case Si
v. Court of Appeals, (342 SCRA 653 [2000]).
Possession (1998)
Using a falsified manager's check, Justine, as the buyer, was
able to take delivery of a second hand car which she had just
bought from United Car Sales Inc. The sale was registered
with the Land Transportation Office. A week later, the seller
learned that the check had been dishonored, but by that time,
Justine was nowhere to be seen. It turned out that Justine had
sold the car to Jerico, the present possessor who knew
nothing about the falsified check. In a suit by United Car
Sales, Inc. against Jerico for recovery of the car, plaintiff
alleges it had been unlawfully deprived of its property
through fraud and should, consequently, be allowed to
recover it without having to reimburse the defendant for the
price the latter had paid. Should the suit prosper? [5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The suit should prosper as to the recovery of the car.
However, since Jerico was not guilty of any fraud and appears
to be an innocent purchaser for value, he should be
reimbursed for the price he paid. This is without prejudice to
United Car Sales, Inc. right of action against Justine. As
between two innocent parties, the party causing the injury
should suffer the loss. Therefore, United Car Sales, Inc.
should suffer the loss.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, the suit will prosper because the criminal act of estafa
should be deemed to come within the meaning of unlawful
deprivation under Art. 559, Civil Code, as without it plaintiff
would not have parted with the possession of its car.
ANOTHER ANSWER:
No, the suit will not prosper. The sale is valid and Jerico is a
buyer in good faith.
ANOTHER ANSWER:
Under the law on Sales, when the thing sold is delivered by
the seller to the buyer without reservation of ownership, the
ownership is transferred to the buyer. Therefore in the suit of
United Car Sales, Inc. against Jerico for the recovery of the
car, the plaintiff should not be allowed to recover the car
without reimbursing the defendant for the price that the latter
paid. (EDCA Publishing and Distributing Corp. vs. Santos, 184
SCRA 614, April 26, 1990)
Property; Real vs. Personal Property (1995)
warehouse where he processes and stores his timber for
shipment. Adjoining the warehouse is a furniture factory
owned by NARRAMIX of which Salvador is a majority
stockholder. NARRAMIX leased space in the warehouse
where it placed its furniture-making machinery.
1. How would you classify the furniture-making machinery
as property under the Civil Code? Explain.
2. Suppose the lease contract between Salvador and
NARRAMIX stipulates that at the end of the lease the
machinery shall become the property of the lessor, will your
answer be the same? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. The furniture-making machinery is movable property
because it was not installed by the owner of the tenement.
To become immovable under Art. 415 (5) of the NCC, the
machinery must be installed by the owner of the tenement.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
It depends on the circumstances of the case. If the machinery
was attached in a fixed manner, in such a way that it cannot
be separated from the tenement without breaking the material
or causing deterioration thereof, it is immovable property
[Art. 415 (3), NCC]. However, if the machinery can be
transported from place to place without impairment of the
tenement to which they were fixed, then it is movable
property. [Art. 416 (4), NCC]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. It is immovable property. When there is a provision in the
lease contract making the lessor, at the end of the lease,
owner of the machinery installed by the lessee, the said
machinery is considered to have been installed by the lessor
through the lessee who acted merely as his agent. Having
been installed by the owner of the tenement, the machinery
became immovable .under Art. 415 of the NCC. (Davao
Sawmill v. Castillo 61 Phil. 709)
Property; Real vs. Personal Property (1997)
Pedro is the registered owner of a parcel of land situated in
Malolos, Bulacan. In 1973, he mortgaged the land to the
Philippine National Bank (PNB) to secure a loan of
P100.000.00. For Pedro's failure to pay the loan, the PNB
foreclosed on the mortgage in 1980, and the land was sold at
public auction to PNB for being the highest bidder. PNB
secured title thereto in 1987.
In the meanwhile, Pedro, who was still in possession of the
land, constructed a warehouse on the property. In 1988, the
PNB sold the land to Pablo, the Deed of Sale was amended
in 1989 to include the warehouse.
Pedro, claiming ownership of the warehouse, files a complaint
to annul the amended Deed of Sale before the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City, where he resides, against both the
PNB and Pablo. The PNB filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for improper venue contending that the warehouse
is real property under Article 415(1) of the Civil Code and
therefore the action should have instead been filed in Malolos,
Bulacan. Pedro claims otherwise. The question arose as to
whether the warehouse should be considered as real or as
personal property.
If consulted, what would your legal advice be? latter vacate the premises and deliver the
same to the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The warehouse which is a construction adhered to the soil is
an immovable by nature under Art. 415 (1) and the proper
venue of any case to recover ownership of the same, which is
what the purpose of the complaint to annul the amended
Deed of Sale amounts to, should be the place where the
property is located, or the RTC of Bulacan.
ADDITIONAL ANSWERS:
1. Buildings are always immovable property, and even in the
instances where the parties to a contract seem to have dealt with
it separate and apart from the land on which it stood in no wise
does it change its character as immovable property. A building is
an immovable even if not erected by the owner of the land. The
only criterion is union or incorporation with the soil. (Ladera vs.
Hodges (CA) 48
O.G. 4374) (Reyes and Puno, Outline of Philippine Civil Law,
Vol. 2. p.7)
2. The warehouse built by Pedro on the mortgaged property
is real property within the context of Article 415 of the New
Civil Code, although it was built by Pedro after the
foreclosure sale without the knowledge and consent of the
new owner which makes him a builder in bad faith, this does
not alter the character of the warehouse as a real property by
incorporation. It is a structure which cannot be removed
without causing injury to the land. So, my advice to Pedro is
to file the case with the RTC of Bulacan, the situs of the
property,
(Note: If the examinee does not mention that the structure was built
by a builder in bad faith, it should be given full credit).
Sower; Good Faith/ Bad Faith (2000)
Felix cultivated a parcel of land and planted it to sugar cane,
believing it to be his own. When the crop was eight months
old, and harvestable after two more months, a resurvey of
the land showed that it really belonged to Fred. What are the
options available to Fred? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As to the pending crops planted by Felix in good faith, Fred
has the option of allowing Felix to continue the cultivation
and to harvest the crops, or to continue the cultivation and
harvest the crops himself. In the latter option, however, Felix
shall have the right to a part of the expenses of cultivation
and to a part of the net harvest, both in proportion to the
time of possession. (Art. 545 NCC),
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Since sugarcane is not a perennial crop. Felix is considered a
sower in good faith. Being so, Art. 448 applies. The options
available to Fred are: (a) to appropriate the crop after paying
Felix the indemnity under Art. 546, or (b) to require Felix to
pay rent.
Usufruct (1997)
On 1 January 1980, Minerva, the owner of a building, granted
Petronila a usufruct over the property until 01 June 1998
when Manuel, a son of Petronila, would have reached his
30th birthday. Manuel, however, died on 1 June 1990 when
he was only 26 years old.
Minerva notified Petronila that the usufruct had been
extinguished by the death of Manuel and demanded that the
former. Petronila refused to vacate the place on the ground
that the usufruct in her favor would expire only on 1 June
1998 when Manuel would have reached his 30th birthday and
that the death of Manuel before his 30th birthday did not
extinguish the usufruct. Whose contention should be
accepted?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Petronila's contention is correct. Under Article 606 of the
Civil Code, a usufruct granted for the time that may elapse
before a third person reaches a certain age shall subsist for
the number of years specified even if the third person should
die unless there is an express stipulation in the contract that
states otherwise. In the case at bar, there is no express
stipulation that the consideration for the usufruct is the
existence of Petronila's son. Thus, the general rule and not
the exception should apply in this case.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
This is a usufruct which is clearly intended for the benefit of
Manuel until he reaches 30 yrs. of age with Petronila serving
only as a conduit, holding the property in trust for his
benefit. The death of Manuel at the age of 26 therefore,
terminated the usufruct.
LAND TRANSFER &
DEEDS
Acquisition of Lands; Citizenship Requirement (2003)
In 1970, the spouses Juan and Juana de la Cruz, then
Filipinos, bought the parcel of unregistered land in the
Philippines on which they built a house which became their
residence. In 1986, they migrated to Canada and became
Canadian citizens. Thereafter, in 1990, they applied, opposed
by the Republic, for the registration of the aforesaid land in
their names. Should the application of the spouses de la Cruz
be granted over the Republic’s opposition? Why? 5%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the application should be granted. As a rule, the
Constitution prohibits aliens from owning private lands in the
Philippines. This rule, however, does not apply to the spouses
Juan and Juana de la Cruz because at the time they acquired
ownership over the land, albeit imperfect, they were still
Filipino citizens. The application for registration is a mere
confirmation of the imperfect title which the spouses have
already acquired before they became Canadian citizens.
(Republic v. CA, 235 SCRA 567 [1994]).
Adverse Claims; Notice of Levy (1998)
Section 70 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, concerning
adverse claims on registered land, provides a 30-day period of
effectivity of an adverse claim, counted from the date of its
registration. Suppose a notice of adverse claim based upon a
contract to sell was registered on March 1, 1997 at the
instance of the BUYER, but on June 1, 1997, or after the
lapse of the 30-day period, a notice of levy on execution in
favor of a JUDGMENT CREDITOR was also registered to
enforce a final judgment for money against the registered
owner. Then, on June 15, 1997 there having been no formal
cancellation of his notice of adverse claim, the BUYER pays
to the seller-owner the agreed purchase price in full and residential, commercial,
industrial, or similar productive
registers the corresponding deed of sale. Because the
annotation of the notice of levy is carried over to the new title
in his name, the BUYER brings an action against the
JUDGMENT CREDITOR to cancel such annotation, but
the latter claims that his lien is superior because it was
annotated after the adverse claim of the BUYER had ipso
facto ceased to be effective. Will the suit prosper? [5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The suit will prosper. While an adverse claim duly annotated
at the back of a title under Section 7O of P.D. 1529 is good
only for 30 days, cancellation thereof is still necessary to
render it ineffective, otherwise, the inscription thereof will
remain annotated as a lien on the property. While the life of
adverse claim is 3O days under P.D. 1529, it continuous to
be effective until it is canceled by formal petition filed with
the Register of Deeds.
The cancellation of the notice of levy is justified under
Section 108 of P.D. 1529 considering that the levy on
execution can not be enforced against the buyer whose
adverse claim against the registered owner was recorded
ahead of the notice of levy on execution.
Annotation of Lis Pendens; When Proper (2001)
Mario sold his house and lot to Carmen for P1 million
payable in five (5) equal annual installments. The sale was
registered and title was issued in Carmen's name. Carmen
failed to pay the last three installments and Mario filed an.
action for collection, damages and attorneys fees against her.
Upon filing of the complaint, he caused a notice of lis
pendens to be annotated on Carmen's title. Is the notice of lis
pendens proper or not? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The notice of lis pendens is not proper for the reason that
the case filed by Mario against Carmen is only for collection,
damages, and attorney's fees.
Annotation of a lis pendens can only be done in cases
involving recovery of possession of real property, or to quiet
title or to remove cloud thereon, or for partition or any other
proceeding affecting title to the land or the use or occupation
thereof. The action filed by Mario does not fall on anyone of
these.
Foreshore Lands (2000)
Regina has been leasing foreshore land from the Bureau of
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources for the past 15 years.
Recently, she learned that Jorge was able to obtain a free
patent from the Bureau of Agriculture, covering the same
land, on the basis of a certification by the District Forester
that the same is already "alienable and disposable". Moreover,
Jorge had already registered the patent with the Register of
Deeds of the province, and he was issued an Original
Certificate of Title for the same. Regina filed an action for
annulment of Jorge's title on the ground that it was obtained
fraudulently. Will the action prosper? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
An action for the annulment of Jorge's Original Certificate of
Title will prosper on the following grounds:
(1) Under Chapter IX of C .A, No. 141, otherwise known as
the Public Land Act, foreshore lands are disposable for
purposes, and only by lease when not needed by the
government for public service.
(2) If the land is suited or actually used for fishpond or
aquaculture purposes, it comes under the Jurisdiction of the
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) and can
only be acquired by lease. (P.D. 705)
(3) Free Patent is a mode of concession under Section 41,
Chapter VII of the Public Land Act, which is applicable only
for agricultural lands.
(4) The certificate of the district forester that the land is
already "alienable and disposable" simply means that the land
is no longer needed for forest purposes, but the Bureau of
Lands could no longer dispose of it by free patent because it
is already covered by a lease contract between BFAR and
Regina. That contract must be respected.
(5) The free patent of Jorge is highly irregular and void ab
initio, not only because the Bureau has no statutory authority
to issue a free patent over a foreshore area, but also because
of the false statements made in his sworn application that he
has occupied and cultivated the land since July 4, 1945, as
required by the free patent law. Under Section 91 of the
Public Land Act, any patent concession or title obtained thru
false representation is void ab initio. In cases of this nature, it
is the government that shall institute annulment proceedings
considering that the suit carries with it a prayer for the
reversion of the land to the state. However, Regina is a party
in interest and the case will prosper because she has a lease
contract for the same land with the government.
Forgery; Innocent Purchaser; Holder in Bad Faith (2005)
Rod, the owner of an FX taxi, found in his vehicle an
envelope containing TCT No. 65432 over a lot registered in
Cesar's name. Posing as Cesar, Rod forged Cesar's signature
on a Deed of Sale in Rod's favor. Rod registered the said
document with the Register of Deeds, and obtained a new
title in his name. After a year, he sold the lot to Don, a buyer
in good faith and for value, who also registered the lot in his
name.
a) Did Rod acquire title to the land? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Rod did not acquire title to the land. The inscription in
the registry, to be effective, must be made in good faith. The
defense of indefeasibility of a Torrens Title does not extend
to a transferee who takes the certificate of title with notice of
a flaw. A holder in bad faith of a certificate of title is not
entitled to the protection of the law, for the law cannot be
used as a shield for frauds. (Samonte v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 104223, July 12, 2001)
In the case at bar, Rod only forged Cesar's signature on the
-Deed of Sale. It is very apparent that there was bad faith on
the part of Rod from the very beginning. As such, he is not
entitled to the protection of the Land Registration Act.
b) Discuss the rights of Don, if any, over the property.
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It is a well-known rule in this jurisdiction that persons
dealing with registered land have the legal right to rely on the
face of the Torrens Certificate of Title and to dispense with
the need to inquire further, except when the party concerned
has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would
impel a reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry.
(Naawan Community Rural Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
128573, January 13, 2003)
In the given problem, the property was already registered in
the name of Rod when he bought the same from the latter.
Thus, Don could be considered as a buyer in good faith and
for value. However, since Rod did not actually sell any
property to him, Don has no right to retain ownership over
the property. He has only the right to recover the purchase
price plus damages.
Forgery; Innocent Purchaser; Mirror Principle (1991)
Bruce is the registered owner, of a parcel of land with a
building thereon and is in peaceful possession thereof. He
pays the real estate taxes and collects the rentals therefrom.
Later, Catalino, the only brother of Bruce, filed a petition
where he, misrepresenting to be the attorney-in-fact of Bruce
and falsely alleging that the certificate of title was lost,
succeeded in obtaining a second owner's duplicate copy of
the title and then had the same transferred in his name
through a simulated deed of sale in his favor. Catalino then
mortgaged the property to Desiderio who had the mortgage
annotated on the title. Upon learning of the fraudulent
transaction, Bruce filed a complaint against Catalino and
Desiderio to have the title of Catalino and the mortgage in
favor of Desiderio declared null and void. Will the complaint
prosper, or will the title of Catalino and the mortgage to
Desiderio be sustained?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The complaint for the annulment of Catalino's Title will
prosper. In the first place, the second owner's copy of the
title secured by him from the Land Registration Court is void
ab initio, the owner's copy thereof having never been lost, let
alone the fact that said second owner's copy of the title was
fraudulently procured and improvidently issued by the Court.
In the second place, the Transfer Certificate of Title procured
by Catalino is equally null and void, it having been issued on
the basis of a simulated or forged Deed of Sale. A forged
deed is an absolute nullity and conveys no title. The mortgage
in favor of Desiderio is likewise null and void because the
mortgagor is not the owner of the mortgaged property. While
it may be true that under the "Mirror Principle" of the Torrens
System of Land Registration, a buyer or mortgagee has the
right to rely on what appears on the Certificate of Title, and
in the absence of anything to excite suspicion, is under no
obligation to look beyond the certificate and investigate the
mortgagor's title, this rule does not find application in the
case at hand because here. Catalino's title suffers from two
fatal infirmities, namely: a) The fact that it emanated from a
forged deed of a
simulated sale; b) The fact that it was derived from a
fraudulently
procured or improvidently issued second owner's copy,
the real owner's copy being still intact and in the
possession of the true owner, Bruce.
The mortgage to Desiderio should be cancelled without
prejudice to his right to go after Catalino and/or the
government for compensation from the assurance fund.
Fraud; Procurement of Patent; Effect (2000)
In 1979, Nestor applied for and was granted a Free Patent
over a parcel of agricultural land with an area of 30 hectares,
located in General Santos City. He presented the Free Patent
to the Register of Deeds, and he was issued a corresponding
Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 375, Subsequently,
Nestor sold the land to Eddie. The deed of sale was
submitted to the Register of Deeds and on the basis thereof,
OCT No, 375 was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. 4576 was issued in the name of Eddie. In 1986,
the Director of Lands filed a complaint for annulment of
OCT No, 375 and TCT No. 4576 on the ground that Nestor
obtained the Free Patent through fraud. Eddie filed a motion
to dismiss on the ground that he was an innocent purchaser
for value and in good faith and as such, he has acquired a title
to the property which is valid, unassailable and indefeasible.
Decide the motion. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion of Nestor to dismiss the complaint for annulment
of O.C.T. No. 375 and T.C.T. No. 4576 should be denied for
the following reasons: 1) Eddie cannot claim protection as an
innocent
purchaser for value nor can he interpose the defense of
indefeasibility of his title, because his TCT is rooted on a
void title. Under Section 91 of CA No. 141, as amended,
otherwise known as the Public Land Act, statements of
material facts in the applications for public land must be
under oath. Section 91 of the same act provides that such
statements shall be considered as essential conditions and
parts of the concession, title, or permit issued, any false
statement therein, or omission of facts shall ipso facto
produce the cancellation of the concession. The patent
issued to Nestor in this case is void ab initio not only
because it was obtained by fraud but also because it
covers 30 hectares which is far beyond the maximum of
24 hectares provided by the free patent law.
2) The government can seek annulment of the original
and transfer certificates of title and the reversion of the land
to the state. Eddie's defense is untenable. The protection
afforded by the Torrens System to an innocent purchaser for
value can be availed of only if the land has been titled thru
judicial proceedings where the issue of fraud becomes
academic after the lapse of one (1) year from the issuance of
the decree of registration. In public land grants, the action of
the government to annul a title fraudulently obtained does
not prescribe such action and will not be barred by the
transfer of the title to an innocent purchaser for value.
Homestead Patents; Void Sale (1999)
In 1950, the Bureau of Lands issued a Homestead patent to
A. Three years later, A sold the homestead to B. A died in
1990, and his heirs filed an action to recover the homestead
from B on the ground that its sale by their father to the latter
is void under Section 118 of the Public Land Law. B
contends, however, that the heirs of A cannot recover the
Page 71 of 119
homestead from him anymore because their action has Cesar bought a residential
condominium unit from High
prescribed and that furthermore, A was in pari delicto.
Decide. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The sale of the land by A to B 3 years after issuance of the
homestead patent, being in violation of Section 118 of the
Public Land Act, is void from its inception.
The action filed by the heirs of B to declare the nullity or
inexistence of the contract and to recover the land should be
given due course.
B's defense of prescription is untenable because an action
which seeks to declare the nullity or inexistence of A contract
does not prescribe. (Article 1410; Banaga vs. Soler, 2 8CRA
765)
On the other hand, B's defense of pari delicto is equally
untenable. While as a rule, parties who are in pari delicto have
no recourse against each other on the principle that a
transgressor cannot profit from his own wrongdoing, such
rule does not apply to violations of Section 118 of the Public
Land Act because of the underlying public policy in the said
Act "to conserve the land which a homesteader has acquired by gratuitous
grant from the government for himself and his family". In keeping with
this policy, it has been held that one who purchases a
homestead within the five-year prohibitory period can only
recover the price which he has paid by filing a claim against
the estate of the deceased seller (Labrador vs. Delos Santos 66
Phil. 579) under the principle that no one shall enrich himself
at the expense of another. Applying the pari delicto rule to
violation of Section 118 of the Public Land Act, the Court of
Appeals has ruled that "the homesteader suffers the loss of
the fruits realized by the vendee who in turn forfeits the
improvement that he has introduced into the land." (Obot vs.
SandadiUas, 69 OG, April 35, 1966}
FIRST ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The action to declare the nullity of the sale did not prescribe
(Art. 1410}, such sale being one expressly prohibited and
declared void by the Public Lands Act [Art. 1409, par. (7)].
The prohibition of the law is clearly for the protection of the
heirs of A such that their recovering the property would
enhance the public policy regarding ownership of lands
acquired by homestead patent (Art. 1416). The defense of
pari delicto is not applicable either, since the law itself allows
the homesteader to reacquire the land even if it has been sold.
SECOND ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Prescription does not arise with respect to actions to declare a
void contract a nullity (Article 1410). Neither is the doctrine
of pari delicto applicable because of public policy. The law is
designed for the protection of the plaintiff so as to enhance
the public policy of the Public Land Act to give land to the
landless.
If the heirs are not allowed to recover, it could be on the
ground of laches inasmuch as 40 years had elapsed and the
owner had not brought any action against B especially if the
latter had improved the land. It would be detrimental to B if
the plaintiff is allowed to recover.
Innocent Purchaser for Value (2001)
Rise Co. and paid the price in full. He moved into the unit, but
somehow he was not given the Condominium Certificate of
Title covering the property. Unknown to him, High Rise Co.
subsequently mortgaged the entire condominium building to
Metrobank as security for a loan of P500 million. High Rise
Co. failed to pay the loan and the bank foreclosed the
mortgage. At the foreclosure sale, the bank acquired the
building, being the highest bidder. When Cesar learned about
this, he filed an action to annul the foreclosure sale insofar as
his unit was concerned. The bank put up the defense that it
relied on the condominium certificates of title presented by
High Rise Co., which were clean. Hence, it was a mortgagee
and buyer in good faith. Is this defense tenable or not? Why?
(5%.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Metrobank's defense is untenable. As a rule, an innocent
purchaser for value acquires a good and a clean title to the
property. However, it is settled that one who closes his eyes
to facts that should put a reasonable man on guard is not an
innocent purchaser for value. In the present problem the
bank is expected, as a matter of standard operating procedure,
to have conducted an ocular inspection, of the promises
before granting any loan. Apparently, Metrobank did not
follow this procedure. Otherwise, it should have discovered
that the condominium unit in question was occupied by Cesar
and that fact should have led it to make further inquiry.
Under the circumstances, Metrobank cannot be considered a
mortgagee and buyer in good faith.
Mirror Principle (1990)
In 1950's, the Government acquired a big landed estate in
Central Luzon from the registered owner for subdivision into
small farms and redistribution of bonafide occupants, F was
a former lessee of a parcel of land, five hectares in area. After
completion of the resurvey and subdivision, F applied to buy
the said land in accordance with the guidelines of the
implementing agency. Upon full payment of the price in
1957, the corresponding deed of absolute sale was executed
in his favor and was registered, and in 1961, a new title was
issued in his name. In 1963, F sold the said land to X; and in
1965 X sold it to Y, new titles were successively issued in the
names of the said purchasers.
In 1977, C filed an action to annul the deeds of sale to F, X
and Y and their titles, on the ground that he (C) had been in
actual physical possession of the land, and that the sale to F
and the subsequent sales should be set aside on the ground of
fraud. Upon motion of defendants, the trial court dismissed
the complaint, upholding their defenses of their being
innocent purchasers for value, prescription and laches.
Plaintiff appealed.
(a) Is the said appeal meritorious? Explain your
answer
(b) Suppose the government agency concerned joined C in
filing the said action against the defendants, would that
change the result of the litigation? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The appeal is not meritorious. The trial court ruled
correctly in granting defendant's motion to dismiss for the
following reasons:
1. While there is the possibility that F, a former lessee of the
land was aware of the fact that C was the bona fide
occupant thereof and for this reason his transfer certificate required to explore beyond
what the record in the registry
of title may be vulnerable, the transfer of the same land and
the issuance of new TCTs to X and Y who are innocent
purchasers for value render the latter's titles indefeasible. A
person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the
correctness of the certificate of title and the law will not in
any way oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine
the condition of the property in search for any hidden defect
or inchoate right which may later invalidate or diminish the
right to the land. This is the mirror principle of the Torrens
System of land registration.
1. The action to annul the sale was instituted in 1977 or more
than (10) years from the date of execution thereof in 1957,
hence, it has long prescribed.
2. Under Sec 45 of Act 496, ―the entry of a certificate of title
shall be regarded as an agreement running with the land, and
binding upon the applicant and all his successors in title that
the land shall be and always remain registered land. A title
under Act 496 is indefeasible and to preserve that character, the
title is cleansed anew with every transfer for value (De Jesus v
City of Manila; 29 Phil. 73; Laperal v City of Manila, 62 Phil 313;
Penullar v PNB 120 S 111).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) Even if the government joins C, this will not alter the
outcome of the case so much because of estoppel as an
express provision in Sec 45 of Act 496 and Sec 31 of PD
1529 that a decree of registration and the certificate of title
issued in pursuance thereof ―shall be conclusive upon and
against all persons, including the national government and all
branches thereof, whether mentioned by name in the
application or not.‖
Mirror Principle; Forgery; Innocent Purchaser (1999)
The spouses X and Y mortgaged a piece of registered land to
A, delivering as well the OCT to the latter, but they
continued to possess and cultivate the land, giving 1/2 of
each harvest to A in partial payment of their loan to the
latter, A, however, without the knowledge of X and Y, forged
a deed of sale of the aforesaid land in favor of himself, got a
TCT in his name, and then sold the land to B, who bought
the land relying on A's title, and who thereafter also got a
TCT in his name. It was only then that the spouses X and Y
learned that their land had been titled in B's name. May said
spouses file an action for reconveyance of the land in
question against b? Reason. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The action of X and Y against B for reconveyance of the
land will not prosper because B has acquired a clean title to
the property being an innocent purchaser for value.
A forged deed is an absolute nullity and conveys no title. The
fact that the forged deed was registered and a certificate of
title was issued in his name, did not operate to vest upon an
ownership over the property of X and Y. The registration of
the forged deed will not cure the infirmity. However, once the
title to the land is registered in the name of the forger and title
to the land thereafter falls into the hands of an innocent
purchaser for value, the latter acquires a clean title thereto. A
buyer of a registered land is not
indicates on its face in quest for any hidden defect or
inchoate right which may subsequently defeat his right
thereto. This is the "mirror principle' of the Torrens system
which makes it possible for a forged deed to be the root of a
good title.
Besides, it appears that spouses X and Y are guilty of
contributory negligence when they delivered this OCT to the
mortgagee without annotating the mortgage thereon.
Between them and the innocent purchaser for value, they
should bear the loss.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
If the buyer B, who relied on the teller A's title, was not
aware of the adverse possession of the land by the spouses X
and Y, then the latter cannot recover the property from
B. B has in his favor the presumption of good faith which
can only be overthrown by adequate proof of bad faith.
However, nobody buys land without seeing the property,
hence, B could not have been unaware of such adverse
possession. If after learning of such possession, B simply
closed his eyes and did nothing about it, then the suit for
reconveyance will prosper as the buyer's bad faith will have
become evident.
Notice of Lis Pendens (1995)
Rommel was issued a certificate of title over a parcel of land
in Quezon City. One year later Rachelle, the legitimate owner
of the land, discovered the fraudulent registration obtained by
Rommel. She filed a complaint against Rommel for
reconveyance and caused the annotation of a notice of lis
pendens on the certificate of title issued to Rommel. Rommel
now invokes the indefeasibility of his title considering that
one year has already elapsed from its issuance. He also seeks
the cancellation of the notice of Lis pendens. May the court
cancel the notice of lis pendens even before final judgment is
rendered? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A Notice of Lis Pendens may be canceled even before final
Judgment upon proper showing that the notice is for the
purpose of molesting or harassing the adverse party or that
the notice of lis pendens is not necessary to protect the right
of the party who caused it to be registered. (Section 77,
P.D. No. 1529)
In this case, it is given that Rachelle is the legitimate owner of
the land in question. It can be said, therefore, that when she
filed her notice of lis pendens her purpose was to protect her
interest in the land and not just to molest Rommel. It is
necessary to record the Lis pendens to protect her interest
because if she did not do it, there is a possibility that the land
will fall into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value and
in that event, the court loses control over the land making
any favorable judgment thereon moot and academic. For
these reasons, the notice of lis pendens may not be canceled.
Notice of Lis Pendens; Transferee Pendente Lite (2002)
Sancho and Pacifico are co-owners of a parcel of land.
Sancho sold the property to Bart. Pacifico sued Sancho and
Bart for annulment of the sale and reconveyance of the
property based on the fact that the sale included his one- the obligation. However, the
action was brought within the
half pro-indiviso share. Pacifico had a notice of lis pendens
annotated on the title covering the property and ordered the
cancellation of the notice of lis pendens. The notice of lis
pendens could not be cancelled immediately because the title
over the property was with a bank to which the property had
been mortgaged by Bart. Pacifico appealed the case. While
the appeal was pending and with the notice of lis pendens still
uncancelled, Bart sold the property to Carlos, who
immediately caused the cancellation of the notice of lis
pendens, as well as the issuance of a new title in his name. Is
Carlos (a) a purchaser in good faith, or (b) a transferee
pendente lite? If your answer is (a), how can the right of
Pacifico as co-owner be protected? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Carlos is a buyer in bad faith. The notice of lis pendens
was still annotated at the back of the title at the time he
bought the land from Bart. The uncancelled notice of lis
pendens operates as constructive notice of its contents as
well as interests, legal or equitable, included therein. All
persons are charged with the knowledge of what it contains.
In an earlier case, it was held that a notice of an adverse claim
remains effective and binding notwithstanding the lapse of
the 30 days from its inscription in the registry. This ruling is
even more applicable in a lis pendens.
Carlos is a transferee pendente lite insofar as Sancho’s share
in the co-ownership in the land is concerned because the land
was transferred to him during the pendency of the appeal.
B. Pacifico can protect his right as a co-owner by pursuing
his appeal; asking the Court of Appeals to order the
re-annotation of the lis pendens on the title of Carlos; and by
invoking his right of redemption of Bart’s share under
Articles 1620 of the New Civil Code.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A. Carlos is a purchaser in good faith. A possessor in good
faith has been defined as ―one who is unaware that there
exists a flaw which invalidates his acquisition of the thing‖
(Art. 526, NCC). Good faith consists in the possessor’s belief
that the person from whom he received the thing was the
owner of the same and could convey his title. In the case [at
bar], in question, while Carlos bought the subject property
from Bart while a notice of lis pendens was still annotated
thereon, there was also an existing court order canceling the
same. Hence, Carlos cannot be considered as being ―aware of
a flaw which invalidates [their] the acquisition of the thing‖
since the alleged flaw, the notice of lis pendens, was already
being ordered cancelled at the time of the purchase. On this
ground alone, Carlos can already be considered a buyer in
good faith. (Po Lam v. Court of Appeals, 347 SCRA 86,
[2000]).
B. To protect his right over the subject property, Pacifico
should have timely filed an action for reconveyance and
reinstated the notice of lis pendens.
Prescription & Laches; Elements of Laches (2000)
In an action brought to collect a sum of money based on a
surety agreement, the defense of laches was raised as the
claim was filed more than seven years from the maturity of
ten-year prescriptive period provided by law wherein actions
based on written contracts can be instituted. a) Will the
defense prosper? Reason. (3%) b) What are the essential
elements of laches? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the defense will not prosper. The problem did not give
facts from which laches may be inferred. Mere delay in filing
an action, standing alone, does not constitute laches (Agra v.
PNB. 309 SCRA 509).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) The four basic elements of laches are; (1) conduct on the
part of the defendant or of one under whom he claims, giving
rise to the situation of which complainant seeks a remedy; (2)
delay in asserting the complainant's rights, the complainant
having had knowledge or notice of the defendant's conduct
and having been afforded an opportunity to institute suit; (3)
lack of knowledge on the part of the defendant that the
complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit;
and (4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief
is accorded to the complainant, or the suit is not held to be
barred.
Prescription & Laches; Indefeasibility Rule of Torrens Title
(2002)
Way back in 1948, Winda’s husband sold in favor of Verde
Sports Center Corp. (Verde) a 10-hectare property belonging
to their conjugal partnership. The sale was made without
Winda’s knowledge, much less consent. In 1950, Winda
learned of the sale, when she discovered the deed of sale
among the documents in her husband’s vault after his demise.
Soon after, she noticed that the construction of the sports
complex had started. Upon completion of the construction in
1952, she tried but failed to get free membership privileges in
Verde.
Winda now files a suit against Verde for the annulment of the
sale on the ground that she did not consent to the sale. In
answer, Verde contends that, in accordance with the Spanish
Civil Code which was then in force, the sale in 1948 of the
property did not need her concurrence. Verde contends that
in any case the action has prescribed or is barred by laches.
Winda rejoins that her Torrens title covering the property is
indefeasible, and imprescriptible.
A. Define or explain the term ―laches‖. (2%)
B. Decide the case, stating your reasons for your decision.
(3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. LACHES means failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and
unexplained length of time, to do what, by exercising due
diligence, could or should have been done earlier. It is
negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable
time. (De Vera v. CA, 305 SCRA 624 [1999])
B. While Article 1413 of the Spanish Civil Code did not
require the consent of the wife for the validity of the sale, an
alienation by the husband in fraud of the wife is void as held
in Uy Coque v. Navas, 45 Phil. 430 (1923). Assuming that the
alienation in 1948 was in fraud of Winda and, therefore,
makes the sale to Verde void, the action to set aside the sale,
nonetheless, is already barred by
prescription and laches. More than 52 years have already (a) The mortgage contract
executed by O, if at all, is only a
elapsed from her discovery of the sale in 1950.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
B. Winda’s claim that her Torrens Title covering the property
is indefeasible and imprescriptible [does not hold water] is not
tenable. The rule of indefeasibility of a Torrens Title
means that after one year from the date of issue of the decree
of registration or if the land has fallen into the hands of an
innocent purchaser for value, the title becomes incontestable
and incontrovertible.
IMPRESCRIPTIBILITY, on the other hand, means that no
title to the land in derogation of that of the registered owner
may be acquired by adverse possession or acquisitive
prescription or that the registered owner does not lose by
extinctive prescription his right to recover ownership and
possession of the land.
The action in this case is for annulment of the sale executed by
the husband over a conjugal partnership property covered by a
Torrens Title. Action on contracts are subject to
prescription.
Prescription (1990)
In 1960, an unregistered parcel of land was mortgaged by
owner O to M, a family friend, as collateral for a loan. O acted
through his attorney-in-fact, son S, who was duly authorized
by way of a special power of attorney, wherein O declared
that he was the absolute owner of the land, that the tax
declarations/receipts were all issued in his name, and that he
has been in open, continuous and adverse possession in the
concept of owner.
As O was unable to pay back the loan plus interest for the
past five [5) years, M had to foreclose the mortgage. At the
foreclosure sale, M was the highest bidder. Upon issuance of
the sheriff’s final deed of sale and registration in January,
1966, the mortgage property was turned over to M's
possession and control M has since then developed the said
property. In 1967, O died, survived by sons S and P.
In 1977, after the tenth (10th) death anniversary of his father
O. son P filed a suit to annul the mortgage deed and
subsequent sale of the property, etc., on the ground of fraud.
He asserted that the property in question was conjugal in
nature actually belonging, at the time of the mortgage, to O
and his wife, W, whose conjugal share went to their sons (S
and P) and to O.
(a) Is the suit filed by P barred by prescription? Explain your
answer.
(b) After the issuance of the sheriff's final deed of sale in
1966 in this case, assuming that M applied for registration
under the Torrens System and was issued a Torrens Title to
the said property in question, would that added fact have any
significant effect on your conclusion? State your reason.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Under Art. 173 ofthe Civil Code, the action is barred by
prescription because the wife had only ten (10) years from
the transaction and during the marriage to file a suit for the
annulment of the mortgage deed. Alternative Answers to (a)
first Alternative Answer:
voidable contract since it involves a conjugal partnership
property. The action to annul the same instituted in 1977, or
eleven years after the execution of the sheriff's final sale, has
obviously prescribed because: 1) An action to annul a
contract on the ground of fraud
must be brought within four (4) years from the date of
discovery of the fraud. Since this is in essence an action
to recover ownership, it must be reckoned from the
date of execution of the contract or from the registration
of the alleged fraudulent document with the assessor's
office for the purpose of transferring the tax declaration,
this being unregistered land, (Bael u. Intermediate
Appellate Court G. R. L-74423 Jan.30, 1989 169 SCRA 617).
2) If the action is to be treated as an action to recover
ownership of land, it would have prescribed just the same
because more than 10 years have already elapsed since the
date of the execution of the sale.
(a) The action to recover has been barred by acquisitive
prescription in favor of M considering that M has possessed
the land under a claim of ownership for ten (10) years with a
just title.
(b) If M had secured a Torrens Title to the land, all the more
S and P could not recover because if at all their remedies
would be:
1. A Petition to Review the Decree of Registration. This can
be availed of within one (1) year from-the entry thereof, but
only upon the basis of "actual fraud." There is no showing
that M committed actual fraud in securing his title to the
land; or
2. An action in personam against M for the reconveyance of
the title in their favor. Again, this remedy is available within
four years from the date of the discovery of the fraud but not
later than ten (10) years from the date of registration of the
title in the name of M.
Prescription; Real Rights (1992)
A owned a parcel of unregistered land located on the Tarlac
side of the boundary between Tarlac and Pangasinan. His
brother B owned the adjoining parcel of unregistered land on
the Pangasinan side.
A sold the Tarlac parcel to X in a deed of sale executed as a
public instrument by A and X. After X paid in full the, price
of the sale, X took possession of the Pangasinan parcel in the
belief that it was the Tarlac parcel covered by the deed of
sale executed by A and X.
After twelve (12) years, a controversy arose between B and X
on the issue of the ownership of the Pangasinan parcel, B
claims a vested right of ownership over the Pangasinan parcel
because B never sold that parcel to X or to anyone else.
On the other hand, X claims a vested right of ownership over
the Pangasinan parcel by acquisitive prescription, because X
possessed this parcel for over ten (10] years under claim of
ownership.
Decide on these claims, giving your reasons. The right to recover possession of registered
land likewise
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
At this point in time, X cannot claim the right of vested
ownership over the Pangasinan parcel by acquisitive
prescription. In addition to the requisites common to ordinary
and extraordinary acquisitive prescription consisting of
uninterrupted, peaceful, public, adverse and actual possession
in the concept of owner, ordinary acquisitive prescription for
ten (10) years requires (1) possession in good faith and (2) just
title. "Just title" means that the adverse claimant came into
possession of the property through one of the modes
recognized by law for the acquisition of ownership but the
grantor was not the owner or could not transmit any right (Art.
1129. Civil Code). In this case, there is no "just title" and no
"mode" that can be invoked by X for the acquisition of the
Pangasinan parcel. There was no constructive delivery of the
Pangasinan parcel because it was not the subject-matter of the
deed of sale. Hence, B retains ownership of the Pangasinan
parcel of land.
Primary Entry Book; Acquisitive Prescription; Laches (1998)
In 1965, Renren bought from Robyn a parcel of registered
land evidenced by a duly executed deed of sale. The owner
presented the deed of sale and the owner's certificate of title
to the Register of Deeds. The entry was made in the daybook
and corresponding fees were paid as evidenced by official
receipt. However, no transfer of certificate of title was issued
to Renren because the original certificate of title in Robyn's
name was temporarily misplaced after fire partly gutted the
Office of the Register of Deeds. Meanwhile, the land had
been possessed by Robyn's distant cousin, Mikaelo, openly,
adversely and continuously in the concept of owner since
1960. It was only in April 1998 that Renren sued Mikaelo to
recover possession. Mikaelo invoked a) acquisitive
prescription and b) laches, asking that he be declared owner
of the land. Decide the case by evaluating these defenses,
[5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Renren's action to recover possession of the land will
prosper. In 1965, after buying the land from Robyn, he
submitted the Deed of Sale to the Registry of Deeds for
registration together with the owner's duplicate copy of the
title, and paid the corresponding registration fees. Under
Section 56 of PD No. 1529, the Deed of Sale to Renren is
considered registered from the time the sale was entered in
the Day Book (now called the Primary Entry Book).
For all legal intents and purposes, Renren is considered the
registered owner of the land. After all, it was not his fault that
the Registry of Deeds could not issue the corresponding
transfer certificate of title.
Mikaelo's defense of prescription can not be sustained. A
Torrens title is imprescriptible. No title to registered land in
derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be
acquired by prescription or adverse possession. (Section 47,
P.D. No, 1529)
does not prescribe because possession is just a necessary
incident of ownership.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) Mikaelo's defense of laches, however, appears to be more
sustainable. Renren bought the land and had the sale
registered way back in 1965. From the facts, it appears that it
was only in 1998 or after an inexplicable delay of 33 years that
he took the first step asserting his right to the land. It was not
even an action to recover ownership but only possession of
the land. By ordinary standards, 33 years of neglect or
inaction is too long and maybe considered unreasonable. As
often held by the Supreme Court, the principle of
imprescriptibility sometimes has to yield to the equitable
principle of laches which can convert even a registered land
owner's claim into a stale demand.
Mikaelo's claim of laches, however, is weak insofar as the
element of equity is concerned, there being no showing in
the facts how he entered into the ownership and possession
of the land.
Reclamation of Foreshore Lands; Limitations (2000)
Republic Act 1899 authorizes municipalities and chartered
cities to reclaim foreshore lands bordering them and to
construct thereon adequate docking and harbor facilities.
Pursuant thereto, the City of Cavite entered into an agreement
with the Fil-Estate Realty Company, authorizing the latter to
reclaim 300 hectares of land from the sea bordering the city,
with 30% of the land to be reclaimed to be owned by
Fil-Estate as compensation for its services. The Solicitor
General questioned the validity of the agreement on the
ground that it will mean reclaiming land under the sea which
is beyond the commerce of man. The City replies that this is
authorized by RA. 1899 because it authorizes the construction
of docks and harbors. Who is correct? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Solicitor General is correct. The authority of the City of
Cavite under RA 1899 to reclaim land is limited to foreshore
lands. The Act did not authorize it to reclaim land from the
sea. "The reclamation being unauthorized, the City of Cavite
did not acquire ownership over the reclaimed land. Not being
the owner, it could not have conveyed any portion thereof to
the contractor.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
It depends. If the reclamation of the land from the sea is
necessary in the construction of the docks and the harbors,
the City of Cavite is correct. Otherwise, it is not. Since RA
1899 authorized the city to construct docks and harbors, all
works that are necessary for such construction are deemed
authorized. Including the reclamation of land from the sea.
The reclamation being authorized, the city is the owner of
the reclaimed land and it may convey a portion thereof as
payment for the services of the contractor.
ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
On the assumption that the reclamation contract was entered
into before RA 1899 was repealed by PD 3-A, the City of
Cavite is correct. Lands under the sea are "beyond the
commerce of man" in the sense that they are not susceptible of
private appropriation, ownership or
alienation. The contract in question merely calls for the answer or show up on the date of
initial hearing, does not
reclamation of 300 hectares of land within the coastal waters
of the city. Per se, it does not vest, alienate or transfer
ownership of land under the sea. The city merely engaged the
services of Fil-Estate to reclaim the land for the city.
Registration; Deed of Mortgage (1994)
How do you register now a deed of mortgage of a parcel of
land originally registered under the Spanish Mortgage Law?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) After the Spanish Mortgage Law was abrogated by P.D.
892 on February 16, 1976, all lands covered by Spanish titles
that were not brought under the Torrens system within six
16] months from the date thereof have been considered as
"unregistered private lands."
Thus, a deed of mortgage affecting land originally registered
under the Spanish Mortgage Law is now governed by the
system of registration of transactions or instruments affecting
unregistered land under Section 194 of the Revised
Administrative Code as amended by Act No. 3344. Under this
law, the instrument or transaction affecting unregistered land
is entered in a book provided for the purpose but the
registration thereof is purely voluntary and does not adversely
affect third persons who have a better right.
b) By recording and registering with the Register of Deeds of
the place where the land is located, in accordance with Act
3344. However, P.D. 892 required holders of Spanish title to
bring the same under the Torrens System within 6 months
from its effectivity on February 16, 1976.
Remedies; Judicial Confirmation; Imperfect Title (1993)
On June 30, 1986, A filed in the RTC of Abra an application
for registration of title to a parcel of land under
P. D. No. 1529, claiming that since June 12, 1945, he has been
in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation of said parcel of land of the public domain which
was alienable and disposable, under a bona fide claim of
ownership. After issuance of the notice of initial hearing and
publication, as required by law, the petition was heard on July
29, 1987. On the day of the hearing nobody but the applicant
appeared. Neither was there anyone who opposed the
application. Thereupon, on motion of the applicant, the RTC
issued an order of general default and allowed the applicant to
present his evidence. That he did. On September 30, 1989, the
RTC dismissed A's application for lack of sufficient evidence.
A appealed to the Court of Appeals.
The appellant urged that the RTC erred in dismissing his
application for registration and in not ordering registration of
his title to the parcel of land in question despite the fact that
there was no opposition filed by anybody to his application.
Did the RTC commit the error attributed to it?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the RTC did not commit the error attributed to it. In an
application for Judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title
to public agricultural land under Section 48 of the Public Land Act,
the lack of opposition and the consequent order of default against
those who did not
guarantee the success of the application. It is still incumbent upon
the applicant to prove with well nigh incontrovertible evidence that
he has acquired a title to the land that is fit for registration. Absent
such registrable title, it is the clear duty of the Land Registration
Court to dismiss the application and declare the land as public
land.
An application for land registration is a proceeding in rem. Its
main objective is to establish the status of the res whether it is
still part of our public domain as presumed under the
Regalian doctrine or has acquired the character of a private
property. It is the duty of the applicant to overcome that
presumption with sufficient evidence.
Remedies; Judicial Reconstitution of Title (1996)
In 1989, the heirs of Gavino, who died on August 10, 1987,
filed a petition for reconstitution of his lost or destroyed
Torrens Title to a parcel of land in Ermita, Manila. This was
opposed by Marilou who claimed ownership of the said land
by a series of sales. She claimed that Gavino had sold the
property to Bernardo way back in 1941 and as evidence
thereof, she presented a Tax Declaration in 1948 in the name
of Bernardo, which cancelled the previous Tax Declaration in
the name of Gavino. Then she presented two deeds of sale
duly registered with the Register of Deeds, the first one
executed by Bernardo in 1954 selling the same property to
Carlos, and the second one executed by Carlos in 1963, selling
the same property to her. She also claimed that she and her
predecessors in interest have been in possession of the
property since 1948. If you were the judge, how will you
decide the petition? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the judge, I will give due course to the petition of
the heirs of Gavino despite the opposition of Marilou for the
following reasons: a) Judicial reconstitution of a certificate of
title under RA.
No. 26 partakes of a land registration proceeding and is
perforce a proceeding in rem. It denotes restoration of
an existing instrument which has been lost or destroyed
in its original form and condition. The purpose of
reconstitution of title or any document is to have the
same reproduced, after proceedings. In the same form
they were when the loss or destruction occurred.
b) If the Court goes beyond that purpose, it acts
without or in excess of jurisdiction. Thus, where the Torrens
Title sought to be reconstituted is in the name of Gavino, the
court cannot receive evidence proving that Marilou is the
owner of the land. Marilou's dominical claim to the land
should be ventilated in a separate civil action before the
Regional Trial Court in its capacity as a court of general
jurisdiction.
REFERENCES: Heirs of Pedro Pinate vs. Dulay. 187 SCRA 12-20
(1990); Bunagan vs. CF1 Cebu Branch VI. 97 SCRA 72 (1980);
Republic vs. IAC. 157 SCRA 62,66 (1988); Margolles vs. CA, 230
SCRA 709; Republic us, Feliciano, 148 SCRA 924.
Remedies; Procedure; Consulta (1994)
What is the procedure of consulta when an instrument is
denied registration?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) The Register of Deeds shall notify the interested
party in writing, setting forth the defects of the instrument or
the legal ground relied upon for denying the registration, and
advising that if he is not agreeable to such ruling, he may,
without withdrawing the documents from the Registry, elevate
the matter by Consulta to the Administrator of the Land
Registration Authority (LRA).
2) Within five {5) days from receipt of notice of
denial, the party-in-interest shall file his Consulta with the
Register of Deeds concerned and pay the consulta fee.
3) After receipt of the Consulta and payment of the
corresponding fee the Register of Deeds makes an annotation
of the pending consulta at the back of the certificate of title.
4) The Register of Deeds then elevates the case to the
LRA Administrator with certified records thereof and a
summary of the facts and issues involved.
5) The LRA Administrator then conducts hearings
after due notice or may just require parties to submit their
memoranda.
6) After hearing, the LRA Administrator issues an
order prescribing the step to be taken or the memorandum to
be made. His resolution in consulta shall be conclusive and
binding upon all Registers of Deeds unless reversed on appeal
by the Court of Appeals or by the Supreme Court. (Section
117, P.D. 1529).
• The procedure of consulta is a mode of appeal from denial
by the Register of Deeds of the registration of the instrument to the
Commissioner of Land Registration.
• Within five days from receipt of the notice of denial, the
interested party may elevate the matter by consulta to the
Commissioner of Land Registration who shall enter an order
prescribing the step to be taken or memorandum to be made.
Resolution in consulta shall be binding upon all Registers of Deeds
provided that the party in interest may appeal to the Court of
Appeals within the period prescribed (Sec. 117, P.D. 1529).
Remedies; Reconveyance vs. Reopening of a Decree;
Prescriptive Period (2003)
Louie, before leaving the country to train as a chef in a
five-star hotel in New York, U.S.A., entrusted to his
first-degree cousin Dewey an application for registration,
under the Land Registration Act, of a parcel of land located in
Bacolod City. A year later, Louie returned to the Philippines
and discovered that Dewey registered the land and obtained
an Original Certificate of Title over the property in his
Dewey’s name. Compounding the matter, Dewey sold the
land to Huey, an innocent purchaser for value. Louie
promptly filed an action for reconveyance of the parcel of
land against Huey.
(a) Is the action pursued by Louie the proper remedy?
(b) Assuming that reconveyance is the proper remedy, will
the action prosper if the case was filed beyond one year, but
within ten years, from the entry of the decree of registration?
5%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) An action for reconveyance against Huey is not the proper
remedy, because Huey is an innocent purchaser for value. The
proper recourse is for Louie to go after Dewey for damages
by reason of the fraudulent registration and subsequent sale
of the land. If Dewey is insolvent, Louie may file a claim
against the Assurance Fund (Heirs of Pedro Lopez v. De
Castro 324 SCRA 591 [2000] citing Sps.
Eduarte v. CA, 323 Phil. 462, 467 [1996]).
(b) Yes, the remedy will prosper because the action prescribes
in ten (10) years, not within one (1) year when a petition for
the reopening of the registration decree may be filed. The
action for reconveyance is distinct from the petition to
reopen the decree of registration (Grey Alba v. De la Cruz, 17
Phil. 49 [1910}). There is no need to reopen the registration
proceedings, but the property should just be reconveyed to
the real owner.
The action for reconveyance is based on implied or constructive
trust, which prescribes in ten (10) years from the date of issuance
of the original certificate of title. This rule assumes that the
defendant is in possession of the land. Where it is the plaintiff
who is in possession of the land, the action for reconveyance
would be in the nature of a suit for quieting for the title which
action is imprescriptible (David
v. Malay, 318 SCRA 711 [1999]).
Remedies; Reconveyance; Elements (1995)
Rommel was issued a certificate of title over a parcel of land
in Quezon City. One year later Rachelle, the legitimate owner
of the land, discovered the fraudulent registration obtained by
Rommel. She filed a complaint against Rommel for
reconveyance and caused the annotation of a notice of lis
pendens on the certificate of title issued to Rommel. Rommel
now invokes the indefeasibility of his title considering that
one year has already elapsed from its issuance. He also seeks
the cancellation of the notice of Lis pendens. Will Rachelle's
suit for reconveyance prosper? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Rachelle's suit will prosper because all elements for an
action for reconveyance are present, namely: a) Rachelle is
claiming dominical rights over the same
land. b) Rommel procured his title to the land by fraud. c)
The action was brought within the statutory period of
four (4) years from discovery of the fraud and not later
than ten (10} years from the date of registration of
Rommel's title. d) Title to the land has not passed into the
hands of an
innocent purchaser for value.
Rommel can invoke the indefeasibility of his title if Rachelle
had filed a petition to reopen or review the decree of
registration. But Rachelle instead filed an ordinary action in
personam for reconveyance. In the latter action, indefeasibility
is not a valid defense because, in filing such action, Rachelle is
not seeking to nullify nor to impugn the indefeasibility of
Rommel's title. She is only asking the court to compel Rommel
to reconvey the title to her as the legitimate owner of the land.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes. The property registered is deemed to be held in trust This action does not prescribe.
With respect to Percival's
for the real owner by the person in whose name it is
registered. The Torrens system was not designed to shield
one who had committed fraud or misrepresentation and thus
holds the title in bad faith. (Walstrom v. Mapa Jr., (G .R 38387,
29 Jan. 1990) as cited in Martinez, D., Summary of SC
Decisions, January to June, 1990, p. 359],
Remedies; Reconveyance; Prescriptive Period (1997)
On 10 September 1965, Melvin applied for a free patent
covering two lots - Lot A and Lot B - situated in Santiago,
Isabela. Upon certification by the Public Land Inspector that
Melvin had been in actual, continuous, open, notorious,
exclusive and adverse possession of the lots since 1925, the
Director of Land approved Melvin's application on 04 June
1967. On 26 December 1967, Original Certificate of Title
(OCT) No. P-2277 was issued in the name of Melvln.
On 7 September 1971, Percival filed a protest alleging that
Lot B which he had been occupying and cultivating since
1947 was included in the Free Patent issued in the name of
Melvin. The Director of Lands ordered the investigation of
Percival's protest. The Special Investigator who conducted
the investigation found that Percival had been in actual
cultivation of Lot B since 1947.
On 28 November 1986, the Solicitor General filed in behalf
of the Republic of the Philippines a complaint for cancellation
of the free patent and the OCT issued in the name of Melvin
and the reversion of the land to public domain on the ground
of fraud and misrepresentation in obtaining the free patent.
On the same date, Percival sued Martin for the reconveyance
of Lot B.
Melvin filed his answers interposing the sole defense in both
cases that the Certificate of Title issued in his name became
incontrovertible and indefeasible upon the lapse of one year
from the issuance of the free patent.
Given the circumstances, can the action of the Solicitor
General and the case for reconveyance filed by Percival
possibly prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
"If fraud be discovered in the application which led to the
issuance of the patent and Certificate of Title, this Title
becomes ipso facto null and void. Thus, in a case where a
person who obtained a free patent, knowingly made a false
statement of material and essential facts in his application for
the same, by stating therein that the lot in question was part of
the public domain not occupied or claimed by any other
person, his title becomes ipso facto canceled and consequently
rendered null and void." "It is to the public interest that one
who succeeds In fraudulently acquiring title to public land
should not be allowed to benefit therefrom and the State,
through the Solicitor General, may file the corresponding
action for annulment of the patent and the reversion of the
land involved to the public domain" (Dinero us. Director of
Lands; Kayaban vs. Republic L-33307,8-20-73; Director of
Lands us. Hon. Pedro Samson Animas, L-37682, 3-29-74.)
action for reconveyance, it would have prescribed, having been filed more
than ten (10) years after registration and issuance of an O.C.T. in the
name of Melvin, were it not for the inherent infirmity of the latter's title.
Under the facts, the statute of limitations will not apply to Percival
because Melvin knew that a part of the land covered by his title actually
belonged to Percival. So, instead of nullifying in toto the title of Melvin,
the court, in the exercise of equity and jurisdiction, may grant prayer for
the reconveyance of Lot B to Percival who has actually possessed the land
under a claim of ownership since 1947. After all, if Melvin's title is
declared void ab initio and the land is reverted to the public domain,
Percival would just the same be entitled to preference right to acquire the
land from the government. Besides, well settled is the rule that once
public land has been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession under a bonafide claim of acquisition of ownership for the
period prescribed by Section 48 of the Public Land Act, the same ipso
jure ceases to be public and in contemplation of law acquired the
character of private land. Thus, reconveyance of the land from Melvin to
Percival would be the better procedure, (Vitale vs. Anore, 90 Phil. 855;
Pena, Land Titles and Deeds, 1982, Page 427)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The action of the Solicitor General should prosper,
considering that the doctrine of indefeasibility of title does not
apply to free patent secured through fraud. A certificate of
title cannot be used as shield to perpetuate fraud. The State is
not bound by the period of prescription stated in Sec. 38 of
Act 496. (Director of Lands vs. Abanilla, 124 SCRA 358)
The action for reconveyance filed by Percival may still prosper
provided that the property has not passed to an innocent third party
for value (Dablo us. Court of Appeals. 226 SCRA 618), and provided
that the action is filed within the prescriptive period of ten years
(Tale vs. Court of Appeals. 208 SCRA 266). Since the action was filed
by Percival 19 years after the issuance of Melvin's title, it is submitted
that the same is already barred by prescription. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
(to second part of question) The action for reconveyance filed by
Percival will prosper, because the land has ceased to be public land
and has become private land by open, continuous, public, exclusive
possession under a bona fide claim of ownership for more than thirty
years, and Percival is still in possession of the property at present. His
action for reconveyance can be considered as an action to quiet title,
which does not prescribe if the plaintiff is in possession of the
property.
(Olviga v. CA. GR 1048013. October 21, 1993)
Remedies; Reopening of a Decree; Elements (1992)
What are the essential requisites or elements for the allowance
of the reopening or review of a decree of registration?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The essential elements are: (1) that the petitioner has a real or
dominical right; (2) that he has been deprived thereof through
fraud; (3) that the petition is filed within one (1) year from the
issuance of the decree; and (4) that the property has not yet
been transferred to an innocent
purchaser {Rublico vs. Orellana 30 SCRA 511; Ubudan vs. Gil Administrative Code of 1987
which prohibits officers and
45 SCRA 17).
OPTIONAL EXTENDED ANSWER:
Petition for review of the Decree of Registration. A remedy
expressly provided in Section 32 of P. D. No. 1529 (formerly
Section 38. Act 496), this remedy has the following elements:
a) The petition must be filed by a person claiming
dominical or other real rights to the land registered in
the name of respondent.
b) The registration of the land in the name of
respondent was procured by means of actual, (not just
constructive) fraud, which must be extrinsic. Fraud is actual
if the registration was made through deceit or any other
intentional act of downright dishonesty to enrich oneself at the
expense of another. It is extrinsic when it is something that
was not raised, litigated and passed upon in the main
proceedings.
c) The petition must be filed within one (1) year from
the date of the issuance of the decree.
d) Title to the land has not passed to an Innocent
purchaser for value (Libudan vs. Gil, 45_ SCRA 27, 1972),
Rublico vs. Orrelana. 30 SCRA 511, 1969); RP vs. CA, 57 G.
R No. 40402. March 16, 1987).
Torrens System vs. Recording of Evidence of Title (1994)
Distinguish the Torrens system of land registration from the
system of recording of evidence of title.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The TORRENS SYSTEM OF LAND REGISTRATION is a
system for the registration of title to the land. Thus, under this
system what is entered in the Registry of Deeds, is a record of
the owner's estate or interest in the land, unlike the system under
the Spanish Mortgage Law or the system under Section 194 of
the Revised Administrative Code as amended by Act 3344 where
only the evidence of such title is recorded. In the latter system,
what is recorded is the deed of conveyance from hence the
owner's title emanated—and not the title itself.
b) Torrens system of land registration is that which is
prescribed in Act 496 (now PD 1529), which is either Judicial
or quasi-judicial. System or recording of evidence of title is
merely the registration of evidence of acquisitions of land
with the Register of Deeds, who annotates the same on the
existing title, cancels the old one and issues a new title based
on the document presented for registration.
Unregistered Land (1991)
Maria Enriquez failed to pay the realty taxes on her unregistered
agricultural land located in Magdugo, Toledo City. In 1989, to
satisfy the taxes due, the City sold it at public auction to Juan
Miranda, an employee at the Treasurer's Office of said City,
whose bid at P10,000.00 was the highest. In due time, a final bill
of sale was executed in his favor. Maria refused to turn-over the
possession of the property to Juan alleging that (1) she had been,
in the meantime, granted a free patent and on the basis thereof an
Original Certificate of Title was issued to her, and (2) the sale in
favor of Juan is void from the beginning in view of the provision in
the
employees of the government from purchasing directly or indirectly
any property sold by the government for nonpayment of any tax,
fee or other public charge.
(a) Is the sale to Juan valid? If so, what is the effect of the
Issuance of the Certificate of Title to Maria?
(b) If the sale is void, may Juan recover the P10,000.00? If
not, why not?
(c) If the sale is void, did it not nevertheless, operate to divert
Maria of her ownership? If it did, who then is the owner of
the property?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. The sale of the land to Juan is not valid, being contrary to
law. Therefore, no transfer of ownership of the land was
effected from the delinquent taxpayer to him. The original
certificates of title obtained by Maria thru a free patent grant
from the Bureau of Lands under Chapter VII, CA 141 is
valid but in view of her delinquency, the said title is subject to
the right of the City Government to sell the land at public
auction. The issuance of the OCT did not exempt the land
from the tax sales. Section 44 of P.O. No. 1529 provides that
every registered owner receiving a Certificate of Title shall
hold the same free from an encumbrances, subject to certain
exemptions.
B. Juan may recover because he was not a party to the
violation of the law.
C. No, the sale did not divest Maria of her title precisely
because the sale is void. It is as good as if no sale ever took
place. In tax sales, the owner is divested of his land initially
upon award and issuance of a Certificate of Sale, and finally
after the lapse of the 1 year period from date of registration,
to redeem, upon execution by the treasurer of an instrument
sufficient in form and effects to convey the property. Maria
remained owner of the land until another tax sale is to be
performed in favor of a qualified buyer.
CONTRACTS
Consensual vs. Real Contracts; Kinds of Real Contracts
(1998)
Distinguish consensual from real contracts and name at least
four (4) kinds of real contracts under the present law. [3%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CONSENSUAL CONTRACTS are those which are perfected
by mere consent (Art. 1315. Civil Code). REAL
CONTRACTS are those which are perfected by the delivery of
the object of the obligation. (Art. 1316, Civil Code) Examples
of real contracts are deposit, pledge, commodatum and simple
loan (mutuum).
Consideration; Validity (2000)
Lolita was employed in a finance company. Because she could
not account for the funds entrusted to her, she was charged
with estafa and ordered arrested. In order to secure her release
from jail, her parents executed a promissory note to pay the
finance company the amount allegedly misappropriated by
their daughter. The finance company
then executed an affidavit of desistance which led to the
withdrawal of the information against Lolita and her release
from jail. The parents failed to comply with their promissory
note and the finance company sued them for specific
performance. Will the action prosper or not? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The action will prosper. The promissory note executed by
Lolita's parents is valid and binding, the consideration being
the extinguishment of Lolita's civil liability and not the stifling
of the criminal prosecution.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The action will not prosper because the consideration for the
promissory note was the non-prosecution of the criminal case
for estafa. This cannot be done anymore because the
information has already been filed in court and to do it is
illegal. That the consideration for the promissory note is the
stifling of the criminal prosecution is evident from the
execution by the finance company of the affidavit of
desistance immediately after the execution by Lolita's parents
of the promissory note. The consideration being illegal, the
promissory note is invalid and may not be enforced by court
action.
Contract of Option; Elements (2005)
Marvin offered to construct the house of Carlos for a very
reasonable price of P900,000.00, giving the latter 10 days
within which to accept or reject the offer. On the fifth day,
before Carlos could make up his mind, Marvin withdrew his
offer.
a) What is the effect of the withdrawal of Marvin's offer?
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The withdrawal of Marvin's offer will cause the offer to cease
in law. Hence, even if subsequently accepted, there could be
no concurrence of the offer and the acceptance. In the
absence of concurrence of offer and acceptance, there can be
no consent. (Laudico v. Arias Rodriguez, G.R. No. 16530,
March 31, 1922) Without consent, there is no perfected
contract for the construction of the house of Carlos.
(Salonga v. Farrales, G.R. No. L-47088, July 10, 1981)
Article 1318 of the Civil Code provides that there can be no
contract unless the following requisites concur: (1) consent of
the parties; (2) object certain which is the subject matter of the
contract; and (3) cause of the obligation.
Marvin will not be liable to pay Carlos any damages for
withdrawing the offer before the lapse of the period granted.
In this case, no consideration was given by Carlos for the
option given, thus there is no perfected contract of option for
lack of cause of obligation. Marvin cannot be held to have
breached the contract. Thus, he cannot be held liable for
damages.
b) Will your answer be the same if Carlos paid Marvin
P10,000.00 as consideration for that option? Explain.
(2%)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
My answer will be the same as to the perfection of the
contract for the construction of the house of Carlos. No
perfected contract arises because of lack of consent. With the
withdrawal of the offer, there could be no concurrence of
offer and acceptance.
My answer will not be the same as to damages. Marvin will be
liable for damages for breach of contract of option. With the
payment of the consideration for the option given, and with the
consent of the parties and the object of contract being present, a
perfected contract of option was created.
(San Miguel, Inc. v. Huang, G.R. No. 137290, July 31,
2000) Under Article 1170 of the Civil Code, those who in the
performance of their obligation are guilty of contravention
thereof, as in this case, when Marvin did not give Carlos the
agreed period of ten days, are liable for damages.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
My answer will not be the same if Carlos paid Marvin
P10,000.00 because an option contract was perfected. Thus,
if Marvin withdrew the offer prior to the expiration of the
10-day period, he breached the option contract. (Article 1324,
Civil Code)
c) Supposing that Carlos accepted the offer before
Marvin could communicate his withdrawal thereof?
Discuss the legal consequences. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A contract to construct the house of Carlos is perfected.
Contracts are perfected by mere consent manifested by the
meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and
the cause which are to constitute the contract. (Gomez v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120747, September 21, 2000)
Under Article 1315 of the Civil Code, Carlos and Marvin are
bound to fulfill what has been expressly stipulated and all
consequences thereof. Under Article 1167, if Marvin would
refuse to construct the house, Carlos is entitled to have the
construction be done by a third person at the expense of
Marvin. Marvin in that case will be liable for damages under
Article 1170.
Inexistent Contracts vs. Annullable Contracts (2004)
Distinguish briefly but clearly between Inexistent contracts
and annullable contracts.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
INEXISTENT CONTRACTS are considered as not having
been entered into and, therefore, void ob initio. They do not
create any obligation and cannot be ratified or validated, as
there is no agreement to ratify or validate. On the other hand,
ANNULLABLE or VOIDABLE CONTRACTS are valid
until invalidated by the court but may be ratified. In inexistent
contracts, one or more requisites of a valid contract are
absent. In anullable contracts, all the elements of a contract
are present except that the consent of one of the contracting
parties was vitiated or one of them has no capacity to give
consent.
Nature of Contracts; Obligatoriness (1991)
Roland, a basketball star, was under contract for one year to
play-for-play exclusively for Lady Love, Inc. However, even
before the basketball season could open, he was offered a
more attractive pay plus fringes benefits by Sweet Taste, Inc.
Roland accepted the offer and transferred to Sweet Taste.
Lady Love sues Roland and Sweet Taste for breach of
contract. Defendants claim that the restriction to play for
Lady Love alone is void, hence, unenforceable, as it
constitutes an undue interference with the right of Roland any payment at all. Printado has
also a standing contract
to enter into contracts and the impairment of his freedom to
play and enjoy basketball.
Can Roland be bound by the contract he entered into with
Lady Love or can he disregard the same? Is he liable at all?
How about Sweet Taste? Is it liable to Lady Love?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Roland is bound by the contract he entered into with Lady
Love and he cannot disregard the same, under the principles
of obligatoriness of contracts. Obligations arising from
contracts have the force of law between the parties.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Roland is liable under the contract as far as Lady Love is
concerned. He is liable for damages under Article 1170 of the
Civil Code since he contravened the tenor of his obligation.
Not being a contracting party, Sweet Taste is not bound by
the contract but it can be held liable under Art. 1314. The
basis of its liability is not prescribed by contract but is
founded on quasi-delict, assuming that Sweet Taste knew of
the contract. Article 1314 of the Civil Code provides that any
third person who induces another to violate his contract shall
be liable for damages to the other contracting party.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
It is assumed that Lady Love knew of the contract. Neither
Roland nor Sweet Taste would be liable, because the
restriction in the contract is violative of Article 1306 as being
contrary to law morals, good customs, public order or public
policy.
Nature of Contracts; Privity of Contract (1996)
Baldomero leased his house with a telephone to Jose. The
lease contract provided that Jose shall pay for all electricity,
water and telephone services in the leased premises during the
period of the lease. Six months later. Jose surreptitiously
vacated the premises. He left behind unpaid telephone bills
for overseas telephone calls amounting to over P20,000.00.
Baldomero refused to pay the said bills on the ground that
Jose had already substituted him as the customer of the
telephone company. The latter maintained that Baldomero
remained as his customer as far as their service contract was
concerned, notwithstanding the lease contract between
Baldomero and Jose. Who is correct, Baldomero or the
telephone company? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The telephone company is correct because as far as it is
concerned, the only person it contracted with was Baldomero.
The telephone company has no contract with Jose. Baldomero
cannot substitute Jose in his stead without the consent of the
telephone company (Art. 1293, NCC). Baldomero is,
therefore, liable under the contract.
Nature of Contracts; Relativity of Contracts (2002)
Printado is engaged in the printing business. Suplico supplies
printing paper to Printado pursuant to an order agreement under
which Suplico binds himself to deliver the same volume of paper
every month for a period of 18 months, with Printado in turn
agreeing to pay within 60 days after each delivery. Suplico has
been faithfully delivering under the order agreement for 10 months
but thereafter stopped doing so, because Printado has not made
with publisher Publico for the printing of 10,000 volumes of school
textbooks. Suplico was aware of said printing contract. After
printing 1,000 volumes, Printado also fails to perform under its
printing contract with Publico. Suplico sues Printado for the value
of the unpaid deliveries under their order agreement. At the same
time Publico sues Printado for damages for breach of contract
with respect to their own printing agreement. In the suit filed by
Suplico, Printado counters that: (a) Suplico cannot demand
payment for deliveries made under their order agreement until
Suplico has completed performance under said contract; (b)
Suplico should pay damages for breach of contract; and (c) with
Publico should be liable for Printado’s breach of his contract with
Publico because the order agreement between Suplico and
Printado was for the benefit of Publico. Are the contentions of
Printado tenable? Explain your answers as to each contention.
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the contentions of Printado are untenable. Printado
having failed to pay for the printing paper covered by the
delivery invoices on time, Suplico has the right to cease
making further delivery. And the latter did not violate the
order agreement (Integrated Packaging Corporation v. Court
of Appeals, (333 SCRA 170, G.R. No. 115117, June 8, [2000]).
Suplico cannot be held liable for damages, for breach of contract, as
it was not he who violated the order agreement, but Printado.
Suplico cannot be held liable for Printado’s breach of contract with
Publico. He is not a party to the agreement entered into by and
between Printado and Publico. Theirs is not a stipulation pour atrui.
[Aforesaid] Such contracts do could not affect third persons like
Suplico because of the basic civil law principle of relativity of
contracts which provides that contracts can only bind the parties
who entered into it, and it cannot favor or prejudice a third person,
even if he is aware of such contract and has acted with knowledge
thereof. (Integrated Packaging Corporation
v. CA, supra.)
Rescission of Contracts; Proper Party (1996)
In December 1985, Salvador and the Star Semiconductor
Company (SSC) executed a Deed of Conditional Sale wherein
the former agreed to sell his 2,000 square meter lot in Cainta,
Rizal, to the latter for the price of P1,000,000.00, payable
P100,000.00 down, and the balance 60 days after the squatters
in the property have been removed. If the squatters are not
removed within six months, the P100,000.00 down payment
shall be returned by the vendor to the vendee, Salvador filed
ejectment suits against the squatters, but in spite of the
decisions in his favor, the squatters still would not leave. In
August, 1986, Salvador offered to return the P100,000.00
down payment to the vendee, on the ground that he is unable
to remove the squatters on the property. SSC refused to
accept the money and demanded that Salvador execute a deed
of absolute sale of the property in its favor, at which time it
will pay the balance of the price. Incidentally, the value of the
land had doubled by that time.
Salvador consigned the P 100,000.00 in court, and filed an property of ZY, his wife may also
sue to recover it under
action for rescission of the deed of conditional sale, plus
damages. Will the action prosper? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the action will not prosper. The action for rescission may
be brought only by the aggrieved party to the contract. Since it
was Salvador who failed to comply with his conditional
obligation, he is not the aggrieved party who may file the
action for rescission but the Star Semiconductor Company.
The company, however, is not opting to rescind the contract
but has chosen to waive Salvador's compliance with the
condition which it can do under Art. 1545, NCC.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The action for rescission will not prosper. The buyer has not
committed any breach, let alone a substantial or serious one,
to warrant the rescission/resolution sought by the vendor. On
the contrary, it is the vendor who appears to have failed to
comply with the condition imposed by the contract the
fulfillment of which would have rendered the obligation to
pay the balance of the purchase price demandable. Further,
far from being unable to comply with what is incumbent
upon it, ie., pay the balance of the price the buyer has offered
to pay it even without the vendor having complied with the
suspensive condition attached to the payment of the price,
thus waiving such condition as well as the 60-day term in its
favor The stipulation that the P100,000.00 down payment
shall be returned by the vendor to the vendee if the squatters
are not removed within six months, is also a covenant for the
benefit of the vendee, which the latter has validly waived by
implication when it offered to pay the balance of the purchase
price upon the execution of a deed of absolute sale by the
vendor. (Art. 1545, NCC)
OBLIGATIONS
Aleatory Contracts; Gambling (2004)
A. Mr. ZY lost P100,000 in a card game called Russian
poker, but he had no more cash to pay in full the winner at
the time the session ended. He promised to pay PX, the
winner, two weeks thereafter. But he failed to do so despite
the lapse of two months, so PX filed in court a suit to collect
the amount of P50,000 that he won but remained unpaid.
Will the collection suit against ZY prosper? Could Mrs. ZY
file in turn a suit against PX to recover the P100,000 that her
husband lost? Reason. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. 1. The suit by PX to collect the balance of what he won
from ZY will not prosper. Under Article 2014 of the Civil
Code, no action can be maintained by the winner for the
collection of what he has won in a game of chance. Although
poker may depend in part on ability, it is fundamentally a
game of chance.
2) If the money paid by ZY to PX was conjugal or
community property, the wife of ZY could sue to recover it
because Article 117(7) of the Family Code provides that
losses in gambling or betting are borne exclusively by the
loser-spouse. Hence, conjugal or community funds may not
be used to pay for such losses. If the money were exclusive
Article 2016 of the Civil Code if she and the family needed
the money for support.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER (2):
A. (2). Mrs. ZY cannot file a suit to recover what her husband
lost. Art 2014 of the Civil Code provides that any loser in a
game of chance may recover his loss from the winner, with
legal interest from the time he paid the amount lost. This
means that only he can file the suit. Mrs. ZY cannot recover
as a spouse who has interest in the absolute community
property or conjugal partnership of gains, because under Art.
117(7} of the Family Code, losses are borne exclusively by the
loser-spouse. Therefore, these cannot be charged against
absolute community property or conjugal partnership of
gains. This being so, Mrs. ZY has no interest in law to
prosecute and recover as she has no legal standing in court to
do so.
Conditional Obligations (2000)
Pedro promised to give his grandson a car if the latter will
pass the bar examinations. When his grandson passed the
said examinations, Pedro refused to give the car on the
ground that the condition was a purely potestative one. Is he
correct or not? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, he is not correct. First of all, the condition is not purely
potestative, because it does not depend on the sole will of
one of the parties. Secondly, even if it were, it would be valid
because it depends on the sole will of the creditor (the
donee) and not of the debtor (the donor).
Conditional Obligations (2003)
Are the following obligations valid, why, and if they are valid,
when is the obligation demandable in each case? a) If the
debtor promises to pay as soon as he has the
means to pay; b) If the debtor promises to pay when he likes;
c) If the debtor promises to pay when he becomes a
lawyer; d) If the debtor promises to pay if his son, who is
sick with cancer, does not die within one year. 5%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The obligation is valid. It is an obligation subject to an
indefinite period because the debtor binds himself to pay
when his means permit him to do so (Article 1180, NCC).
When the creditor knows that the debtor already has the
means to pay, he must file an action in court to fix the
period, and when the definite period as set by the court
arrives, the obligation to pay becomes demandable 9Article
1197, NCC).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) The obligation ―to pay when he likes‖ is a suspensive
condition the fulfillment of which is subject to the sole will of
the debtor and, therefore the conditional obligation is void.
(Article 1182, NCC).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(c) The obligation is valid. It is subject to a suspensive
condition, i.e. the future and uncertain event of his becoming
a lawyer. The performance of this obligation does
not depend solely on the will of the debtor but also on condition of Eva passing the 1998
Bar Examinations.
other factors outside the debtor’s control.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(d) The obligation is valid. The death of the son of cancer
within one year is made a negative suspensive condition to his
making the payment. The obligation is demandable if the son
does not die within one year (Article 1185, NCC).
Conditional Obligations; Promise (1997)
In two separate documents signed by him, Juan Valentino
"obligated" himself each to Maria and to Perla, thus - 'To
Maria, my true love, I obligate myself to give you my one and
only horse when I feel like It." - and -'To Perla, my true
sweetheart, I obligate myself to pay you the P500.00 I owe
you when I feel like it." Months passed but Juan never
bothered to make good his promises. Maria and Perla came
to consult you on whether or not they could recover on the
basis of the foregoing settings. What would your legal advice
be?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would advise Maria not to bother running after Juan for the
latter to make good his promise. [This is because a promise is
not an actionable wrong that allows a party to recover
especially when she has not suffered damages resulting from
such promise. A promise does not create an obligation on the
part of Juan because it is not something which arises from a
contract, law, quasi-contracts or quasidelicts (Art, 1157)].
Under Art. 1182, Juan's promise to Maria is void because a
conditional obligation depends upon the sole will of the
obligor.
As regards Perla, the document is an express acknowledgment
of a debt, and the promise to pay what he owes her when he
feels like it is equivalent to a promise to pay when his means
permits him to do so, and is deemed to be one with an
indefinite period under Art. 1180. Hence the amount is
recoverable after Perla asks the court to set the period as
provided by Art. 1197, par. 2.
Conditional Obligations; Resolutory Condition (1999)
In 1997, Manuel bound himself to sell Eva a house and lot
which is being rented by another person, if Eva passes the
1998 bar examinations. Luckily for Eva, she passed said
examinations.
(a) Suppose Manuel had sold the same house and lot to
another before Eva passed the 1998 bar examinations, is
such sale valid? Why? (2%)
(b) Assuming that it is Eva who is entitled to buy said house
and lot, is she entitled to the rentals collected by Manuel
before she passed the 1998 bar examinations? Why? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Yes, the sale to the other person is valid as a sale with a
resolutory condition because what operates as a suspensive
condition for Eva operates a resolutory condition for the
buyer.
FIRST ALTERNATIVE ANS WER:
Yes, the sale to the other person is valid. However, the buyer
acquired the property subject to a resolutory
Hence, upon Eva's passing the Bar, the rights of the other buyer
terminated and Eva acquired ownership of the property.
The sale to another person before Eva could buy it from
Manuel is valid, as the contract between Manuel and Eva is a
mere promise to sell and Eva has not acquired a real right
over the land assuming that there is a price stipulated in the
contract for the contract to be considered a sale and there
was delivery or tradition of the thing sold.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) No, she is not entitled to the rentals collected by Manuel
because at the time they accrued and were collected, Eva was
not yet the owner of the property.
FIRST ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Assuming that Eva is the one entitled to buy the house and
lot, she is not entitled to the rentals collected by Manuel
before she passed the bar examinations. Whether it is a
contract of sale or a contract to sell, reciprocal prestations are
deemed imposed A for the seller to deliver the object sold
and for the buyer to pay the price. Before the happening of
the condition, the fruits of the thing and the interests on the
money are deemed to have been mutually compensated under
Article 1187.
Under Art. 1164, there is no obligation on the part of Manuel
to deliver the fruits (rentals) of the thing until the obligation
to deliver the thing arises. As the suspensive condition has
not been fulfilled, the obligation to sell does not arise.
Extinguishment; Assignment of Rights (2001)
The sugar cane planters of Batangas entered into a long-term
milling contract with the Central Azucarera de Don Pedro
Inc. Ten years later, the Central assigned its rights to the said
milling contract to a Taiwanese group which would take over
the operations of the sugar mill. The planters filed an action
to annul the said assignment on the ground that the
Taiwanese group was not registered with the Board of
Investments. Will the action prosper or not? Explain briefly.
(5%)
(Note: The question presupposes knowledge and requires the
application of the provisions of the Omnibus Investment Code, which
properly belongs to Commercial law)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The action will prosper not on the ground invoked but on the
ground that the farmers have not given their consent to the
assignment. The milling contract imposes reciprocal
obligations on the parties. The sugar central has the obligation
to mill the sugar cane of the farmers while the latter have the
obligation to deliver their sugar cane to the sugar central. As
to the obligation to mill the sugar cane, the sugar central is a
debtor of the farmers. In assigning its rights under the
contract, the sugar central will also transfer to the Taiwanese
its obligation to mill the sugar cane of the farmers. This will
amount to a novation of the contract by substituting the
debtor with a third party. Under Article 1293 of the Civil
Code, such substitution cannot take effect without the
consent of the creditor. The formers, who are creditors as far
as the obligation to mill their sugar cane is
concerned, may annul such assignment for not having given Even [if] assuming that there
was a perfect right of first
their consent thereto.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The assignment is valid because there is absolute freedom to
transfer the credit and the creditor need not get the consent
of the debtor. He only needs to notify him.
Extinguishment; Cause of Action (2004)
TX filed a suit for ejectment against BD for non-payment of
condominium rentals amounting to P150,000. During the
pendency of the case, BD offered and TX accepted the full
amount due as rentals from BD, who then filed a motion to
dismiss the ejectment suit on the ground that the action is
already extinguished. Is BD’s contention correct? Why or
why not? Reason. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
BD's contention is not correct. TX can still maintain the suit
for ejectment. The acceptance by the lessor of the payment
by the lessee of the rentals in arrears even during the
pendency of the ejectment case does not constitute a waiver
or abandonment of the ejectment case. (Spouses Clutario v.
CA, 216 SCRA 341 [1992]).
Extinguishment; Compensation (2002)
Stockton is a stockholder of Core Corp. He desires to sell his
shares in Core Corp. In view of a court suit that Core Corp.
has filed against him for damages in the amount of P 10
million, plus attorney’s fees of P 1 million, as a result of
statements published by Stockton which are allegedly
defamatory because it was calculated to injure and damage the
corporation’s reputation and goodwill. The articles of
incorporation of Core Corp. provide for a right of first refusal
in favor of the corporation. Accordingly, Stockton gave
written notice to the corporation of his offer to sell his shares
of P 10 million. The response of Core corp. was an acceptance
of the offer in the exercise of its rights of first refusal, offering
for the purpose payment in form of compensation or set-off
against the amount of damages it is claiming against him,
exclusive of the claim for attorney’s fees. Stockton rejected the
offer of the corporation, arguing that compensation between
the value of the shares and the amount of damages demanded
by the corporation cannot legally take effect. Is Stockton
correct? Give reason for your answer. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
Stockton is correct. There is no right of compensation
between his price of P10 million and Core Corp.’s
unliquidated claim for damages. In order that compensation
may be proper, the two debts must be liquidated and
demandable. The case for the P 10million damages being still
pending in court, the corporation has as yet no claim which is
due and demandable against Stockton.
ANOTHER MAIN ANSWER:
The right of first refusal was not perfected as a right for the
reason that there was a conditional acceptance equivalent to a
counter-offer consisting in the amount of damages as being
credited on the purchase price. Therefore, compensation did
not result since there was no valid right of first refusal (Art.
1475 & 1319, NCC)
ANOTHER MAIN ANSWER:
refusal, compensation did not take place because the claim is
unliquidated.
Extinguishment; Compensation vs. Payment (1998)
Define compensation as a mode of extinguishing an
obligation, and distinguish it from payment. [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
COMPENSATION is a mode of extinguishing to the
concurrent amount, the obligations of those persons who in
their own right are reciprocally debtors and creditors of each
other (Tolentino, 1991 ed., p. 365, citing 2 Castan 560 and
Francia vs. IAC. 162 SCRA 753). It involves the simultaneous
balancing of two obligations in order to extinguish them to
the extent in which the amount of one is covered by that of
the other. (De Leon, 1992 ed., p. 221, citing 8 Manresa 401).
PAYMENT means not only delivery of money but also
performance of an obligation (Article 1232, Civil Code). In
payment, capacity to dispose of the thing paid and capacity to
receive payment are required for debtor and creditor,
respectively: in compensation, such capacity is not necessary,
because the compensation operates by law and not by the act
of the parties. In payment, the performance must be complete;
while in compensation there may be partial extinguishment of
an obligation (Tolentino, supra)
Extinguishment; Compensation/Set-Off; Banks (1998)
X, who has a savings deposit with Y Bank in the sum of
P1,000,000.00 incurs a loan obligation with the said Bank in
the sum of P800.000.00 which has become due. When X tries
to withdraw his deposit, Y Bank allows only P200.000.00 to
be withdrawn, less service charges, claiming that
compensation has extinguished its obligation under the
savings account to the concurrent amount of X's debt. X
contends that compensation is improper when one of the
debts, as here, arises from a contract of deposit. Assuming
that the promissory note signed by X to evidence the loan
does not provide for compensation between said loan and his
savings deposit, who is correct? [3%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Y bank is correct. An. 1287, Civil Code, does not apply. All
the requisites of Art. 1279, Civil Code are present. In the case
of Gullas vs. PNB [62 Phil. 519), the Supreme Court held:
"The Civil Code contains provisions regarding compensation
(set off) and deposit. These portions of Philippine law
provide that compensation shall take place when two persons
are reciprocally creditor and debtor of each other. In this
connection, it has been held that the relation existing between
a depositor and a bank is that of creditor and debtor, x x x As
a general rule, a bank has a right of set off of the deposits in
its hands for the payment of any indebtedness to it on the part
of a depositor." Hence, compensation took place between the
mutual obligations of X and Y bank.
Extinguishment; Condonation (2000)
Arturo borrowed P500,000.00 from his father. After he had
paid P300,000.00, his father died. When the administrator of
his father's estate requested payment of the balance of
P200,000.00. Arturo replied that the same had been
condoned by his father as evidenced by a notation at the The action will not prosper. The
existence of inflation or
back of his check payment for the P300,000.00 reading: "In
full payment of the loan". Will this be a valid defense in an
action for collection? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It depends. If the notation "in full payment of the loan" was
written by Arturo's father, there was an implied condonation
of the balance that discharges the obligation. In such case, the
notation is an act of the father from which condonation may
be inferred. The condonation being implied, it need not
comply with the formalities of a donation to be effective. The
defense of full payment will, therefore, be valid.
When, however, the notation was written by Arturo himself.
It merely proves his intention in making that payment but in
no way does it bind his father (Yam v. CA, G.R No. 104726. 11
February 1999). In such case, the notation was not the act of
his father from which condonation may be inferred. There
being no condonation at all the defense of full payment will
not be valid.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
If the notation was written by Arturo's father, it amounted to
an express condonation of the balance which must comply
with the formalities of a donation to be valid under the 2nd
paragraph of Article 1270 of the New Civil Code. Since the
amount of the balance is more than 5,000 pesos, the
acceptance by Arturo of the condonation must also be in
writing under Article 748. There being no acceptance in
writing by Arturo, the condonation is void and the obligation
to pay the balance subsists. The defense of full payment is,
therefore, not valid. In case the notation was not written by
Arturo's father, the answer is the same as the answers above.
Extinguishment; Extraordinary Inflation or Deflation (2001)
On July 1, 1998, Brian leased an office space in a building for a
period of five years at a rental rate of P1,000.00 a month. The
contract of lease contained the proviso that "in case of
inflation or devaluation of the Philippine peso, the monthly
rental will automatically be increased or decreased depending
on the devaluation or inflation of the peso to the dollar."
Starting March 1, 2001, the lessor increased the rental to
P2,000 a month, on the ground of inflation proven by the fact
that the exchange rate of the Philippine peso to the dollar had
increased from P25.00=$1.00 to P50.00=$1.00. Brian refused
to pay the increased rate and an action for unlawful detainer
was filed against him. Will the action prosper? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The unlawful detainer action will not prosper. Extraordinary
inflation or deflation is defined as the sharp decrease in the
purchasing power of the peso. It does not necessarily refer to
the exchange rate of the peso to the dollar. Whether or not
there exists an extraordinary inflation or deflation is for the
courts to decide. There being no showing that the purchasing
power of the peso had been reduced tremendously, there
could be no inflation that would justify the increase in the
amount of rental to be paid. Hence, Brian could refuse to pay
the increased rate.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
deflation requires an official declaration by the Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The unlawful detainer action will prosper. It is a given fact in
the problem, that there was inflation, which caused the
exchange rate to double. Since the contract itself authorizes
the increase in rental in the event of an inflation or
devaluation of the Philippine peso, the doubling of the
monthly rent is reasonable and is therefore a valid act under
the very terms of the contract. Brian's refusal to pay is thus a
ground for ejectment.
Extinguishment; Loss (1994)
Dino sued Ben for damages because the latter had failed to
deliver the antique Marcedes Benz car Dino had purchased
from Ben, which was—by agreement—due for delivery on
December 31, 1993. Ben, in his answer to Dino's complaint,
said Dino's claim has no basis for the suit, because as the car
was being driven to be delivered to Dino on January 1, 1994,
a reckless truck driver had rammed into the Mercedes Benz.
The trial court dismissed Dino's complaint, saying Ben's
obligation had indeed, been extinguished by force majeure. Is
the trial court correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) No. Article 1262, New Civil Code provides, "An obligation
which consists in the delivery of a determinate thing shall be
extinguished if it should be lost or destroyed without the fault
of the debtor, and before he has incurred in delay. b) The
judgment of the trial court is incorrect. Loss of the thing due
by fortuitous events or force majeure is a valid defense for a
debtor only when the debtor has not incurred delay.
Extinguishment of liability for fortuitous event requires that
the debtor has not yet incurred any delay. In the present case,
the debtor was in delay when the car was destroyed on
January 1, 1993 since it was due for delivery on December 31,
1993. (Art. 1262 Civil Code)
c) It depends whether or not Ben the seller, was already in
default at the time of the accident because a demand for him
to deliver on due date was not complied with by him. That
fact not having been given in the problem, the trial court
erred in dismissing Dino's complaint. Reason: There is
default making him responsible for fortuitous events
including the assumption of risk or loss.
If on the other hand Ben was not in default as no demand
has been sent to him prior to the accident, then we must
distinguish whether the price has been paid or not. If it has
been paid, the suit for damages should prosper but only to
enable the buyer to recover the price paid. It should be noted
that Ben, the seller, must bear the loss on the principle of res
perit domino. He cannot be held answerable for damages as the
loss of the car was not imputable to his fault or fraud. In any
case, he can recover the value of the car from the party whose
negligence caused the accident. If no price has been paid at
all, the trial court acted correctly in dismissing the complaint.
Extinguishment; Loss; Impossible Service (1993)
Page 86 of 119
In 1971, Able Construction, Inc. entered into a contract has been extinguished by the
novation or extinction of the
with Tropical Home Developers, Inc. whereby the former
would build for the latter the houses within its subdivision.
The cost of each house, labor and materials included, was
P100,000.00. Four hundred units were to be constructed
within five years. In 1973, Able found that it could no longer
continue with the job due to the increase in the price of oil
and its derivatives and the concomitant worldwide spiraling
of prices of all commodities, including basic raw materials
required for the construction of the houses. The cost of
development had risen to unanticipated levels and to such a
degree that the conditions and factors which formed the
original basis of the contract had been totally changed. Able
brought suit against Tropical Homes praying that the Court
relieve it of its obligation. Is Able Construction entitled to the
relief sought?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the Able Construction. Inc. is entitled to the relief
sought under Article 1267, Civil Code. The law provides:
"When the service has become so difficult as to be manifestly
beyond the contemplation of the parties, the obligor may also
be released therefrom, in whole or in part."
Extinguishment; Novation (1994)
In 1978, Bobby borrowed Pl,000,000.00 from Chito payable
in two years. The loan, which was evidenced by a promissory
note, was secured by a mortgage on real property. No action
was filed by Chito to collect the loan or to foreclose the
mortgage. But in 1991, Bobby, without receiving any amount
from Chito, executed another promissory note which was
worded exactly as the 1978 promissory note, except for the
date thereof, which was the date of its execution. 1) Can Chito
demand payment on the 1991 promissory note in 1994? 2)
Can Chito foreclose the real estate mortgage if Bobby fails to
make good his obligation under the 1991 promissory note?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) Yes, Chito can demand payment on the 1991 promissory
note in 1994. Although the 1978 promissory note for P1
million payable two years later or in 1980 became a natural
obligation after the lapse of ten (10) years, such natural
obligation can be a valid consideration of a novated
promissory note dated in 1991 and payable two years later, or
in 1993. All the elements of an implied real novation are
present: a) an old valid obligation; b) a new valid obligation;
c) capacity of the parties; d) animus novandi or intention to
novate; and e) The old and the new obligation should be
incompatible with each other on all material points (Article
1292). The two promissory notes cannot stand together,
hence, the period of prescription of ten (10) years has not yet
lapsed.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2) No. The mortgage being an accessory contract prescribed with
the loan. The novation of the loan, however, did not expressly
include the mortgage, hence, the mortgage is extinguished under
Article 1296 of the NCC. The contract
principal obligation insofar as third parties are concerned.
Extinguishment; Payment (1995)
In 1983 PHILCREDIT extended loans to Rivett-Strom
Machineries, Inc. (RIVETTT-STROM), consisting of US$10
Million for the cost of machineries imported and directly paid
by PHTLCREDIT, and 5 Million in cash payable in
installments over a period of ten (10) years on the basis of the
value thereof computed at the rate of exchange of the U.S.
dollar vis-à-vis the Philippine peso at the time of payment.
RIVETT-STROM made payments on both loans which if
based on the rate of exchange in 1983 would have fully
settled the loans.
PHILCREDIT contends that the payments on both loans
should be based on the rate of exchange existing at the time
of payment, which rate of exchange has been consistently
increasing, and for which reason there would still be a
considerable balance on each loan. Is the contention of
PHILCREDIT correct? Discuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As regards the loan consisting of dollars, the contention of
PHILCREDIT is correct. It has to be paid in Philippine
currency computed on the basis of the exchange rate at the
TIME OF PAYMENT of each installment, as held in Kalalo
v. Luz, 34 SCRA 337. As regards the P5 Million loan in
Philippine pesos, PHILCREDIT is wrong. The payment
thereof cannot be measured by the peso-dollar exchange rate.
That will be violative of the Uniform Currency Act (RA, 529]
which prohibits the payment of an obligation which, although
to be paid in Philippine currency, is measured by a foreign
currency. (Palanca v. CA, 238 SCRA 593).
Liability; Lease; Joint Liability (2001)
Four foreign medical students rented the apartment of
Thelma for a period of one year. After one semester, three of
them returned to their home country and the fourth
transferred to a boarding house. Thelma discovered that they
left unpaid telephone bills in the total amount of P80,000.00.
The lease contract provided that the lessees shall pay for the
telephone services in the leased premises. Thelma demanded
that the fourth student pay the entire amount of the unpaid
telephone bills, but the latter is willing to pay only one fourth
of it. Who is correct? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The fourth student is correct. His liability is only joint, hence,
pro rata. There is solidary liability only when the obligation
expressly so states or when the law or nature of the obligation
requires solidarity (Art. 1207, CC). The contract of lease in
the problem does not, in any way, stipulate solidarity.
Liability; Solidary Liability (1998)
Joey, Jovy and Jojo are solidary debtors under a loan
obligation of P300,000.00 which has fallen due. The creditor
has, however, condoned Jojo's entire share in the debt. Since
Jovy has become insolvent, the creditor makes a demand on
Joey to pay the debt.
1) How much, if any, may Joey be compelled to pay? promissory note as a result of the
foreclosure of the chattel
[2%] 2) To what extent, if at all, can Jojo be compelled by
Joey to contribute to such payment? [3%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Joey can be compelled to pay only the remaining balance
of P200.000, in view of the remission of Jojo's share by the
creditor. (Art. 1219, Civil Code)
2. Jojo can be compelled by Joey to contribute P50.000 Art.
1217. par. 3, Civil Code provides. "When one of the solidary
debtors cannot, because of his insolvency, reimburse his
share to the debtor paying the obligation, such share shall be
borne by all his co-debtors, in proportion to the debt of
each."
Since the insolvent debtor's share which Joey paid was
P100,000, and there are only two remaining debtors - namely
Joey and Jojo - these two shall share equally the burden of
reimbursement. Jojo may thus be compelled by Joey to
contribute P50.000.00.
Liability; Solidary Obligation (1992)
In June 1988, X obtained a loan from A and executed with Y
as solidary co-maker a promissory note in favor of A for the
sum of P200,000.00. The loan was payable at P20,000.00 with
interest monthly within the first week of each month
beginning July 1988 until maturity in April 1989. To secure the
payment of the loan. X put up as security a chattel mortgage
on his car, a Toyota Corolla sedan. Because of failure of X
and Y to pay the principal amount of the loan, the car was
extrajudicially foreclosed. A acquired the car at A's highest bid
of P120,000.00 during the auction sale.
After several fruitless letters of demand against X and Y, A
sued Y alone for the recovery of P80.000.00 constituting the
deficiency. Y resisted the suit raising the following defenses:
a) That Y should not be liable at all because X was not
sued together with Y.
b) That the obligation has been paid completely by A's
acquisition of the car through "dacion en pago" or payment
by cession.
c) That Y should not be held liable for the deficiency
of P80,000.00 because he was not a co-mortgagor in the
chattel mortgage of the car which contract was executed by X
alone as owner and mortgagor.
d) That assuming that Y is liable, he should only pay the
proportionate sum of P40,000.00. Decide each defense with
reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) This first defense of Y is untenable. Y is still liable as
solidary debtor. The creditor may proceed against any one of
the solidary debtors. The demand against one does not
preclude further demand against the others so long as the
debt is not fully paid.
(b) The second defense of Y is untenable. Y is still liable. The
chattel mortgage is only given as a security and not as
payment for the debt in case of failure to pay. Y as a solidary
co-maker is not relieved of further liability on the
mortgage.
(c) The third defense of Y is untenable. Y is a surety of X
and the extrajudicial demand against the principal debtor is
not inconsistent with a judicial demand against the surety. A
suretyship may co-exist with a mortgage.
(d) The fourth defense of Y is untenable. Y is liable for the
entire prestation since Y incurred a solidary obligation with
X.
(Arts. 1207, 1216. 1252 and 2047 Civil Code; Bicol Savings and Loan
Associates vs. Guinhawa 188 SCRA 642)
Liability; Solidary Obligation; Mutual Guaranty (2003)
A,B,C,D, and E made themselves solidarity indebted to X
for the amount of P50,000.00. When X demanded payment
from A, the latter refused to pay on the following grounds. a)
B is only 16 years old. b) C has already been condoned by X
c) D is insolvent. d) E was given by X an extension of 6
months without
the consent of the other four co-debtors. State the effect of
each of the above defenses put up by A on his obligation to
pay X, if such defenses are found to be true.
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
(a) A may avail the minority of B as a defense, but only for
B’s share of P 10,000.00. A solidary debtor may avail himself
of any defense which personally belongs to a solidary
co-debtor, but only as to the share of that codebtor.
(b) A may avail of the condonation by X of C’s share of P 10,
000.00. A solidary debtor may, in actions filed by the creditor,
avail himself of all defenses which are derived from the
nature of the obligation and of those which are personal to
him or pertain to his own share. With respect to those which
personally belong to others, he may avail himself thereof only
as regards that part of the debt for which the latter are
responsible. (Article 1222, NCC).
(c) A may not interpose the defense of insolvency of D as a
defense. Applying the principle of mutual guaranty among
solidary debtors, A guaranteed the payment of D’s share and
of all the other co-debtors. Hence, A cannot avail of the
defense of D’s insolvency.
(d) The extension of six (6) months given by X to E may be
availed of by A as a partial defense but only for the share of
E, there is no novation of the obligation but only an act of
liberality granted to E alone.
Loss of the thing due; Force Majeure (2000)
Kristina brought her diamond ring to a jewelry shop for
cleaning. The jewelry shop undertook to return the ring by
February 1, 1999." When the said date arrived, the jewelry
shop informed Kristina that the Job was not yet finished.
They asked her to return five days later. On February 6, 1999,
Kristina went to the shop to claim the ring, but she was
informed that the same was stolen by a thief who entered the
shop the night before. Kristina filed an action
for damages against the jewelry shop which put up the Bernie 50% of the total payments
made. (Rillo v. Court of
defense of force majeure. Will the action prosper or not?
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The action will prosper. Since the defendant was already in
default not having delivered the ring when delivery was
demanded by plaintiff at due date, the defendant is liable for
the loss of the thing and even when the loss was due to force
majeure.
Non-Payment of Amortizations; Subdivision Buyer; When
justified (2005)
Bernie bought on installment a residential subdivision lot from
DEVLAND. After having faithfully paid the installments for
48 months, Bernie discovered that DEVLAND had failed to
develop the subdivision in accordance with the approved
plans and specifications within the time frame in the plan. He
thus wrote a letter to DEVLAND informing it that he was
stopping payment. Consequently, DEVLAND cancelled the
sale and wrote Bernie, informing him that his payments are
forfeited in its favor.
a) Was the action of DEVLAND proper? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the action of DEVLAND is not proper. Under Section 23 of
Presidential Decree No. 957, otherwise known as the Subdivision
and Condominium Buyer's Protection Decree, non-payment of
amortizations by the buyer is justified if non-payment is due to
the failure of the subdivision owner to develop the subdivision
project according to the approved plans and within the limit for
complying.
(Eugenio v. Drilon, G.R. No. 109404, January 22, 1996)
b) Discuss the rights of Bernie under the circumstances.
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under P.D. No. 957, a cancellation option is available to
Bernie. If Bernie opts to cancel the contract, DEVLAND
must reimburse Bernie the total amount paid and the
amortizations interest, excluding delinquency interest, plus
interest at legal rate. (Eugenio v. Drilon, G.R. No. 109404,
January 22, 1996)
c) Supposing DEVLAND had fully developed the
subdivision but Bernie failed to pay further installments
after 4 years due to business reverses. Discuss the rights
and obligations of the parties. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In this case, pursuant to Section 24 of P.D. No. 957, R.A.
No. 6552 otherwise known as the Realty Installment Buyer
Protection Act, shall govern. Under Section 3 thereof, Bernie
is entitled: 1) to pay without additional interest the unpaid
installments due within a grace period of four (4) months or
one month for every year of installment paid; 2) if the
contract is cancelled, Bernie is entitled to the refund of the
cash surrender value equal to 50% of the total payments
made.
DEVLAND on the other hand has the right to cancel the
contract after 30 days from receipt by Bernie of notice of
cancellation. DEVLAND is however obliged to refund to
Appeals, G.R. No. 125347, June 19,1997)
Period; Suspensive Period (1991)
In a deed of sale of a realty, it was stipulated that the buyer
would construct a commercial building on the lot while the
seller would construct a private passageway bordering the lot.
The building was eventually finished but the seller failed to
complete the passageway as some of the squatters, who were
already known to be there at the time they entered into the
contract, refused to vacate the premises. In fact, prior to its
execution, the seller filed ejectment cases against the
squatters. The buyer now sues the seller for specific
performance with damages. The defense is that the obligation
to construct the passageway should be with a period which,
incidentally, had not been fixed by them, hence, the need for
fixing a judicial period. Will the action for specific
performance of the buyer against the seller prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. the action for specific performance filed by the buyer is
premature under Art. 1197 of the Civil Code. If a period has
not been fixed although contemplated by the parties, the
parties themselves should fix that period, failing in which, the
Court maybe asked to fix it taking into consideration the
probable contemplation of the parties. Before the period is
fixed, an action for specific performance is premature.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
It has been held in Borromeo vs. CA (47 SCRA 69), that the
Supreme Court allowed the simultaneous filing of action to
fix the probable contemplated period of the parties where
none is fixed in the agreement if this would avoid multiplicity
of suits. In addition, technicalities must be subordinated to
substantial justice.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The action for specific performance will not prosper. The
filing of the ejectment suit by the seller was precisely in
compliance with his obligations and should not, therefore, be
faulted if no decision has yet been reached by the Court on
the matter.
TRUST
Express Trust; Prescription (1997)
On 01 January 1980, Redentor and Remedies entered into an
agreement by virtue of which the former was to register a
parcel of land in the name of Remedies under the explicit
covenant to reconvey the land to Remigio, son of Redentor,
upon the son's graduation from college. In 1981, the land
was registered in the name of Remedies.
Redentor died a year later or in 1982. In March 1983, Remigio
graduated from college. In February 1992, Remigio
accidentally found a copy of the document so constituting
Remedies as the trustee of the land. In May 1994, Remigio
filed a case against Remedies for the reconveyance of the land
to him. Remedies, in her answer, averred that the action
already prescribed. How should the matter be decided?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The matter should be decided in favor of Remigio (trustee) 1. Juana has the right of action
to recover (a) her one-half
because the action has not prescribed. The case at bar
involves an express trust which does not prescribe as long as
they have not been repudiated by the trustee (Diaz vs.
Gorricho. 103 Phil, 261).
Implied Trust (1998)
Juan and his sister Juana inherited from their mother two
parcels of farmland with exactly the same areas. For
convenience, the Torrens certificates of title covering both
lots were placed in Juan's name alone. In 1996, Juan sold to
an innocent purchaser one parcel in its entirety without the
knowledge and consent of Juana, and wrongfully kept for
himself the entire price paid.
1. What rights of action, if any, does Juana have against
and/or the buyer? |3%]
2. Since the two lots have the same area, suppose Juana
flies a complaint to have herself declared sole owner of the
entire remaining second lot, contending that her brother had
forfeited his share thereof by wrongfully disposing of her
undivided share in the first lot. Will the suit prosper? [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. When, for convenience, the Torrens title to the two parcels
of land were placed in Joan's name alone, there was created
an implied trust (a resulting trust) for the benefit of Juana
with Juan as trustee of one-half undivided or ideal portion of
each of the two lots. Therefore, Juana can file an action for
damages against Joan for having fraudulently sold one of the
two parcels which he partly held in trust for Juana's benefit.
Juana may claim actual or compensatory damage for the loss
of her share in the land; moral damages for the mental
anguish, anxiety, moral shock and wounded feelings she had
suffered; exemplary damage by way of example for the
common good, and attorney's fees.
Juana has no cause of action against the buyer who acquired
the land for value and in good faith, relying on the transfer
certificate of title showing that Juan is the registered owner
of the land.
ANOTHER ANSWER:
1. Under Article 476 of the Civil Code, Juana can file an
action for quieting of title as there is a cloud in the title to the
subject real property. Second, Juana can also file an action for
damages against Juan, because the settled rule is that the
proper recourse of the true owner of the property who was
prejudiced and fraudulently dispossessed of the same is to
bring an action for damages against those who caused or
employed the same. Third, since Juana had the right to her
share in the property by way of inheritance, she can demand
the partition of the thing owned in common, under Article
494 of the Civil Code, and ask that the title to the remaining
property be declared as exclusively hers.
However, since the farmland was sold to an innocent purchaser
for value, then Juana has no cause of action against the buyer
consistent with the established rule that the rights of an innocent
purchaser for value must be respected and protected
notwithstanding the fraud employed by the seller in securing his
title. (Eduarte vs. CA, 253 SCRA 391)
ADDITIONAL ANSWER:
share in the proceeds of the sale with legal interest thereof,
and (b) such damages as she may be able to prove as having
been suffered by her, which may include actual or
compensatory damages as well as moral and exemplary
damages due to the breach of trust and bad faith (Imperial
vs. CA, 259 SCRA 65). Of course, if the buyer knew of the
co-ownership over the lot he was buying, Juana can seek (c)
reconvenyance of her one-half share instead but she must
implead the buyer as co-defendant and allege his bad faith in
purchasing the entire lot. Finally, consistent with the ruling in
Imperial us. CA. Juana may seek instead (d) a declaration that
she is now the sole owner of the entire remaining lot on the
theory that Juan has forfeited his one-half share therein.
ADDITIONAL ANSWER:
1. Juana can file an action for damages against Juan for having
fraudulently sold one of the two parcels which he partly held
in trust for Juana's benefit. Juana may claim actual or
compensatory damage for the loss of her share in the land;
moral damages for the mental anguish, anxiety, moral shock
and wounded feelings she had suffered; exemplary damage by
way of example for the common good, and attorney's fees.
Juana has no cause of action against the buyer who acquired
the land for value and in good faith, relying on the transfer
certificate showing that Juan is the registered owner of the
land.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. Juana's suit to have herself declared as sole owner of the
entire remaining area will not prosper because while Juan's
act in selling the other lot was wrongful. It did not have the
legal effect of forfeiting his share in the remaining lot.
However, Juana can file an action against Juan for partition
or termination of the co-ownership with a prayer that the lot
sold be adjudicated to Juan, and the remaining lot be
adjudicated and reconveyed to her.
ANOTHER ANSWER:
2. The suit will prosper, applying the ruling in Imperial vs.
CA cited above. Both law and equity authorize such a result,
said the Supreme Court.
Strictly speaking, Juana's contention that her brother had
forfeited his share in the second lot is incorrect. Even if the
two lots have the same area, it does not follow that they have
the same value. Since the sale of the first lot on the Torrens
title in the name of Juan was valid, all that Juana may recover
is the value of her undivided interest therein, plus damages.
In addition, she can ask for partition or reconveyance of her
undivided interest in the second lot, without prejudice to any
agreement between them that in lieu of the payment of the
value of Juana's share in the first lot and damages, the second
lot be reconveyed to her.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
2. The suit will not prosper, since Juan's wrongful act of
pocketing the entire proceeds of the sale of the first lot is not
a ground for divesting him of his rights as a co-owner of the
second lot. Indeed, such wrongdoing by Juan does not
constitute, for the benefit of Juana, any of the modes of
acquiring ownership under Art. 712, Civil Code.
Trust; Implied Resulting Trust (1995)
In 1960, Maureen purchased two lots in a plush subdivision
registering Lot 1 in her name and Lot 2 in the name of her
brother Walter with the latter's consent. The idea was to
circumvent a subdivision policy against the acquisition of
more than one lot by one buyer. Maureen constructed a house
on Lot 1 with an extension on Lot 2 to serve as a guest house.
In 1987, Walter who had suffered serious business losses
demanded that Maureen remove the extension house since
the lot on which the extension was built was his property. In
1992, Maureen sued for the reconveyance to her of Lot 2
asserting that a resulting trust was created when she had the
lot registered in Walter's name even if she paid the purchase
price. Walter opposed the suit arguing that assuming the
existence of a resulting trust the action of Maureen has already
prescribed since ten years have already elapsed from the
registration of the title in his name. Decide. Discuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
This is a case of an implied resulting trust. If Walter claims to
have acquired ownership of the land by prescription or if he
anchors his defense on extinctive prescription, the ten year
period must be reckoned from 1987 when he demanded that
Maureen remove the extension house on Lot No. 2 because
such demand amounts to an express repudiation of the trust
and it was made known to Maureen. The action for
reconveyance filed in 1992 is not yet barred by prescription.
(Spouses Huang v. Court of Appeals, Sept. 13, 1994).
SALES
Assignment of Credit vs. Subrogation (1993)
Peter Co, a trader from Manila, has dealt business with Allied
Commodities in Hongkong for five years. All through the
years, Peter Co accumulated an indebtedness of P500,000.00
with Allied Commodities. Upon demand by its agent in
Manila, Peter Co paid Allied Commodities by check the
amount owed. Upon deposit in the payee's account in Manila,
the check was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. For and
in consideration of P1.00, Allied Commodities assigned the
credit to Hadji Butu who brought suit against Peter Co in the
RTC of Manila for recovery of the amount owed. Peter Co
moved to dismiss the complaint against him on the ground
that Hadji Butu was not a real party in interest and, therefore,
without legal capacity to sue and that he had not agreed to a
subrogation of creditor. Will Peter Co's defense of absence of
agreement to a subrogation of creditor prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Co's defense will not prosper. This is not a case of
subrogation, but an assignment of credit. ASSIGNMENT OF
CREDIT is the process of transferring the right of the
assignor to the assignee. The assignment may be done either
gratuitously or onerously, in which case, the assignment has
an effect similar to that of a sale (Nyco Sales Corp.v.BA
Finance Corp. G.R No.71694. Aug.16, 1991 200 SCRA 637). As a
result of the assignment, the plaintiff acquired all the rights of
the assignor including the right to sue in his own name as the
legal assignee. In assignment, the debtor's consent is not
essential for the validity of the assignment
(Art. 1624; 1475. CC; Rodriguez v. CA, et al, G. R No. 84220,
March 25. 1992 207 SCRA 553).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, the defense of Peter Co will not prosper. Hadji Butu
validly acquired his right by an assignment of credit under
Article 1624 of the Civil Code. However, the provisions on
the contract of sale (Article 1475 Civil Code) will apply, and
the transaction is covered by the Statute of Frauds. (Art.
1403 par. (2) Civil Code)
Conditional Sale vs. Absolute Sale (1997)
Distinguish between a conditional sale, on the one hand, and
an absolute sale, on the other hand.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A CONDITIONAL SALE is one where the vendor is
granted the right to unilaterally rescind the contract predicated
on the fulfillment or non-fulfillment, as the case may be, of
the prescribed condition. An ABSOLUTE SALE is one
where the title to the property is not reserved to the vendor or
if the vendor is not granted the right to rescind the contract
based on the fulfillment or nonfulfillment, as the case may be,
of the prescribed condition.
Contract of Sale vs. Agency to Sell (1999)
A granted B the exclusive right to sell his brand of Maong
pants in Isabela, the price for his merchandise payable within
60 days from delivery, and promising B a commission of 20%
on all sales. After the delivery of the merchandise to B but
before he could sell any of them, B’s store in Isabela was
completely burned without his fault, together with all of A's
pants. Must B pay A for his lost pants? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The contract between A and B is a sale not an agency to sell
because the price is payable by B upon 60 days from delivery
even if B is unable to resell it. If B were an agent, he is not
bound to pay the price if he is unable to resell it.
As a buyer, ownership passed to B upon delivery and, under
Art. 1504 of the Civil Code, the thing perishes for the owner.
Hence, B must still pay the price.
Contract of Sale; Marital Community Property; Formalities
(2006)
Spouses Biong and Linda wanted to sell their house. They
found a prospective buyer, Ray. Linda negotiated with Ray for
the sale of the property. They agreed on a fair price of P2
Million. Ray sent Linda a letter confirming his intention to
buy the property. Later, another couple, Bernie and Elena,
offered a similar house at a lower price of P 1.5 Million. But
Ray insisted on buying the house of Biong and Linda for
sentimental reasons. Ray prepared a deed of sale to be signed
by the couple and a manager's check for P2 Million. After
receiving the P2 Million, Biong signed the deed of sale.
However, Linda was not able to sign it because she was
abroad. On her return, she refused to sign the document
saying she changed her mind. Linda filed suit for nullification
of the deed of sale and for moral and exemplary damages
against Ray.
Will the suit prosper? Explain. (2.5%)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, the suit will not prosper. The contract of sale was In a CONTRACT OF SALE, ownership
is transferred to
perfected when Linda and Ray agreed on the object of the
sale and the price [Art. 1475, New Civil Code]. The consent
of Linda has already been given, as shown by her agreement
to the price of the sale. There is therefore consent on her part
as the consent need not be given in any specific form. Hence,
her consent may be given by implication, especially since she
was aware of, and participated in the sale of the property
(Pelayo v. CA, G.R. No. 141323, June 8, 2005). Her action for
moral and exemplary damages will also not prosper because
the case does not fall under any of those mentioned in Art.
2219 and 2232 of the Civil Code.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The suit will prosper. Sale of community property requires
written consent of both spouses. The failure or refusal of
Linda to affix her signature on the deed of sale, coupled with
her express declaration of opposing the sale negates any valid
consent on her part. The consent of Biong by himself is
insufficient to effect a valid sale of community property (Art.
96, Family Code; Abalos v. Macatangay, G.R. No. 155043,
September 30, 2004).
Does Ray have any cause of action against Biong and
Linda? Can he also recover damages from the spouses?
Explain. (2.5%)
Considering that the contract has already been perfected and
taken out of the operation of the statute of frauds, Ray can
compel Linda and Biong to observe the form required by law
in order for the property to be registered in the name of Ray
which can be filed together with the action for the recovery
of house [Art. 1357 New Civil Code]. In the alternative, he
can recover the amount of Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00)
that he paid. Otherwise, it would result in solutio indebiti or
unjust enrichment.
Ray can recover moral damages on the ground that the action
filed by Linda is clearly an unfounded civil suit which falls
under malicious prosecution {Ponce v. Legaspi, G.R. No.
79184, May 6,1992).
Contract to Sell (2001)
Arturo gave Richard a receipt which states:
Receipt Received from Richard as down payment for my
1995 Toyota Corolla with plate No. XYZ-1 23..............
P50.000.00
Balance payable: 12/30/01........ P50 000.00
September 15, 2001.
(Sgd.) Arturo Does this receipt evidence a
contract to sell? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It is a contract of sale because the seller did not reserve
ownership until he was fully paid.
Contract to Sell vs. Contract of Sale (1997)
State the basic difference (only in their legal effects) Between
a contract to sell, on the one hand, and a contract of sale, on
the other.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the buyer upon delivery of the object to him while in a
CONTRACT TO SELL, ownership is retained by the seller
until the purchase price is fully paid. In a contract to sell,
delivery of the object does not confer ownership upon the
buyer. In a contract of sale, there is only one contract
executed between the seller and the buyer, while in a contract
to sell, there are two contracts, first the contract to sell (which
is a conditional or preparatory sale) and a second, the final
deed of sale or the principal contract which is executed after
full payment of the purchase price.
Contract to Sell; Acceptance; Right of First Refusal (1991)
A is the lessee of an apartment owned by Y. A allowed his
married but employed daughter B, whose husband works in
Kuwait, to occupy it. The relationship between Y and A
soured. Since he has no reason at all to eject A, Y, in
connivance with the City Engineer, secured from the latter an
order for the demolition of the building. A immediately filed
an action in the Regional Trial Court to annul the order and
to enjoin its enforcement. Y and A were able to forge a
compromise agreement under which A agreed to a twenty
percent (20%) increase in the monthly rentals. They further
agreed that the lease will expire two (2) years later and that in
the event that Y would sell the property, either A or his
daughter B shall have the right of first refusal. The
Compromise Agreement was approved by the court. Six (6)
months before the expiration of the lease, A died. Y sold the
property to the Visorro Realty Corp. without notifying
B. B then filed an action to rescind the sale in favor of the
corporation and to compel Y to sell the property to her since
under the Compromise Agreement, she was given the right
of first refusal which, she maintains is a stipulation pour atrui
under Article 1311 of the Civil Code. Is she correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B is not correct. Her action cannot prosper. Article 1311
requires that the third person intended to be benefited must
communicate his acceptance to the obligor before the
revocation. There is no showing that B manifested her
acceptance to Y at any time before the death of A and before
the sale. Hence, B cannot enforce any right under the alleged
stipulation pour atrui.
Double Sales (2001)
On June 15, 1995, Jesus sold a parcel of registered land to
Jaime. On June 30, 1995, he sold the same land to Jose. Who
has a better right if: a) the first sale is registered ahead of the
second sale,
with knowledge of the latter. Why? (3%) b) the second sale is
registered ahead of the first sale,
with knowledge of the latter? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The first buyer has the better right if his sale was first to
be registered, even though the first buyer knew of the second
sale. The fact that he knew of the second sale at the time of
his registration does not make him as acting in bad faith
because the sale to him was ahead in time, hence, has a
priority in right. What creates bad faith in the case of double
sale of land is knowledge of a previous sale.
b) The first buyer is still to be preferred, where the second (2) years, or until 3 June 1973.
It is further stated therein
sale is registered ahead of the first sale but with knowledge of
the latter. This is because the second buyer, who at the time
he registered his sale knew that the property had already been
sold to someone else, acted in bad faith. (Article 1544, C.C.)
Double Sales (2004)
JV, owner of a parcel of land, sold it to PP. But the deed of
sale was not registered. One year later, JV sold the parcel
again to RR, who succeeded to register the deed and to
obtain a transfer certificate of title over the property in his
own name. Who has a better right over the parcel of land,
RR or PP? Why? Explain the legal basis for your answer.
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It depends on whether or not RR is an innocent purchaser
for value. Under the Torrens System, a deed or instrument
operated only as a contract between the parties and as
evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make the
registration. It is the registration of the deed or the
instrument that is the operative act that conveys or affects
the land. (Sec. 51, P.D. No. 1529).
In cases of double sale of titled land, it is a well-settled rule
that the buyer who first registers the sale in good faith
acquires a better right to the land. (Art. 1544, Civil Code).
Persons dealing with property covered by Torrens title are
not required to go beyond what appears on its face.
(Orquiola v. CA 386, SCRA 301, [2002]; Domingo v. Races 401
SCRA 197, [2003]). Thus, absent any showing that RR knew
about, or ought to have known the prior sale of the land to
PP or that he acted in bad faith, and being first to register the
sale, RR acquired a good and a clean title to the property as
against PP.
Equitable Mortgage
(O19n9 210) D ecember 1970, Juliet, a widow, borrowed from
Romeo P4,000.00 and, as security therefore, she executed a
deed of mortgage over one of her two (2) registered lots
which has a market value of P15,000.00. The document and
the certificate of title of the property were delivered to
Romeo.
On 2 June 1971, Juliet obtained an additional sum of P3,000
from Romeo. On this date, however, Romeo caused the
preparation of a deed of absolute sale of the above property,
to which Juliet affixed her signature without first reading the
document. The consideration indicated is P7,000.00. She
thought that this document was similar to the first she signed.
When she reached home, her son X, after reading the
duplicate copy of the deed, informed her that what she signed
was not a mortgage but a deed of absolute sale. On the
following day, 3 June 1971, Juliet, accompanied by X, went
back to Romeo and demanded the reformation it, Romeo
prepared and signed a document wherein, as vendee in the
deed of sale above mentioned, he obligated and bound
himself to resell the land to Juliet or her heirs and successors
for the same consideration as reflected in the deed of sale
(P7,000) within a period of two
that should the Vendor (Juliet) fail to exercise her right to
redeem within the said period, the conveyance shall be
deemed absolute and irrevocable. Romeo did not take
possession of the property. He did not pay the taxes thereon.
Juliet died in January I973 without having repurchased the
property. Her only surviving heir, her son X, failed to
repurchase the property on or before 3 June 1973. In 1975,
Romeo sold the property to Y for P50,000.00. Upon learning
of the sale, X filed an action for the nullification of the sale
and for the recovery of the property on the ground that the
so-called deed of absolute sale executed by his mother was
merely an equitable mortgage, taking into account the
inadequacy of the price and the failure of Romeo to take
possession of the property and to pay the taxes thereon.
Romeo and Y maintain that there was a valid absolute sale
and that the document signed by the former on 3 June 1973
was merely a promise to sell. a) If you were the Judge, would
you uphold the theory of
X? b) If you decide in favor of Romeo and Y, would you
uphold the validity of the promise to sell?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. I will not uphold the theory of X for the nullification of
the sale and for the recovery of the property on the ground
that the so-called sale was only an equitable mortgage. An
equitable mortgage may arise only if, in truth, the sale was one
with the right of repurchase. The facts of the case state that
the right to repurchase was granted after the absolute deed of
sale was executed. Following the rule in Cruzo vs. Carriaga
(174 SCRA 330), a deed of repurchase executed independently
of the deed of sale where the two stipulations are found in
two instruments instead of one document, the right of
repurchase would amount only to one option granted by the
buyer to the seller. Since the contract cannot be upheld as a
contract of sale with the right to repurchase, Art. 1602 of the
Civil Code on equitable mortgage will not apply. The rule
could have been different if both deeds were executed on the
same occasion or date, in which case, under the ruling in
spouses Claravall v. CA (190 SCRA 439), the contract may still
be sustained as an equitable mortgage, given the
circumstances expressed in Art. 1602. The reserved right to
repurchase is then deemed an original intention.
B. If I were to decide in favor of Romeo and Y, I would not
uphold the validity of the promise to sell, so as to enforce it
by an action for specific performance. The promise to sell
would only amount to a mere offer and, therefore, it is not
enforceable unless it was sought to be exercised before a
withdrawal or denial thereof.
Even assuming the facts given at the end of the case, there
would have been no separate consideration for such promise
to sell. The contract would at most amount to an option
which again may not be the basis for an action for specific
performance.
Equitable Mortgage vs. Sale (2005)
On July 14, 2004, Pedro executed in favor of Juan a Deed of
Absolute Sale over a parcel of land covered by TCT No.
Page 93 of 119
6245. It appears in the Deed of Sale that Pedro received X sold a parcel of land to Y on 01
January 2002, payment
from Juan P120,000.00 as purchase price. However, Pedro
retained the owner's duplicate of said title. Thereafter, Juan,
as lessor, and Pedro, as lessee, executed a contract of lease
over the property for a period of one (1) year with a monthly
rental of Pl,000.00. Pedro, as lessee, was also obligated to pay
the realty taxes on the property during the period of lease.
Subsequently, Pedro filed a complaint against Juan for the
reformation of the Deed of Absolute Sale, alleging that the
transaction covered by the deed was an equitable mortgage.
In his verified answer to the complaint, Juan alleged that the
property was sold to him under the Deed of Absolute Sale,
and interposed counterclaims to recover possession of the
property and to compel Pedro to turn over to him the
owner's duplicate of title. Resolve the case with reasons. (6%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The complaint of Pedro against Juan should be dismissed.
The instances when a contract — regardless of its
nomenclature — may be presumed to be an equitable
mortgage are enumerated in Article 1602 of the Civil Code:
"Art. 1602. The contract shall be presumed to be an equitable
mortgage, in any of the following cases:
1 When the price of a sale with right to repurchase is
unusually inadequate:
2 When the vendor remains in possession as lessee or
otherwise;
3 When upon or after the expiration of the right to
repurchase another instrument extending the period of redemption
or granting a new period is executed;
4 When the purchaser retains for himself a part of the
purchase price;
5 When the vendor binds himself to pay the taxes on the
thing sold;
6 In any other case where it may be fairly inferred that the
real intention of the parties is that the transaction shall secure the
payment of a debt or the performance of any other obligation.
"In any of the foregoing cases, any money, fruits, or other
benefit to be received by the vendee as rent or otherwise
shall be considered as interest which shall be subject to the
usury laws."
Article 1604 states that "the provisions of article 1602 shall
also apply to a contract purporting to be an absolute sale."
For Articles 1602 and 1604 to apply, two requisites must
concur: 1) the parties entered into a contract denominated as
a contract of sale; and 2) their intention was to secure an
existing debt by way of mortgage. (Heirs of Balite v. Lim,
G.R. No. 152168, December 10, 2004)
In the given case, although Pedro retained possession of the
property as lessee after the execution of the Deed of Sale,
there is no showing that the intention of the parties was to
secure an existing debt by way of mortgage. Hence, the
complaint of Pedro should be dismissed.
Immovable Property; Rescission of Contract (2003)
and delivery to be made on 01 February 2002. It was
stipulated that if payment were not to be made by Y on 01
February 2002, the sale between the parties would
automatically be rescinded. Y failed to pay on 01 February
2002, but offered to pay three days later, which payment X
refused to accept, claiming that their contract of sale had
already been rescinded. Is X’s contention correct? Why? 5%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, X is not correct. In the sale of immovable property, even
though it may have been stipulated, as in this case, that upon
failure to pay the price at the time agreed upon the rescission
of the contract shall of right take place, the vendee may pay,
even after the expiration of the period, as long as no demand
for rescission of the contract has been made upon him either
judicially or by a notarial act (Article 1592, New Civil code).
Since no demand for rescission was made on Y, either
judicially or by a notarial act, X cannot refuse to accept the
payment offered by Y three (3) days after the expiration of
the period.
This is a contract to sell and not a contract of absolute sale,
since as there has been no delivery of the land. Article 1592 of
the New Civil code is not applicable. Instead, Article 1595 of
the New Civil Code applies. The seller has two alternative
remedies: (1) specific performance, or (2) rescission or
resolution under Article 1191 of the New Civil code. In both
remedies, damages are due because of default.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, the contract was automatically rescinded upon Y’s failure
to pay on 01 February 2002. By the express terms of the
contract, there is no need for X to make a demand in order
for rescission to take place. (Article 1191, New Civil Code, Suria
v. IAC 151 SCRA 661 [1987]; U.P. v. de los
Angeles 35 SCRA 102 [1970]).
Maceda Law (2000)
Priscilla purchased a condominium unit in Makati City from
the Citiland Corporation for a price of P10 Million, payable
P3 Million down and the balance with interest thereon at 14%
per annum payable in sixty (60) equal monthly installments of
P198,333.33. They executed a Deed of Conditional Sale in
which it is stipulated that should the vendee fail to pay three
(3) successive installments, the sale shall be deemed
automatically rescinded without the necessity of judicial action
and all payments made by the vendee shall be forfeited in
favor of the vendor by way of rental for the use and
occupancy of the unit and as liquidated damages. For 46
months, Priscilla paid the monthly installments religiously, but
on the 47th and 48th months, she failed to pay. On the 49th
month, she tried to pay the installments due but the vendor
refused to receive the payments tendered by her. The
following month, the vendor sent her a notice that it was
rescinding the Deed of Conditional Sale pursuant to the
stipulation for automatic rescission, and demanded that she
vacate the premises. She replied that the contract cannot be
rescinded without judicial demand or notarial act pursuant to
Article 1592 of the Civil Code. a) Is Article 1592 applicable?
(3%) b) Can the vendor rescind the contract? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page 94 of 119
a) Article 1592 of the Civil Code does not apply to a
conditional sale. In Valarao v. CA, 304 SCRA 155, the
Supreme Court held that Article 1592 applies only to a
contract of sale and not to a Deed of Conditional Sale where
the seller has reserved title to the property until full payment
of the purchase price. The law applicable is the Maceda Law.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) No, the vendor cannot rescind the contract under the
circumstances. Under the Maceda Law, which is the law
applicable, the seller on installment may not rescind the
contract till after the lapse of the mandatory grace period of
30 days for every one year of installment payments, and only
after 30 days from notice of cancellation or demand for
rescission by a notarial act. In this case, the refusal of the
seller to accept payment from the buyer on the 49th month
was not justified because the buyer was entitled to 60 days
grace period and the payment was tendered within that
period. Moreover, the notice of rescission served by the seller
on the buyer was not effective because the notice was not by
a notarial act. Besides, the seller may still pay within 30 days
from such notarial notice before rescission may be effected.
All these requirements for a valid rescission were not
complied with by the seller. Hence, the rescission is invalid.
Maceda Law; Recto Law (1999)
What are the so-called "Maceda" and "Recto" laws in
connection with sales on installments? Give the most
important features of each law. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The MACEDA LAW (R.A. 655) is applicable to sales of
immovable property on installments. The most important
features are (Rillo v. CA, 247 SCRA 461):
(1) After having paid installments for at least two years, the
buyer is entitled to a mandatory grace period of one month
for every year of installment payments made, to pay the
unpaid installments without interest.
If the contract is cancelled, the seller shall refund to the
buyer the cash surrender value equivalent to fifty percent
(50%) of the total payments made, and after five years of
installments, an additional five percent (5%) every year but
not to exceed ninety percent (90%) of the total payments
made.
(2) In case the installments paid were less than 2 years, the
seller shall give the buyer a grace period of not less than 60
days. If the buyer fails to pay the installments due at the
expiration of the grace period, the seller may cancel the
contract after 30 days from receipt by the buyer of the notice
of cancellation or demand for rescission by notarial act. The
RECTO LAW (Art. 1484} refers to sale of movables
payable in installments and limiting the right of seller, in case
of default by the buyer, to one of three remedies: a) exact
fulfillment; b) cancel the sale if two or more installments
have not
been paid;
c) foreclose the chattel mortgage on the things sold,
also in case of default of two or more installments, with no
further action against the purchaser.
Option Contract (2002)
Explain the nature of an option contract. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
An OPTION CONTRACT is one granting a privilege to buy
or sell within an agreed time and at a determined price. It
must be supported by a consideration distinct from the price.
(Art. 1479 and 1482, NCC)
Option Contract; Earnest Money (1993)
LT applied with BPI to purchase a house and lot in Quezon
City, one of its acquired assets. The amount offered was
Pl,000,000.00 payable, as follows: P200,000.00 down payment,
the balance of P800,000.00 payable within 90 days from June
1, 1985. BPI accepted the offer, whereupon LT drew a check
for P200,000.00 in favor of BPI which the latter thereafter
deposited in its account. On September 5, 1985, LT wrote
BPI requesting extension until October 10, 1985 within which
to pay the balance, to which BPI agreed. On October 5, 1985,
due to the expected delay in the remittance of the needed
amount by his financier from the United States, LT wrote BPI
requesting a last extension until October 30, 1985, within
which to pay the balance. BPI denied LTs request because
another had offered to buy the same property for
P1,500,000.00. BPI cancelled its agreement with LT and
offered to return to him the amount of P200,000.00 that LT
had paid to it. On October 20, 1985, upon receipt of the
amount of P800,000.00 from his US financier, LT offered to
pay the amount by tendering a cashier's check therefor but
which BPI refused to accept. LT then filed a complaint against
BPI in the RTC for specific performance and deposited in
court the amount of P800,000.00. Is BPI legally correct in
canceling its contract with LT?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
BPI is not correct in canceling the contract with LT. In Lina
Topacio v Court of Appeals and BPI Investment (G. R No.
102606, July 3. 1993, 211 SCRA 291) the Supreme Court held
that the earnest money is part of the purchase price and is
proof of the perfection of the contract. Secondly, notarial or
judicial rescission under Art. 1592 and 1991 of the Civil Code
is necessary (Taguba v. de Leon, 132 SCRA 722.)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
BPI is correct in canceling its contract with LT but BPI must
do so by way of judicial rescission under Article 1191 Civil
Code. The law requires a judicial action, and mere notice of
rescission is insufficient if it is resisted. The law also provides
that slight breach is not a ground for rescission (Song Fo &
Co, vs, Hawaiian Phil Co., 47 Phils. 821), Delay in the
fulfillment of the obligation (Art. 1169, Civil Code) is a
ground to rescind, only if time is of the essence. Otherwise,
the court may refuse the rescission if there is a just cause for
the fixing of a period.
Perfected Sale; Acceptance of Earnest Money (2002)
Bert offers to buy Simeon’s property under the following
terms and conditions: P1 million purchase price, 10% option
money, the balance payable in cash upon the clearance of the
property of all illegal occupants. The option money is
promptly paid and Simeon clears the property of illegal
occupants in no time at all. However, when Bert tenders
payment of the balance and ask Simeon for the deed
for absolute sale, Simeon suddenly has a change of heart, May Adela still exercise her right
of redemption? Explain.
claiming that the deal is disadvantageous to him as he has
found out that the property can fetch three time the agreed
purchase price. Bert seeks specific performance but Simeon
contends that he has merely given Bert an option to buy and
nothing more, and offers to return the option money which
Bert refuses to accept.
B. Will Bert’s action for specific performance prosper?
Explain. (4%)
C. May Simeon justify his refusal to proceed with the sale by
the fact that the deal is financially disadvantageous to him?
Explain. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B. Bert’s action for specific performance will prosper because
there was a binding agreement of sale, not just an option
contract. The sale was perfected upon acceptance by Simeon
of 10% of the agreed price. This amount is in really earnest
money which, under Art. 1482, ―shall be considered as part of
the price and as proof of the perfection of the contract.‖
(Topacio v. CA, 211 SCRA 291 [1992]; Villongco Realty v.
Bormaheco, 65 SCRA 352 [1975]).
C. Simeon cannot justify his refusal to proceed with the sale by
the fact that the deal is financially disadvantageous to him.
Having made a bad bargain is not a legal ground for pulling
out a biding contract of sale, in the absence of some actionable
wrong by the other party (Vales
v. Villa, 35 Phil 769 [1916]), and no such wrong has been
committed by Bert.
Redemption; Legal; Formalities (2001)
Betty and Lydia were co-owners of a parcel of land. Last
January 31, 2001, when she paid her real estate tax, Betty
discovered that Lydia had sold her share to Emma on
November 10, 2000. The following day, Betty offered to
redeem her share from Emma, but the latter replied that
Betty's right to redeem has already prescribed. Is Emma
correct or not? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Emma, the buyer, is not correct. Betty can still enforce her
right of legal redemption as a co-owner. Article 1623 of the
Civil Code gives a co-owner 30 days from written notice of
the sale by the vendor to exercise his right of legal
redemption. In the present problem, the 30-day period for the
exercise by Betty of her right of redemption had not even
begun to run because no notice in writing of the sale appears
to have been given to her by Lydia.
Redemption; Legal; Formalities (2002)
Adela and Beth are co-owners of a parcel of land. Beth sold
her undivided share of the property to Xandro, who promptly
notified Adela of the sale and furnished the latter a copy of
the deed of absolute sale. When Xandro presented the deed
for registration, the register of deeds also notified Adela of
the sale, enclosing a copy of the deed with the notice.
However, Adela ignored the notices. A year later, Xandro
filed a petition for the partition of the property. Upon receipt
of summons, Adela immediately tendered the requisite
amount for the redemption. Xandro contends that Adela lost
her right of redemption after the expiration of 30 days from
her receipt of the notice of the sale given by him.
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Adela may still exercise her right of redemption
notwithstanding the lapse of more than 30 days from notice
of the sale given to her because Article 1623 of the New Civil
Code requires that the notice in writing of the sale must come
from the prospective vendor or vendor as the case may be. In
this case, the notice of the sale was given by the vendee and
the Register of Deeds. The period of 30 days never tolled. She
can still avail of that right.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Adela can no longer exercise her right of redemption. As
co-owner, she had only 30 days from the time she received
written notice of the sale which in this case took the form of a
copy of the deed of sale being given to her (Conejero v. CA, 16
SCRA 775 [1966]). The law does not prescribe any particular
form of written notice, nor any distinctive method for
notifying the redemptioner (Etcuban v. CA, 148 SCRA 507
[1987]). So long as the redemptioner was informed in writing,
he has no cause to complain (Distrito v. CA, 197 SCRA 606, 609
[1991]). In fact, in Distrito, a written notice was held
unnecessary where the co-owner had actual knowledge of the
sale, having acted as middleman and being present when the
vendor signed the deed of sale.
Right of First Refusal; Lessee; Effect (1996)
Ubaldo is the owner of a building which has been leased by
Remigio for the past 20 years. Ubaldo has repeatedly assured
Remigio that if he should decide to sell the building, he will
give Remigio the right of first refusal. On June 30, 1994,
Ubaldo informed Remigio that he was willing to sell the
building for P5 Million. The following day, Remigio sent a
letter to Ubaldo offering to buy the building at P4.5 Million.
Ubaldo did not reply. One week later, Remigio received a
letter from Santos informing him that the building has been
sold to him by Ubaldo for P5 Million, and that he will not
renew Remigio's lease when it expires. Remigio filed an action
against Ubaldo and Santos for cancellation of the sale, and to
compel Ubaldo to execute a deed of absolute sale in his favor,
based on his right of first refusal. a) Will the action prosper?
Explain. b) If Ubaldo had given Remigio an option to
purchase the
building instead of a right of first refusal, will your
answer be the same? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the action to compel Ubaldo to execute the deed of
absolute sale will not prosper. According to Ang Yu v. Court
of Appeals (238 SCRA 602), the right of first refusal is not
based on contract but is predicated on the provisions of
human relations and, therefore, its violation is predicated on
quasi-delict. Secondly, the right of first refusal implies that the
offer of the person in whose favor that right was given must
conform with the same terms and conditions as those given
to the offeree. In this case, however, Remigio was offering
only P4.5 Million instead of P5 Million.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, the action will not prosper. The lessee's right of first
refusal does not go so far as to give him the power to dictate
on the lessor the price at which the latter should sell
his property. Upon the facts given, the lessor had sufficiently
complied with his commitment to give the lessee a right of
first refusal when he offered to sell the property to the lessee
for P5 Million, which was the same price he got in selling it to
Santos. He certainly had the right to treat the lessee's
counter-offer of a lesser amount as a rejection of his offer to
sell at P5 Million. Thus, he was free to find another buyer
upon receipt of such unacceptable counter-offer (Art. 1319.
NCC).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the answer will be the same. The action will not prosper
because an option must be supported by a consideration
separate and distinct from the purchase price. In this case
there is no separate consideration. Therefore, the option may
be withdrawn by Ubaldo at any time. (Art. 1324, NCC)
Right of First Refusal; Lessee; Effect (1998)
In a 20-year lease contract over a building, the lessee is
expressly granted a right of first refusal should the lessor
decide to sell both the land and building. However, the lessor
sold the property to a third person who knew about the lease
and in fact agreed to respect it. Consequently, the lessee
brings an action against both the lessor-seller and the buyer
(a) to rescind the sale and (b) to compel specific performance
of his right of first refusal in the sense that the lessor should
be ordered to execute a deed of absolute sale in favor of the
lessee at the same price. The defendants contend that the
plaintiff can neither seek rescission of the sale nor compel
specific performance of a "mere" right of first refusal. Decide
the case. [5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The action filed by the lessee, for both rescission of the
offending sale and specific performance of the right of first
refusal which was violated, should prosper. The ruling in
Equatorial Realty Development, Inc. vs. Mayfair Theater, Inc.
(264 SCRA 483), a case with similar facts, sustains both rights
of action because the buyer in the subsequent sale knew the
existence of right of first refusal, hence in bad faith.
ANOTHER ANSWER:
The action to rescind the sale and to compel the right to first
refusal will not prosper. (Ang Yu Asuncion vs. CA, 238 SCRA
602). The Court ruled in a unanimous en banc decision that
the right of first refusal is not founded upon contract but on a
quasi-delictual relationship covered by the principles of
human relations and unjust enrichment (Art. 19, et seq. Civil
Code). Hence the only action that will prosper according to
the Supreme Court is an "action for damages in a proper
forum for the purpose."
Right of Repurchase (1993)
On January 2, 1980, A and B entered into a contract whereby
A sold to B a parcel of land for and in consideration of
P10.000.00. A reserving to himself the right to repurchase the
same. Because they were friends, no period was agreed upon
for the repurchase of the property. 1) Until when must A
exercise his right of repurchase? 2) If A fails to redeem the
property within the allowable period, what would you advise
B to do for his better protection?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) A can exercise his right of repurchase within four (4) years
from the date of the contract (Art. 1606, Civil Code).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2} I would advise B to file an action for consolidation of title
and obtain a judicial order of consolidation which must be
recorded in the Registry of Property (Art. 1607. Civil Code).
Transfer of Ownership; Non-Payment of the Price (1991)
Pablo sold his car to Alfonso who issued a postdated check
in full payment therefor. Before the maturity of the check,
Alfonso sold the car to Gregorio who later sold it to Gabriel.
When presented for payment, the check issued by Alfonso
was dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason that he,
Alfonso, had already closed his account even before he issued
his check. Pablo sued to recover the car from Gabriel alleging
that he (Pablo) had been unlawfully deprived of it by reason
of Alfonso's deception. Will the suit prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The suit will not prosper because Pablo was not
unlawfully deprived of the car although he was unlawfully
deprived of the price. The perfection of the sale and the
delivery of the car was enough to allow Alfonso to have a
right of ownership over the car, which can be lawfully
transferred to Gregorio. Art. 559 applies only to a person
who is in possession in good faith of the property, and not to
the owner thereof. Alfonso, in the problem, was the owner,
and, hence, Gabriel acquired the title to the car.
Non-payment of the price in a contract of sale does not
render ineffective the obligation to deliver. The obligation to
deliver a thing is different from the obligation to pay its
price. EDCA Publishing Co. v. Santos (1990)
Transfer of Ownership; Risk of Loss (1990)
D sold a second-hand car to E for P150,000.00 The
agreement between D and E was that half of the purchase
price, or P75,000.00, shall be paid upon delivery of the car to
E and the balance of P75,000.00 shall be paid in five equal
monthly installments of P15,000.00 each. The car was
delivered to E, and E paid the amount of P75.000.00 to D.
Less than one month thereafter, the car was stolen from E's
garage with no fault on E's part and was never recovered. Is E
legally bound to pay the said unpaid balance of P75.000.00?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, E is legally bound to pay the balance of P75,000.00. The
ownership of the car sold was acquired by E from the
moment it was delivered to him. Having acquired ownership,
E bears the risk of the loss of the thing under the doctrine of
res perit domino. [Articles 1496. 1497, Civil Code).
LEASE
Extinguishment; Total Distruction; Leased Property (1993)
A is the owner of a lot on which he constructed a building in
the total cost of P10,000,000.00. Of that amount B
contributed P5,000,000.00 provided that the building as a phenomenon are still
unpredictable despite the advances in
whole would be leased to him (B) for a period of ten years
from January 1. 1985 to December 31, 1995 at a rental of
P100,000.00 a year. To such condition, A agreed. On
December 20, 1990, the building was totally burned. Soon
thereafter, A's workers cleared the debris and started
construction of a new building. B then served notice upon A
that he would occupy the building being constructed upon
completion, for the unexpired portion of the lease term,
explaining that he had spent partly for the construction of the
building that was burned. A rejected B's demand. Did A has a
right in rejecting B's demand?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. A was correct in rejecting the demand of B. As a result
of the total destruction of the building by fortuitous event,
the lease was extinguished. (Art. 1655, Civil Code.)
Implied New Lease (1999)
Under what circumstances would an implied new lease or a
tacita reconduccion arise? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
An implied new lease or tacita reconduccion arises if at the
end of the contract the lessee should continue enjoying the
thing leased for 15 days with the acquiescence of the lessor,
and unless a notice to the contrary by either parties has
previously been given (Art. 1670). In short, in order that
there may be tacita reconduccion there must be expiration of
the contract; there must be continuation of possession for 15
days or more; and there must be no prior demand to vacate.
Lease of Rural Lands (2000)
In 1995, Mark leased the rice land of Narding in Nueva Ecija
for an annual rental of P1,000.00 per hectare. In 1998, due to
the El Nino phenomenon, the rice harvest fell to only 40%
of the average harvest for the previous years. Mark asked
Narding for a reduction of the rental to P500.00 per hectare
for that year but the latter refused. Is Mark legally entitled to
such reduction? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Mark is not entitled to a reduction. Under Article 1680 of
the Civil Code, the lessee of a rural land is entitled to a
reduction of the rent only in case of loss of more than 1/2 of
the fruits through extraordinary and unforeseen fortuitous
events. While the drought brought about by the "El Nino"
phenomenon may be classified as extraordinary, it is not
considered as unforeseen.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, Mark is entitled to a reduction of the rent. His loss was more
than 1/2 of the fruits and the loss was due to an extraordinary and
unforeseen fortuitous event. The "El Nino" phenomenon is
extraordinary because it is uncommon; it does not occur with
regularity. And neither could the parties have foreseen its
occurrence. The event should be foreseeable by the parties so that
the lessee can change the time for his planting, or refrain from
planting, or take steps to avoid the loss. To be foreseeable, the time
and the place of the occurrence, as well as the magnitude of the
adverse effects of the fortuitous event must be capable of being
predicted. Since the exact place, the exact time, and the exact
magnitude of the adverse effects of the "El Nino"
science, the phenomenon is considered unforeseen.
Leasee & Lessor; Rights and Obligations (1990)
A vacant lot several blocks from the center of the town was
leased by its owner to a young businessman B for a term of
fifteen (15) years renewal upon agreement of the parties.
After taking possession of the lot, the lessee built thereon a
building of mixed materials and a store. As the years passed,
he expanded his business, earning more profits. By the tenth
(10th) year of his possession, he was able to build a three
(3)-story building worth at least P300,000.00. Before the end
of the term of the lease, B negotiated with the landowner for
its renewal, but despite their attempts to do so, they could not
agree on the new conditions for the renewal. Upon the
expiration of the term of the lease, the landowner asked B to
vacate the premises and remove his building and other
improvements. B refused unless he was reimbursed for
necessary and useful expenses. B claimed that he was a
possessor and builder in good faith, with right of retention.
This issue is now before the court for resolution in a pending
litigation. a) What are the rights of B? b) What are the rights
of the landowner?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) B has the right to remove the building and other
improvements unless the landowner decides to retain the
building at the time of the termination of the lease and pay
the lessee one-half of the value of the improvements at that
time. The lessee may remove the building even though the
principal thing may suffer damage but B should not cause any
more impairment upon the property leased than is necessary.
The claim of B that he was a possessor and builder in good
faith with the right of retention is not tenable. B is not a
builder in good faith because as lessee he does not claim
ownership over the property leased.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) The landowner/lessor may refuse to reimburse 1/2 of the
value of the improvements and require the lessee to remove
the improvements. [Article 1678, Civil Code),
Leasee; Death Thereof; Effects (1997)
Stating briefly the thesis to support your answer to each of
the following cases, will the death - a) of the lessee extinguish
the lease agreement?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The death of the lessee will not extinguish the lease
agreement, since lease is not personal in character and the
right is transmissible to the heirs. (Heirs of Dimaculangan vs.
IAC, 170 SCRA 393).
Option to Buy; Expired (2001)
On January 1, 1980, Nestor leased the fishpond of Mario for
a period of three years at a monthly rental of P1,000.00, with
an option to purchase the same during the period of the lease
for the price of P500,000.00. After the expiration of the
three-year period, Mario allowed Nestor to remain in the
leased premises at the same rental rate. On June 15, 1983,
Nestor tendered the amount of P500,000.00 to Mario and
demanded that the latter execute a deed of absolute sale of
the fishpond in his favor. Mario refused, on the ground that
Nestor no longer had an option to buy the fishpond.
Nestor filed an action for specific performance. Will the sublessee can invoke no right
superior to that of his
action prosper or not? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the action will not prosper. The implied renewal of the
lease on a month-to-month basis did not have the effect of
extending the life of the option to purchase which expired at
the end of the original lease period. The lessor is correct in
refusing to sell on the ground that the option had expired.
Sublease vs. Assignment of Lease; Rescission of Contract
(2005)
Under a written contract dated December 1, 1989, Victor
leased his land to Joel for a period of five (5) years at a
monthly rental of Pl,000.00, to be increased to Pl,200.00 and
Pl,500.00 on the third and fifth year, respectively. On January
1, 1991, Joel subleased the land to Conrad for a period of
two (2) years at a monthly rental of Pl,500.00.
On December 31, 1992, Joel assigned the lease to his
compadre, Ernie, who acted on the belief that Joel was the
rightful owner and possessor of the said lot. Joel has been
faithfully paying the stipulated rentals to Victor. When Victor
learned on May 18, 1992 about the sublease and assignment,
he sued Joel, Conrad and Ernie for rescission of the contract
of lease and for damages.
a) Will the action prosper? If so, against whom?
Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the action of for rescission of the contract of lease and for
damages will prosper. Under Article 1659 of the Civil Code, "if the
lessor or the lessee should not comply with the obligations set forth
in Articles 1654 and 1657, the aggrieved party may ask for rescission
of the contract and indemnification for damages, or only the latter,
allowing the contract to remain in force." Article 1649 of the same
Code provides that "the lessee cannot assign the lease without the
consent of the lessor, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary."
Consent is necessary because assignment would cause novation by
the substitution of one of the parties.
(Bangayan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123581, August 29,
1997) However, the rule is different in the case of subleasing.
When there is no express prohibition in the Contract of Lease,
the lessee may sublet the thing leased. (Art. 1650, Civil Code)
In the given case, when Joel assigned the lease to Ernie, the
same was done without the consent of Victor. The assignment
is void. However, there is no indication that in the written
contract of lease between Victor and Joel, that subleasing the
premises is prohibited. Hence, the sublease of Joel with
Conrad is valid. In view of the foregoing, Victor can file the
case of rescission and damages only against Joel and Ernie but
he cannot include Conrad.
b) In case of rescission, discuss the rights and
obligations of the parties. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Rescission of the lease necessarily requires the return of the thing
to the lessor. Hence, the judgment granting rescission of the
contract should also order the lessee to vacate and return the
leased premises to the lessor. However, since the
sublessor, the moment the sublessor is duly ousted from the
premises, the sublessee has no leg to stand on. The sublessee's
right, if any, is to demand reparation for damages from his
sublessor, should the latter be at fault.
(Heirs ofSevilla v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 49823, February
26, 1992).
Sublease; Delay in Payment of Rentals (1994)
In January 1993, Four-Gives Corporation leased the entire
twelve floors of the GQS Towers Complex, for a period of
ten years at a monthly rental of P3,000,000.00. There is a
provision in the contract that the monthly rentals should be
paid within the first five days of the month. For the month of
March, May, June, October and December 1993, the rentals
were not paid on time with some rentals being delayed up to
ten days. The delay was due to the heavy paper work
involved in processing the checks.
Four-Gives Corporation also subleased five of the twelve
floors to wholly-owned subsidiaries. The lease contract
expressly prohibits the assignment of the lease contract or
any portion thereof. The rental value of the building has
increased by 50% since its lease to Four-Gives Corporation.
1) Can the building owner eject Four-Gives Corporation on
grounds of the repeated delays in the payment of the rent? 2}
Can the building owner ask for the cancellation of the
contract for violation of the provision against assignment?
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
1) a) The "repeated delays" in the payment of rentals would,
at best, be a slight or casual breach which does not furnish a
ground for ejectment especially because the delays were only
due to heavy paper work. Note that there was not even a
demand for payment obviously because the delay lasted for
only a few days (10 days being the longest), at the end of
which time payments were presumably made and were
accepted. There was, therefore, no default. Note also that
there was no demand made upon the lessee to vacate the
premises for non-payment of the monthly rent. There is,
therefore, no cause of action for ejectment arising from the
"repeated delays".
b) The building owner cannot eject Four-Gives Corporation
on the ground of repeated delays in the payment of rentals.
The delay in the payment of the rentals is minimal and cannot
be made the basis of an ejectment suit. The delay was due to
the heavy paperwork involved in processing the checks. It
would be otherwise if the lease contract stated that in the
payment of rentals within the first five days of the month, time
is of the essence or that the lessee will be in delay if he falls to
pay within the agreed period without need of demand. In this
case he can judicially eject the tenant on the ground of lack of
payment of the price stipulated after a demand to vacate,
(Article 1673(2), New Civil Code),
c) No. Resolution of a contract will not be permitted for a
slight or casual breach, but only for such substantial and
fundamental breach as would defeat the very object of the
parties in making the agreement.(Zepeda v. CA, 216 SCRA
293]. The delay of ten (10)) days is not such a substantial
and fundamental breach to warrant the resolution of the A, and that he has not been remiss
in the payment of rent.
contract of lease specially so when the delay was due to the
heavy paperwork in processing the checks.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2) a) No. Sublease is different from assignment of lease.
Sublease, not being prohibited by the contract of lease is
therefore allowed and cannot be invoked as a ground to
cancel the lease,
b) No, the lessor cannot have the lease cancelled for alleged
violation of the provision against assignment. The lessee did
not assign the lease, or any portion thereof, to the subsidiaries.
It merely subleased some floors to its subsidiaries. Since the
problem does not state that the contract of lease contains a
prohibition against sublease, the sublease is lawful, the rule
being that in the absence of an express prohibition a lessee
may sublet the thing leased, in whole or in part, without
prejudice to his/its responsibility to the lessor for the
performance of the contract.
Sublease; Sublessee; Liability (1999)
May a lessee sublease the property leased without the consent
of the lessor, and what are the respective liabilities of the
lessee and sub-lessee to the lessor in case of such sublease?
(3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, provided that there is no express prohibition against
subleasing. Under the law, when in the contract of lease of
things there is no express prohibition, the lessee may sublet
the thing leased without prejudice to his responsibility for the
performance of the contract toward the lessor. [Art, 1650) In
case there is a sublease of the premises being leased, the
sublessee is bound to the lessor for all the acts which refer to
the use and preservation of the thing leased in the manner
stipulated between the lessor and the lessee. (Art. 1651} The
sublessee is subsidiarily liable to the lessor for any rent due
from the lessee. However, the sublessee shall not be
responsible beyond the amount of the rent due from him.
(Art. 1652) As to the lessee, the latter shall still be responsible
to the lessor for the rents; bring to the knowledge of the lessor
every usurpation or untoward act which any third person may
have committed or may be openly preparing to carry out upon
the thing leased; advise the owner the need for all repairs; to
return the thing leased upon the termination of the lease just
as he received it, save what has been lost or impaired by the
lapse of time or by ordinary wear and tear or from an
inevitable cause; responsible for the deterioration or loss of
the thing leased, unless he proves that it took place without his
fault.
Sublease; Sublessee; Liability (2000)
A leased his house to B with a condition that the leased premises
shall be used for residential purposes only. B subleased the
house to C who used it as a warehouse for fabrics. Upon learning
this, A demanded that C stop using the house as a warehouse,
but C ignored the demand, A then filed an action for ejectment
against C, who raised the defense that there is no privity of
contract between him and
Will the action prosper? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the action will prosper. Under Article 1651 of the Civil
Code, the sublessee is bound to the lessor for all acts which
refer to the use and preservation of the thing leased in the
manner stipulated between the lessor and the lessee.
Sublease; Validity; Assignment of Sublease (1990)
A leased a parcel of land to B for a period of two years. The
lease contract did not contain any express prohibition against
the assignment of the leasehold or the subleasing of the
leased premises. During the third year of the lease, B
subleased the land to C. In turn, C, without A's consent,
assigned the sublease to D. A then filed an action for the
rescission of the contract of lease on the ground that B has
violated the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. If
you were the judge, how would you decide the case,
particularly with respect to the validity of:
(a) B's sublease to C? and
(b) C's assignment of the sublease to D?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) B's sublease to C is valid. Although the original period
of two years for the lease contract has expired, the lease
continued with the acquiescence of the lessor during the third
year. Hence, there has been an implied renewal of the contract
of lease. Under Art. 1650 of the Civil Code, the lessee may
sublet the thing leased, in whole or in part, when the contract
of lease does not contain any express prohibition. [Articles
1650, 1670 Civil Code). A's action for rescission should
not prosper on this ground.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) C's assignment of the sublease to D is not valid. Under
Art. 1649, of the Civil Code, the lessee cannot assign the lease
without the consent of the lessor, unless there is a stipulation
to the contrary. There is no such stipulation in the contract.
If the law prohibits assignment of the lease without the
consent of the lessor, all the more would the assignment of a
sublease be prohibited without such consent. This is a
violation of the contract and is a valid ground for rescission
by A.
COMMON CARRIERS
Extraordinary Diligence (2000)
Despite a warning from the police that an attempt to hijack a
PAL plane will be made in the following week, the airline did
not take extra precautions, such as frisking of passengers, for
fear of being accused of violating human rights. Two days
later, an armed hijacker did attempt to hijack a PAL flight to
Cebu. Although he was subdued by the other passengers, he
managed to fire a shot which hit and killed a female passenger.
The victim's parents sued the airline for breach of contract,
and the airline raised the defense of force majeure. Is the
airline liable or not? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The airline is liable. In case of death of a passenger, common
carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
negligently, unless they prove that they observed
extraordinary diligence (Article 1756, Civil Code). The
failure of the airline to take extra precautions despite a negate sale because they indicate
that ownership over the
police warning that an attempt to hijack the plane would be
made, was negligence on the part of the airline. Being
negligent, it is liable for the death of the passenger. The
defense of force majeure is not tenable since the shooting
incident would not have happened had the airline taken steps
that could have prevented the hijacker from boarding the
plane.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Under Article 1763 of the Civil Code, the common carrier is
not required to observe extraordinary diligence in preventing
injury to its passengers on account of the willful acts or
negligence of other passengers or of strangers. The common
carrier, in that case, is required to exercise only the diligence of
a good father of a family; hence, the failure of the airline to
take EXTRA precautions in frisking the passengers and by
leaving that matter to the security personnel of the airport,
does not constitute a breach of that duty so as to make the
airline liable. Besides, the use of irresistible force by the
hijackers was farce majeure that could not have been
prevented even by the observance of extraordinary diligence.
AGENCY
Agency (2003)
Jo-Ann asked her close friend, Aissa, to buy some groceries
for her in the supermarket. Was there a nominate contract
entered into between Jo-Ann and Aissa? In the affirmative,
what was it? Explain. 5%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, there was a nominate contract. On the assumption that
Aissa accepted the request of her close friend Jo-Ann to but
some groceries for her in the supermarket, what they entered
into was a nominate contract of Agency. Article 1868 of the
New Civil Code provides that by the contract of agency a
person binds himself to render some service or to do
something in representation or on behalf of another, with the
consent or authority of the latter.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, they entered into a nominate contract of lease to service
in the absence of a relation of principal and agent between
them (Article 1644, New Civil Code).
Agency vs. Sale (2000)
A foreign manufacturer of computers and a Philippine
distributor entered into a contract whereby the distributor
agreed to order 1,000 units of the manufacturer's computers
every month and to resell them in the Philippines at the
manufacturer's suggested prices plus 10%. All unsold units at
the end of the year shall be bought back by the manufacturer
at the same price they were ordered. The manufacturer shall
hold the distributor free and harmless from any claim for
defects in the units. Is the agreement one for sale or agency?
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The contract is one of agency, not sale. The notion of sale is
negated by the following indicia: (1) the price is fixed by the
manufacturer with the 10% mark-up constituting the commission; (2)
the manufacturer reacquires the unsold units at exactly the same
price; and (3) warranty for the units was borne by the manufacturer.
The foregoing indicia
units was never intended to transfer to the distributor.
Agency; coupled with an interest (2001)
Richard sold a large parcel of land in Cebu to Leo for P100
million payable in annual installments over a period of ten
years, but title will remain with Richard until the purchase
price is fully paid. To enable Leo to pay the price, Richard
gave him a power-of-attorney authorizing him to subdivide
the land, sell the individual lots, and deliver the proceeds to
Richard, to be applied to the purchase price. Five years later,
Richard revoked the power of attorney and took over the
sale of the subdivision lots himself. Is the revocation valid or
not? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The revocation is not valid. The power of attorney given to
the buyer is irrevocable because it is coupled with an interest:
the agency is the means of fulfilling the obligation of the
buyer to pay the price of the land (Article 1927, CC). In other
words, a bilateral contract (contract to buy and sell the land)
is dependent on the agency.
Agency; Guarantee Commission (2004)
As an agent, AL was given a guarantee commission, in
addition to his regular commission, after he sold 20 units of
refrigerators to a customer, HT Hotel. The customer,
however, failed to pay for the units sold. AL’s principal,
DRBI, demanded from AL payment for the customer’s
accountability. AL objected, on the ground that his job was
only to sell and not to collect payment for units bought by
the customer. Is AL’s objection valid? Can DRBI collect
from him or not? Reason. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, AL's objection is not valid and DRBI can collect from
AL. Since AL accepted a guarantee commission, in addition
to his regular commission, he agreed to bear the risk of
collection and to pay the principal the proceeds of the sale on
the same terms agreed upon with the purchaser (Article 1907,
Civil Code)
Agency; Real Estate Mortgage (2004)
CX executed a special power of attorney authorizing DY to
secure a loan from any bank and to mortgage his property
covered by the owner’s certificate of title. In securing a loan
from MBank, DY did not specify that he was acting for CX
in the transaction with said bank. Is CX liable for the bank
loan? Why or why not? Justify your answer. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CX is liable for the bank loan because he authorized the
mortgage on his property to secure the loan contracted by
DY. If DY later defaults and fails to pay the loan, CX is liable
to pay. However, his liability is limited to the extent of the
value of the said property. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: CX
is not personally liable to the bank loan because it was
contracted by DY in his personal capacity. Only the property
of CX is liable. Hence, while CX has authorized the mortgage
on his property to secure the loan of DY, the bank cannot
sue CX to collect the loan in case DY defaults thereon. The
bank can only foreclose the property of CX.
And if the proceeds of the foreclosure are not sufficient to All those contracts were
executed by B while A was
pay the loan in full, the bank cannot run after CX for the
deficiency.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
While as a general rule the principal is not liable for the
contract entered into by his agent in case the agent acted in
his own name without disclosing his principal, such rule does
not apply if the contract involves a thing belonging to the
principal. In such case, the principal is liable under Article
1883 of the Civil Code. The contract is deemed made on his
behalf (Sy-juco v. Sy-juco 40 Phil. 634 [1920]).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
CX would not be liable for the bank loan. CX's property
would also not be liable on the mortgage. Since DY did not
specify that he was acting for CX in the transaction with the
bank, DY in effect acted in his own name. In the case of
Rural Bank of Bombon v. CA, 212 SCRA, (1992), the Supreme
Court, under the same facts, ruled that "in order to bind the
principal by a mortgage on real property executed by an
agent, it must upon its face purport to be made, signed and
sealed in the name of the principal, otherwise, it will bind the
agent only. It is not enough merely that the agent was in fact
authorized to make the mortgage, if he, has not acted in the
name of the principal. Neither is it ordinarily sufficient that in
the mortgage the agent describes himself as acting by virtue
of a power of attorney, if in fact the agent has acted in his
own name and has set his own hand and seal to the
mortgage. There is no principle of law by which a person can
become liable on a real estate mortgage which she never
executed in person or by attorney in fact".
Appointment of Sub-Agent (1999)
X appoints Y as his agent to sell his products in Cebu City.
Can Y appoint a sub-agent and if he does, what are the
effects of such appointment? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the agent may appoint a substitute or sub-agent if the
principal has not prohibited him from doing so, but he shall
be responsible for the acts of the substitute:
(1) when he was not given the power to appoint one;
(2) when he was given such power, but without designating
the person, and the person appointed was notoriously
incompetent or insolvent.
General Agency vs. Special Agency (1992)
A as principal appointed B as his agent granting him general
and unlimited management over A's properties, stating that A
withholds no power from B and that the agent may execute
such acts as he may consider appropriate.
Accordingly, B leased A's parcel of land in Manila to C for
four (4) years at P60,000.00 per year, payable annually in
advance.
B leased another parcel of land of A in Caloocan City to D
without a fixed term at P3,000.00 per month payable
monthly.
B sold to E a third parcel of land belonging to A located in
Quezon City for three (3) times the price that was listed in
the inventory by A to B.
confined due to illness in the Makati Medical Center. Rule on
the validity and binding effect of each of the above contracts
upon A the principal. Explain your answers,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The agency couched in general terms comprised only acts of
administration (Art. 1877, Civil Code). The lease contract on
the Manila parcel is not valid, not enforceable and not
binding upon A. For B to lease the property to C, for more
than one (1) year, A must provide B with a special power of
attorney (Art. 1878. Civil Code).
The lease of the Caloocan City property to D is valid and
binding upon A. Since the lease is without a fixed term, it is
understood to be from month to month, since the rental is
payable monthly (Art. 1687, Civil Code).
The sale of the Quezon City parcel to E is not valid and not
binding upon A. B needed a special power of attorney to
validly sell the land (Arts. 1877 and 1878, Civil Code). The
sale of the land at a very good price does not cure the defect
of the contract arising from lack of authority
Powers of the Agent (1994)
Prime Realty Corporation appointed Nestor the exclusive
agent in the sale of lots of its newly developed subdivision.
Prime Realty told Nestor that he could not collect or receive
payments from the buyers. Nestor was able to sell ten lots to
Jesus and to collect the down payments for said lots. He did
not turn over the collections to Prime Realty. Who shall bear
the loss for Nestor's defalcation, Prime Realty or Jesus?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The general rule is that a person dealing with an agent
must inquire into the authority of that agent. In the present
case, if Jesus did not inquire into that authority, he is liable
for the loss due to Nestor's defalcation unless Article 1900,
Civil Code governs, in which case the developer corporation
bears the loss.
Art. 1900 Civil Code provides: "So far as third persons are
concerned, an act is deemed to have been performed within
the scope of the agent's authority, if such act is within the
terms of the power of attorney, as written, even if the agent
has in fact exceeded the limits of his authority according to
an understanding between the principal and the agent.
However, if Jesus made due inquiry and he was not informed
by the principal Prime Realty of the limits of Nestor's
authority. Prime Realty shall bear the loss.
b) Considering that Prime Realty Corporation only "told"
Nestor that he could not receive or collect payments, it
appears that the limitation does not appear in his written
authority or power of attorney. In this case, insofar as Jesus,
who is a third person is concerned, Nestor's acts of collecting
payments is deemed to have been performed within the scope
of his authority {Article 1900. Civil Code). Hence, the
principal is liable.
However, if Jesus was aware of the limitation of Nestor's
power as an agent, and Prime Realty Corporation does not
ratify the sale contract, then Jesus shall be liable (Article allowing the other general
partner to bind the corporation
1898. Civil Code).
Termination; Effect of Death of Agent (1997)
the following cases, will the death - (c) of an agent end an
agency?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. The death of an agent extinguishes the agency, by
express provision of par. 3, Art 1919 of the Civil Code.
PARTNERSHIP
Composition of Partnerships; Spouses; Corporations (1994)
1) Can a husband and wife form a limited partnership
to engage in real estate business, with the wife being a limited
partner?
2) Can two corporations organize a general partnership under
the Civil Code of the Philippines? 3) Can a corporation and
an individual form a general partnership?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) a) Yes. The Civil Code prohibits a husband and wife from
constituting a universal partnership. Since a limited
partnership is not a universal partnership, a husband and wife
may validly form one. b) Yes. While spouses cannot enter
into a universal partnership, they can enter into a limited
partnership or be members thereof (CIR u. Suter, etal. 27
SCRA 152).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2) a) No, A corporation is managed by its board of
directors. If the corporation were to become a partner,
co-partners would have the power to make the corporation
party to transactions in an irregular manner since the partners
are not agents subject to the control of the Board of
Directors. But a corporation may enter into a joint venture
with another corporation as long as the nature of the venture
is in line with the business authorized by its charter. (Tuason
& Co., Inc. v. Bolano, 95 Phil. 106).
b) As a general rule a corporation may not form a general
partnership with another corporation or an individual because
a corporation may not be bound by persons who are neither
directors nor officers of the corporation.
However, a corporation may form a general partnership with
another corporation or an individual provided the following
conditions are met:
1) The Articles of Incorporation of the
corporation expressly allows the corporation to enter
into partnerships;
2) The Articles of Partnership must provide that
all partners will manage the partnership, and they shall be
jointly and severally liable; and
3) In case of a foreign corporation, it must be
licensed to do business in the Philippines.
c) No. A corporation may not be a general partner because
the principle of mutual agency in general partnership
will violate the corporation law principle that only the board
of directors may bind the corporation.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
3) No, for the same reasons given in the Answer to Number
2 above.
Conveyance of a Partner’s Share Dissolution (1998)
Dielle, Karlo and Una are general partners in a merchandising
firm. Having contributed equal amounts to the capital, they
also agree on equal distribution of whatever net profit is
realized per fiscal period. After two years of operation,
however, Una conveys her whole interest in the partnership to
Justine, without the knowledge and consent of Dielle and
Karlo.
1. Is the partnership dissolved?
12%]
2. What are the rights of Justine, if any, should she desire to
participate in the management of the partnership and in the
distribution of a net profit of P360.000.00 which was realized
after her purchase of Una's interest? [3%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. No, a conveyance by a partner of his whole interest in a
partnership does not of itself dissolve the partnership in the
absence of an agreement. (Art. 1813. Civil Code)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. Justine cannot interfere or participate in the management or
administration of the partnership business or affairs. She may,
however, receive the net profits to which Una would have
otherwise been entitled. In this case, P120.000 (Art. 1813,
Civil Code)
Dissolution of Partnership (1995)
Pauline, Patricia and Priscilla formed a business partnership
for the purpose of engaging in neon advertising for a term of
five (5) years. Pauline subsequently assigned to Philip her
interest in the partnership. When Patricia and Priscilla learned
of the assignment, they decided to dissolve the partnership
before the expiration of its term as they had an unproductive
business relationship with Philip in the past. On the other
hand, unaware of the move of Patricia and Priscilla but
sensing their negative reaction to his acquisition of Pauline's
interest, Philip simultaneously petitioned for the dissolution
of the partnership.
1. Is the dissolution done by Patricia and Priscilla without
the consent of Pauline or Philip valid? Explain.
2. Does Philip have any right to petition for the
dissolution of the partnership before the expiration of its
specified term? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1, Under Art. 1830 (1) (c) of the NCC, the dissolution by
Patricia and Priscilla is valid and did not violate the contract
of partnership even though Pauline and Philip did not
consent thereto. The consent of Pauline is not necessary
because she had already assigned her interest to Philip. The
consent of Philip is not also necessary because the assignment
to him of Pauline's interest did not make him a partner, under
Art, 1813 of the NCC.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Interpreting Art. 1830 (1) (c) to mean that if one of the
partners had assigned his interest on the partnership to
another the remaining partners may not dissolve the A should be hired as Secretary. The
decision for the hiring
partnership, the dissolution by Patricia and Priscilla without
the consent of Pauline or Philip is not valid.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. No, Philip has no right to petition for dissolution because
he does not have the standing of a partner (Art. 1813 NCC).
Dissolution of Partnership; Termination (1993)
A, B and C formed a partnership for the purpose of
contracting with the Government in the construction of one
of its bridges. On June 30, 1992, after completion of the
project, the bridge was turned over by the partners to the
Government. On August 30, 1992, D, a supplier of materials
used in the project sued A for collection of the indebtedness
to him. A moved to dismiss the complaint against him on the
ground that it was the ABC partnership that is liable for the
debt. D replied that ABC partnership was dissolved upon
completion of the project for which purpose the partnership
was formed. Will you dismiss the complaint against A If you
were the Judge?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As Judge, I would not dismiss the complaint against A.
because A is still liable as a general partner for his pro rata
share of 1/3 (Art. 1816, C. C.J. Dissolution of a partnership
caused by the termination of the particular undertaking
specified in the agreement does not extinguish obligations,
which must be liquidated during the "winding up" of the
partnership affairs (Articles 1829 and 1830. par. 1-a, Civil
Code).
Effect of Death of Partner (1997)
the following cases, will the death - of a partner terminate the
partnership?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. The death of a partner will terminate the partnership, by
express provision of par. 5, Art. 1830 of the Civil Code.
Obligations of a Partner (1992)
W, X, Y and Z organized a general partnership with W and X
as industrial partners and Y and Z as capitalist partners. Y
contributed P50,000.00 and Z contributed P20,000.00 to the
common fund. By a unanimous vote of the partners, W and
X were appointed managing partners, without any
specification of their respective powers and duties.
A applied for the position of Secretary and B applied for the
position of Accountant of the partnership.
The hiring of A was decided upon by W and X, but was
opposed by Y and Z.
The hiring of B was decided upon by W and Z, but was
opposed by X and Y.
Who of the applicants should be hired by the partnership?
Explain and give your reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of A prevails because it is an act of administration which can
be performed by the duly appointed managing partners, W
and X.
B cannot be hired, because in case of a tie in the decision of
the managing partners, the deadlock must be decided by the
partners owning the controlling interest. In this case, the
opposition of X and Y prevails because Y owns the
controlling Interest (Art. 1801, Civil Code).
Obligations of a Partner; Industrial Partner (2001)
Joe and Rudy formed a partnership to operate a car repair
shop in Quezon City. Joe provided the capital while Rudy
contributed his labor and industry. On one side of their shop,
Joe opened and operated a coffee shop, while on the other
side, Rudy put up a car accessories store. May they engage in
such separate businesses? Why? [5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Joe, the capitalist partner, may engage in the restaurant
business because it is not the same kind of business the
partnership is engaged in. On the other hand, Rudy may not
engage in any other business unless their partnership
expressly permits him to do so because as an industrial
partner he has to devote his full time to the business of the
partnership [Art. 1789, CC).
Commodatum & Mutuum
Commodatum (1993)
A, upon request, loaned his passenger Jeepney to B to enable
B to bring his sick wife from Paniqui. Tarlac to the Philippine
General Hospital in Manila for treatment. On the way back to
Paniqui, after leaving his wife at the hospital, people stopped
the passenger Jeepney. B stopped for them and allowed them
to ride on board, accepting payment from them just as in the
case of ordinary passenger Jeepneys plying their route. As B
was crossing Bamban, there was an onrush of Lahar from Mt
Pinatubo, the Jeep that was loaned to him was wrecked. 1)
What do you call the contract that was entered into by
A and B with respect to the passenger Jeepney that was
loaned by A to B to transport the latter's sick wife to
Manila? 2) Is B obliged to pay A for the use of the passenger
jeepney? 3) Is B liable to A for the loss of the
Jeepney?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) The contract is called "commodatum". [Art. 1933. Civil
Code). COMMODATUM is a contract by which one of the
parties (bailor) delivers to another (bailee) something not
consumable so that the latter may use it for a certain time
and return it.
2) No, B is not obliged to pay A for the use of the passenger
Jeepney because commodatum is essentially gratuitous. (Art.
1933. Civil Code]
3) Yes, because B devoted the thing to a purpose different
from that for which it has been loaned (Art. 1942, par. 2,
Civil Code)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, because an obligation which consists in the delivery of a
determinate thing shall be extinguished if it should be lost or
destroyed without the fault of the debtor, and before he has
incurred in delay. (Art. 1262. Civil Code)
Commodatum (2005)
Before he left for Riyadh to work as a mechanic, Pedro left
his Adventure van with Tito, with the understanding that the
latter could use it for one year for his personal or family use
while Pedro works in Riyadh. He did not tell Tito that the
brakes of the van were faulty. Tito had the van tuned up and
the brakes repaired. He spent a total amount of P15,000.00.
After using the vehicle for two weeks, Tito discovered that it
consumed too much fuel. To make up for the expenses, he
leased it to Annabelle.
Two months later, Pedro returned to the Philippines and
asked Tito to return the van. Unfortunately, while being
driven by Tito, the van was accidentally damaged by a cargo
truck without his fault.
a) Who shall bear the P15,000.00 spent for the repair of
the van? Explain. (2%)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Tito must bear the P15,000.00 expenses for the van.
Generally, extraordinary expenses for the preservation of the
thing loaned are paid by the bailor, he being the owner of the
thing loaned. In this case however, Tito should bear the
expenses because he incurred the expenses without first
informing Pedro about it. Neither was the repair shown to be
urgent. Under Article 1949 of the Civil Code, bailor generally
bears the extraordinary expenses for the preservation of the
thing and should refund the said expenses if made by the
bailee; Provided, The bailee brings the same to the attention of
the bailor before incurring them, except only if the repair is
urgent that reply cannot be awaited.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The P15,000.00 spent for the repair of the van should be
borne by Pedro. Where the bailor delivers to the bailee a
non-consummable thing so that the latter may use it for a
certain time and return the identical thing, the contract
perfected is a Contract of Commodatum. (Art. 1933, Civil
Code) The bailor shall refund the extraordinary expenses
during the contract for the preservation of the thing loaned
provided the bailee brings the same to the knowledge of the
bailor before incurring the same, except when they are so
urgent that the reply to the notification cannot be awaited
without danger. (Art. 1949 of the Civil Code)
In the given problem, Pedro left his Adventure van with Tito
so that the latter could use it for one year while he was in
Riyadh. There was no mention of a consideration. Thus, the
contract perfected was commodatum. The amount of
P15,000.00 was spent by Tito to tune up the van and to
repair its brakes. Such expenses are extra-ordinary expenses
because they are necessary for the preservation of the van
Thus, the same should be borne by the bailor, Pedro.
b) Who shall bear the costs for the van's fuel, oil and
other materials while it was with Tito? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Tito must also pay for the ordinary expenses for the use and
preservation of the thing loaned. He must pay for the
gasoline, oil, greasing and spraying. He cannot ask for
reimbursement because he has the obligation to return the
identical thing to the bailor. Under Article 1941 of the Civil
Code, the bailee is obliged to pay for the ordinary expenses
for the use and preservation of the thing loaned.
c) Does Pedro have the right to retrieve the van even
before the lapse of one year? Explain. (2%)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, Pedro does not have the right to retrieve the van before
the lapse of one year. The parties are mutually bound by the
terms of the contract. Under the Civil Code, there are only 3
instances when the bailor could validly ask for the return of
the thing loaned even before the expiration of the period.
These are when: (1) a precarium contract was entered (Article
1947); (2) if the bailor urgently needs the thing (Article 1946);
and (3) if the bailee commits acts of ingratitude (Article 1948).
Not one of the situations is present in this case.
The fact that Tito had leased the thing loaned to Annabelle
would not justify the demand for the return of the thing
loaned before expiration of the period. Under Article 1942 of
the Civil Code, leasing of the thing loaned to a third person
not member of the household of the bailee, will only entitle
bailor to hold bailee liable for the loss of the thing loaned.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
As a rule, Pedro does not have the right to retrieve the van
before the lapse of one year. Article 1946 of the Code
provides that "the bailor cannot demand the return of the
thing loaned till after the expiration of the period stipulated,
or after the accomplishment of the use for which the
commodatum has been constituted. However, if in the
meantime, he should have urgent need of the thing, he may
demand its return or temporary use." In the given problem,
Pedro allowed Tito to use the van for one year. Thus, he
should be bound by the said agreement and he cannot ask for
the return of the car before the expiration of the one year
period. However, if Pedro has urgent need of the van, he may
demand for its return or temporary use.
d) Who shall bear the expenses for the accidental damage
caused by the cargo truck, granting that the truck driver
and truck owner are insolvent? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Generally, extraordinary expenses arising on the occasion of
the actual use of the thing loaned by the bailee, even if
incurred without fault of the bailee, shall be shouldered
equally by the bailor and the bailee. (Art. 1949 of the Civil
Code). However, if Pedro had an urgent need for the vehicle,
Tito would be in delay for failure to immediately return the
same, then Tito would be held liable for the extraordinary
expenses.
Commodatum vs. Usufruct (1998)
Distinguish usufruct from commodatum and state whether
these may be constituted over consumable goods. [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. USUFRUCT is a right given to a person (usufructuary) to
enjoy the property of another with the obligation of
preserving its form and substance. (Art. 562. Civil Code)
On the other hand, COMMODATUM is a contract by which
one of the parties (bailor) delivers to another (bailee)
something not consumable so that the latter may use it for a
certain time and return it.
In usufruct the usufructuary gets the right to the use and to
the fruits of the same, while in commodatum, the bailee only
acquires the use of the thing loaned but not its fruits.
Usufruct may be constituted on the whole or a part of the
fruits of the thing. (Art. 564. Civil Code). It may even be
constituted over consumables like money (Alunan v. Veloso,
52 Phil. 545). On the other hand, in commodatum,
consumable goods may be subject thereof only when the
purpose of the contract is not the consumption of the object,
as when it is merely for exhibition. (Art. 1936, Civil Code)
ANOTHER ANSWER:
1. There are several points of distinction between usufruct and
commodatum. Usufruct is constituted by law, by contract, by
testamentary succession, or by prescription (Art. 1933. Civil
Code). Usufruct creates a real right to the fruits of another's
property, while commodatum creates only a purely personal
right to use another's property, and requires a stipulation to
enable the bailee to "make use" of the fruits (Arts. 1939&
1940, Civil Code). Usufruct maybe onerous while
commodatum is always or essentially gratuitous (Arts. 1933 &
1935, Civil Code). The contract constituting usufruct is
consensual, while commodatum is a real contract (perfected
only by delivery of the subject matter thereof). However, both
involve the enjoyment by a person of the property of another,
differing only as to the extent and scope of such enjoyment
[jus fruendi in one and Jus utendi in the other); both may have
as subject matter either an immovable or a movable; and, both
maybe constituted over consumable goods (Arts. 574 & 1936,
Civil Code). A consumable thing may be the subject-matter of
an abnormal usufruct but in a normal usufruct, the
subject-matter may be used only for exhibition. A
commodatum of a consumable thing may be only for the
purpose of exhibiting, not consuming it.
Mutuum vs. Commodatum (2004)
Distinguish briefly but clearly between Mutuum and
commodatum.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In MUTUUM, the object borrowed must be a consumable
thing the ownership of which is transferred to the borrower
who incurs the obligation to return the same consumable to
the lender in an equal amount, and of the same kind and
quality. In COMMODATUM, the object borrowed is usually
a non-consumable thing the ownership of which is not
transferred to the borrower who incurs the obligation to
return the very thing to the lender.
Mutuum; Interests (2001)
Samuel borrowed P300,000.00 housing loan from the bank at
18% per annum interest. However, the promissory note
contained a proviso that the bank "reserves the right to
increase interest within the limits allowed by law," By virtue
of such proviso, over the objections of Samuel, the bank
increased the interest rate periodically until it reached 48%
per annum. Finally, Samuel filed an action questioning the
right of the bank to increase the interest rate up to 48%. The
bank raised the defense that the Central Bank of the
Philippines had already suspended the Usury Law. Will the
action prosper or not? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The action will prosper. While it is true that the interest
ceilings set by the Usury Law are no longer in force, it has
been held that PD No. 1684 and CB Circular No. 905 merely
allow contracting parties to stipulate freely on any adjustment
in the interest rate on a loan or forbearance of money but do
not authorize a unilateral increase of the interest rate by one
party without the other's consent (PNB
v. CA, 238 SCRA 2O [1994]]). To say otherwise will violate the
principle of mutuality of contracts under Article 1308 of the
Civil Code. To be valid, therefore, any change of interest must
be mutually agreed upon by the parties (Dizon v, Magsaysay,
57 SCRA 25O [1974]). In the present problem, the debtor not
having given his consent to the increase in interest, the
increase is void.
Carlos sues Dino for (a) collection on a promissory note for a
loan, with no agreement on interest, on which Dino
defaulted, and (b) damages caused by Dino on his (Carlos’)
priceless Michaelangelo painting on which Dino is liable on
the promissory note and awards damages to Carlos for the
damaged painting, with interests for both awards. What rates
of interest may the court impose with respect to both awards?
Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
With respect to the collection of money or promissory note,
it being a forbearance of money, the legal rate of interest for
having defaulted on the payment of 12% will apply. With
respect to the damages to the painting, it is 6% from the time
of the final demand up to the time of finality of judgment
until judgment credit is fully paid. The court considers the
latter as a forbearance of money. (Eastern Shipping Lines,
Inc. v. CA, 234 SCRA 78 [1994]; Art 2210 and
2211, CC)
The parties in a contract of loan of money agreed that the
yearly interest rate is 12% and it can be increased if there is a
law that would authorize the increase of interest rates.
Suppose OB, the lender, would increase by 5% the rate of
interest to be paid by TY, the borrower, without a law
authorizing such increase, would OB’s action be just and
valid? Why? Has TY a remedy against the imposition of the
rate increase? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
OB's action is not just and valid. The debtor cannot be
required to pay the increase in interest there being no law
authorizing it, as stipulated in the contract. Increasing the
rate in the absence of such law violates the principle of
mutuality of contracts.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Even if there was a law authorizing the increase in interest
rate, the stipulation is still void because there is no
corresponding stipulation to decrease the interest due when
the law reduces the rate of interest.
DEPOSIT
Compensation; Bank Loan (1997)
In order to secure a bank loan, XYZ Corporation surrendered
its deposit certificate, with a maturity date of 01 September
1997 to the bank. The corporation defaulted on the due
repayment of the loan, prompting the bank to encash the
deposit certificate. XYZ Corporation questioned the above
action taken by the bank as being a case of pactum
commissorium. The bank disagrees. What is your opinion?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
We submit that there is no pactum commissorium here.
Deposits of money in banks and similar institutions are
governed by the provisions on simple loans (Art. 1980. Civil
Code). The relationship between the depositor and a bank is
one of creditor and debtor. Basically this is a matter of
compensation as all the elements of compensation are present
in this case (BPI vs. CA, 232 SCRA 302).
ADDITIONAL ANSWER:
Where the security for the debt is also money deposited in a
bank, it is not illegal for the creditor to encash the time
deposit certificates to pay the debtor's overdue obligation.
(Chu us. CA, et al., G.R 78519, September 26, 1989).
Deposit; Exchange (1992)
X and Y staged a daring bank robbery in Manila at 10:30 AM
in the morning of a regular business day, and escaped with
their loot of two (2) bags, each bag containing P50,000,00.
During their flight to elude the police, X and Y entered the
nearby locked house of A, then working in his Quezon City
office. From A's house, X and Y stole a box containing cash
totaling P50,000.00 which box A had been keeping in deposit
for his friend B.
In their hurry, X and Y left in A's bedroom one (1) of the
bags which they had taken from the bank.
With X and Y now at large and nowhere to be found, the bag
containing P50.000.00 is now claimed by B, by the Mayor of
Manila, and by the bank.
B claims that the depository. A, by force majeure had
obtained the bag of money in place of the box of money
deposited by B.
The Mayor of Manila, on the other hand, claims that the bag
of money should be deposited with the Office of the Mayor
as required of the finder by the provisions of the Civil Code.
The bank resists the claims of B and the Mayor of Manila.
To whom should a deliver the bag of money? Decide with
reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B would have no right to claim the money. Article 1990 of
the Civil Code is not applicable. The law refers to another
thing received in substitution of the object deposited and is
predicated upon something exchanged.
The Mayor of Manila cannot invoke. Article 719 of the Civil
Code which requires the finder to deposit the thing with the
Mayor only when the previous possessor is unknown.
In this case , a must return the bag of money to the bank as
the previous possessor and known owner (Arts. 719 and
1990. Civil Code.)
SURETY
Recovery of Deficiency (1997)
AB sold to CD a motor vehicle for and in consideration of
P120,000.00 to be paid in twelve monthly equal installments
of P10,000,00, each installment being due and payable on the
15th day of each month starting January 1997.
To secure the promissory note, CD (a) executed a chattel
mortgage on the subject motor vehicle, and (b) furnished a
surety bond issued by Philam life, CD failed to pay more than
two (2) installments, AB went after the surety but he was only
able to obtain three-fourths (3/4) of the total amount still
due and owing from CD. AB seeks your advice on how he
might, if at all, recover the deficiency. How would you
counsel AB?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, he can recover the deficiency. The action of AB to go
after the surety bond cannot be taken to mean a waiver of his
right to demand payment for the whole debt, The amount
received from the surety is only payment pro tanto, and an
action may be maintained for a deficiency debt.
ANTICHRESIS
Antichresis (1995)
Olivia owns a vast mango plantation which she can no longer
properly manage due to a lingering illness. Since she is
indebted to Peter in the amount of P500.000.00 she asks
Peter to manage the plantation and apply the harvest to the
payment of her obligation to him, principal and interest, until
her indebtedness shall have been fully paid. Peter agrees. 1)
What kind of contract is entered into between Olivia
and Peter? Explain. 2) What specific obligations are imposed
by law on Peter
as a consequence of their contract? 3) Does the law require
any specific form for the validity
of their contract? Explain 4) May Olivia re-acquire the
plantation before her entire
indebtedness shall have been fully paid? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. A contract of antichresis was entered into between payment of the loan. However, the
loan was not paid on
Olivia and Peter. Under Article 2132 of the New Civil Code,
by a contract of antichresis the creditor acquires the right to
receive the fruits of an immovable of his debtor, with the
obligation to apply them to the payment of the interest, and
thereafter to the principal of his credit.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. Peter must pay taxes and charges upon the land and bear
the necessary expenses for preservation and repair which he
may deduct from the fruits. (Art, 2135, NCC)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
3. The amount of the principal and interest must be specified
in writing, otherwise the antichresis will be void. (Art. 2134,
NCC)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4. No. Art. 2136 specifically provides that the debtor cannot
re-acquire the enjoyment of the immovable without first
having totally paid what he owes the creditor. However, it is
potestative on the part of the creditor to do so in order to
exempt him from his obligation under Art. 2135, NCC, The
debtor cannot re-acquire the enjoyment unless Peter compels
Olivia to enter again the enjoyment of the property.
PLEDGE
Pledge (1994)
In 1982, Steve borrowed P400.000.00 from Danny,
collateralized by a pledge of shares of stock of Concepcion
Corporation worth P800,000,00. In 1983, because of the
economic crisis, the value of the shares pledged fell to only
P100,000.00. Can Danny demand that Steve surrender the
other shares worth P700,000.00?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) No. Bilateral contracts cannot be changed unilaterally. A
pledge is only a subsidiary contract, and Steve is still indebted
to Danny for the amount of P400,000.00 despite the fall in
the value of the stocks pledged.
b) No. Danny's right as pledgee is to sell the pledged shares
at a public sale and keep the proceeds as collateral for the
loan. There is no showing that the fall in the value of the
pledged property was attributable to the pledger's fault or
fraud. On the contrary, the economic crisis was the culprit.
Had the pledgee been deceived as to the substance or quality
of the pledged shares of stock, he would have had the right
to claim another thing in their place or to the immediate
payment of the obligation. This is not the case here.
Pledge (2004)
ABC loaned to MNO P40,000 for which the latter pledged 400
shares of stock in XYZ Inc. It was agreed that if the pledgor
failed to pay the loan with 10% yearly interest within four years,
the pledgee is authorized to foreclose on the shares of stock. As
required, MNO delivered possession of the shares to ABC with
the understanding that the shares would be returned to MNO
upon the
time. A month after 4 years, may the shares of stock
pledged be deemed owned by ABC or not? Reason. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The shares of stock cannot be deemed owned by ABC upon
default of MNO. They have to be foreclosed. Under Article
2088 of the Civil Code, the creditor cannot appropriate the
things given by way of pledge. And even if the parties have
stipulated that ABC becomes the owner of the shares in case
MNO defaults on the loan, such stipulation is void for being
a pactum commissorium.
Pledge; Mortgage; Antichresis (1996)
In the province, a farmer couple borrowed money from the
local merchant. To guarantee payment, they left the Torrens
Title of their land with the merchant, for him to hold until
they pay the loan. Is there a - a) contract of pledge, b)
contract of mortgage, c) contract of antichresis, or d)
none of the above? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
None of the above. There is no pledge because only movable
property may be pledged (Art. 2094. NCC). If at all, there was
a pledge of the paper or document constituting the Torrens
Title, as a movable by itself, but not of the land which the title
represents.
There is no mortgage because no deed or contract was
executed in the manner required by law for a mortgage (Arts.
2085 to 2092, NCC; 2124 to 2131, NCC).
There is no contract of antichresis because no right to the
fruits of the property was given to the creditor (Art. 2132
NCC).
A contract of simple loan was entered into with security
arrangement agreed upon by the parties which is not one of
those mentioned above.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
There is a contract of mortgage constituted over the land.
There is no particular form required for the validity of a
mortgage of real property. It is not covered by the statute of
frauds in Art. 1403, NCC and even assuming that it is
covered, the delivery of the title to the creditor has taken it
out of the coverage thereof. A contract of mortgage of real
property is consensual and is binding on the parties despite
absence of writing. However, third parties are not bound
because of the absence of a written instrument evidencing the
mortgage and, therefore the absence of registration. But this
does not affect the validity of the mortgage between the
parties (Art. 2125, NCC), The creditor may compel the
debtor to execute the mortgage in a public document in order
to allow its registration (Art. 1357.NCC in relation to Art.
1358. NCC).
QUASI-CONTRACT
Quasi-Contracts; Negotiorium Gestio (1992)
In fear of reprisals from lawless elements besieging his
barangay, X abandoned his fishpond, fled to Manila and left
for Europe. Seeking that the fish in the fishpond were ready
for harvest, Y, who is in the business of managing fishponds
on a commission basis, took possession of the property,
harvested the fish and sold the entire harvest to Z. Thereafter,
Y borrowed money from W and used the money to buy new
supplies of fish fry and to prepare the fishpond for the next
crop. a) What is the Juridical relation between X and Y
during X's absence? b) Upon the return of X to the barangay,
what are the obligations of Y to X as regards the contract
with Z? c) Upon X's return, what are the obligations of X as
regards Y's contract with W? d) What legal effects will result if
X expressly ratifies Y's management and what would be the
obligations of X in favor of Y? Explain all your answers.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The juridical relation is that of the quasi-contract of
"negotiorum gestio". Y is the "gestor" or "officious manager"
and X is the "owner" (Art. 2144, Civil Code).
(b) Y must render an account of his operations and deliver to
X the price he received for the sale of the harvested fish
(Art, 2145, Civil Code).
(c) X must pay the loan obtained by Y from W because X
must answer for obligations contracted with third persons in
the interest of the owner (Art. 2150, Civil Code),
(d) Express ratification by X provides the effects of an
express agency and X is liable to pay the commissions
habitually received by the gestor as manager (Art. 2149, Civil
Code).
In September, 1972, upon declaration of martial rule in the
Philippines. A, together with his wife and children. disappeared
from his residence along A. Mabini Street. Ermita, Manila. B, his
immediate neighbor, noticing that mysterious disappearance of A
and his family, closed the doors and windows of his house to
prevent it from being burglarized. Years passed without B hearing
from A and his family, B continued taking care of A's house, even
causing minor repairs to be done at his house to preserve it. In
1976, when business began to perk up in the area, an enterprising
man. C, approached B and proposed that they build stores at the
ground floor of the house and convert its second floor into a
pension house. B agreed to Cs proposal and together they spent
for the construction of stores at the ground floor and the
conversion of the second floor into a pension house. While
construction was going on, fire occurred at a nearby house. The
houses at the entire block, including A's were burned. After the
EDSA revolution in February 1986, A and his family returned from
the United States where they took refuge in 1972. Upon learning
of what happened to his house. A sued B for damages, B pleaded
as a defense that he merely took charge of his
house under the principle of negotiorum gestio. He was not liable
as the burning of the house is a fortuitous event. Is B liable to A
for damages under the foregoing circumstances?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. B is not liable for damages, because he is a gestor in
negotiorum gestio (Art. 2144, Civil Code) Furthermore, B is
not liable to A because Article 2147 of the Civil Code is not
applicable.
B did not undertake risky operations which the owner was
not accustomed to embark upon: a) he has not preferred his
own interest to that of the owner; b) he has not failed to
return the property or business after demand by the owner;
and c) he has not assumed the management in bad faith.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
He would be liable under Art. 2147 (1) of the Civil Code,
because he used the property for an operation which the
operator is not accustomed to, and in so doing, he exposed
the house to increased risk, namely the operation of a
pension house on the second floor and stores on the first
floor
Armando owns a row of residential apartments in San Juan,
Metro Manila, which he rents out to tenants. On 1 April 1991
he left for the United States without appointing any
administrator to manage his apartments such that uncollected
rentals accumulated for three (3) years. Amparo, a niece of
Armando, concerned with the interest of her uncle, took it
upon herself to administer the property. As a consequence,
she incurred expenses in collecting the rents and in some
instances even spent for necessary repairs to preserve the
property.
1. What Juridical relation between Amparo and Armando, if
any, has resulted from Amparo's unilateral act of assuming the
administration of Armando's apartments? Explain.
2. What rights and obligations, if any, does Amparo have
under the circumstances? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Negotiorum gestio existed between Amparo and
Armando, She voluntarily took charge of the agency or
management of the business or property of her uncle without
any power from her uncle whose property was neglected. She
is called the gestor negotiorum or officious manager, (Art.
2144, NCC)
2. It is recommended by the Committee that an enumeration
of any two (2) obligations and two (2) rights as enumerated in
Arts. 2145 to 2152, NCC, would entitle the examinee to full
credit.
Art. 2145. The officious manager shall perform his duties
with all the diligence of a good father of a family, and pay the
damages which through his fault or negligence may be
suffered by the owner of the property or business under
management.
The courts may, however, increase or moderate the (2) When the contract refers to things
pertaining to the
indemnity according to the circumstances of each case.
Art. 2146. If the officious manager delegates to another
person all or some of his duties, he shall be liable for the acts
of the delegate, without prejudice to the direct obligation of
the latter toward the owner of the business.
The responsibility of two or more officious managers shall be
solidary, unless management was assumed to save the thing
or business from imminent danger.
Art. 2147. The officious manager shall be liable for any
fortuitous event:
(1) If he undertakes risky operations which the owner was
not accustomed to embark upon;
(2) If he has preferred his own interest to that of the owner;
(3) If he fails to return the property or business after demand
by the owner,
(4) If he assumed the management in bad faith.
Art. 2148. Except when the management was assumed to
save the property or business from imminent danger, the
officious manager shall be liable for fortuitous events
(1) If he is manifestly unfit to carry on the management;
(2) If by his Intervention h e prevented a more competent
person from taking up the management.
Art. 2149. The ratification of the management by the owner
of the business produces the effects of an express agency,
even if the business may not have been successful.
Art. 2150, Although the officious management may not have
been expressly ratified, the owner of the property or business
who enjoys the advantages of the same shall be liable for
obligations incurred in his interest, and shall reimburse the
officious manager for the necessary and useful expenses and
for the damages which the latter may have suffered in the
performance of his duties.
The same obligation shall be incumbent upon him when the
management had for its purpose the prevention of an
imminent and manifest loss, although no benefit may have
been derived.
Art. 2151. Even though the owner did not derive any benefit
and there has been no imminent and manifest danger to the
property or business, the owner is liable as under the first
paragraph of the preceding article, provided:
(1) The officious manager has acted in good faith, and
(2) The property or business is intact, ready to be returned to
the owner.
Art. 2152. The officious manager is personally liable for
contracts which he has entered into with third persons, even
though he acted in the name of the owner, and there shall be
no right of action between the owner and third persons.
These provisions shall not apply:
(1) If the owner has expressly or tacitly ratified the
management, or
owner of the business,
(NOTE: It is recommended by the Committee that an enumeration of any
two (2) obligations and any two (2) rights as enumerated la Arts. 2145 to
2152, NCC would entitle the examinee to full credit.)
Quasi-Contracts; Solutio Indebiti (2004)
DPO went to a store to buy a pack of cigarettes worth
P225.00 only. He gave the vendor, RRA, a P500-peso bill.
The vendor gave him the pack plus P375.00 change. Was
there a discount, an oversight, or an error in the amount
given? What would be DPO’s duty, if any, in case of an
excess in the amount of change given by the vendor? How
is this situational relationship between DPO and RRA
denominated? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There was error in the amount of change given by RRA. This
is a case of solutio indebiti in that DPO received something that
is not due him. He has the obligation to return the P100.00;
otherwise, he will unjustly enrich himself at the expense of
RRA. (Art. 2154, Civil Code)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
DPO has the duty to return to RRA the excess P100 as
trustee under Article 1456 of the Civil Code which provides:
If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person
obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an
implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the
property comes. There is, in this case, an implied or
constructive trust in favor of RRA.
TORTS & DAMAGES

Collapse of Structures; Last Clear Chance (1990)
Mr and Mrs R own a burned-out building, the firewall of
which collapsed and destroyed the shop occupied by the
family of Mr and Mrs S, which resulted in injuries to said
couple and the death of their daughter. Mr and Mrs S had
been warned by Mr & Mrs R to vacate the shop in view of its
proximity to the weakened wall but the former failed to do
so. Mr & Mrs S filed against Mr and Mrs R an action for
recovery of damages the former suffered as a result of the
collapse of the firewall. In defense, Mr and Mrs R rely on the
doctrine of last clear chance alleging that Mr and Mrs S had
the last clear chance to avoid the accident if only they heeded
the former’s warning to vacate the shop, and therefore Mr
and Mrs R’s prior negligence should be disregarded. If you
were the judge, how would you decide the case? State your
reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would decide in favor of Mr & Mrs S. The proprietor of a
building or structure is responsible for the damages resulting
from its total or partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack
of necessary repairs (Art 2190 Civil Code)
As regards the defense of ―last clear chance,‖ the same is not
tenable because according to the SC in one case (De Roy v CA
L-80718, Jan 29, 1988, 157 S 757) the doctrine of last clear
chance is not applicable to instances covered by Art 2190 of
the Civil Code.
Further, in Phoenix Construction, Inc. v. Intermediate Availing of that portion of Section 12
of Article II of the
Appellate Court (G.R. L-65295, March 10, 1987. 148 SCRA 353)
the Supreme Court held that the role of the common law "last
clear chance" doctrine in relation to Article 2179 of the Civil
Code is merely to mitigate damages within the context of
contributory negligence.
Damages (1994)
On January 5, 1992, Nonoy obtained a loan of Pl,000,000.00
from his friend Raffy. The promissory note did not stipulate
any payment for Interest. The note was due on January 5,
1993 but before this date the two became political enemies.
Nonoy, out of spite, deliberately defaulted in paying the note,
thus forcing Raffy to sue him. 1) What actual damages can
Raffy recover? 2) Can Raffy ask for moral damages from
Nonoy? 3) Can Raffy ask for nominal damages? 4) Can Raffy
ask for temperate damages? 5) Can Raffy ask for attorney's
fees?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) Raffy may recover the amount of the promissory note of
P1 million, together with interest at the legal rate from the
date of judicial or extrajudicial demand. In addition,
however, inasmuch as the debtor is in bad faith, he is liable
for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the
non-performance of the obligation. (Art. 2201(2). NCC).
2) Yes, under Article 2220, NCC moral damages are
recoverable in case of breach of contract where the defendant
acted fraudulently or in bad faith.
3) Nominal damages may not be recoverable in this case
because Raffy may already be indemnified of his losses with
the award of actual and compensatory damages. NOMINAL
DAMAGES are adjudicated only in order that a right of the
plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant
may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of
indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. (Article
2231. Civil Code)
4) Raffy may ask for, but would most likely not be awarded
temperate damages, for the reason that his actual damages
may already be compensated upon proof thereof with the
promissory note. TEMPERATE DAMAGES may be
awarded only when the court finds that some pecuniary loss
has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of
the case, be proved with certainty. (Article 2224, Civil Code)
5) Yes, under paragraph 2, Article 2208 of the Civil Code,
considering that Nonoy's act or omission has compelled Raffy
to litigate to protect his interests. Furthermore. attorneys' fees
may be awarded by the court when it is just and equitable.
(Article 2208(110) Civil Code).
Damages arising from Death of Unborn Child (1991)
On her third month of pregnancy, Rosemarie, married to
Boy, for reasons known only to her, and without informing
Boy, went to the clinic of X, a known abortionist, who for a
fee, removed and expelled the fetus from her womb, Boy
learned of the abortion six (6) months later.
1987 Constitution which reads;
The State x xx shall equally protect the life of the mother
and the life of the unborn from conception, "xxx" which
he claims confers a civil personality on the unborn from
the moment of conception.
Boy filed a case for damages against the abortionist, praying
therein that the latter be ordered to pay him: (a) P30,000.00 as
indemnity for the death of the fetus, (b) P100.000.00 as moral
damages for the mental anguish and anxiety he suffered, (c)
P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, (d) P20,000.00 as nominal
damages, and (e) P25,000.00 as attorney's fees. May actual
damages be also recovered? If so, what facts should be alleged
and proved?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, provided that the pecuniary loss suffered should be
substantiated and duly proved.
Damages arising from Death of Unborn Child (2003)
If a pregnant woman passenger of a bus were to suffer an
abortion following a vehicular accident due to the gross
negligence of the bus driver, may she and her husband
claim damages from the bus company for the death of their
unborn child? Explain. 5%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the spouses cannot recover actual damages in the form
of indemnity for the loss of life of the unborn child. This is
because the unborn child is not yet considered a person and
the law allows indemnity only for loss of life of person. The
mother, however may recover damages for the bodily injury
she suffered from the loss of the fetus which is considered
part of her internal organ. The parents may also recover
damages for injuries that are inflicted directly upon them, e.g.,
moral damages for mental anguish that attended the loss of
the unborn child. Since there is gross negligence, exemplary
damages can also be recovered. (Gelus v. CA, 2 SCRA 801
[1961])
Death Indemnity (1994)
Johnny Maton's conviction for homicide was affirmed by the
Court of Appeals and in addition, although the prosecution
had not appealed at all. The appellate court increased the
indemnity for death from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00. On his
appeal to the Supreme Court, among the other things Johnny
Maton brought to the high court's attention, was the increase
of indemnity imposed by the Court of Appeals despite the
clear fact that the People had not appealed from the appellate
court's judgment. Is Johnny Maton correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) In Abejam v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court said
that even if the issue of damages were not raised by the
appellant in the Court of Appeals but the Court of Appeals
in its findings increased the damages, the Supreme Court will
not disturb the findings of the Court of Appeals.
b) No, the contention of the accused is not correct because
upon appeal to the Appellate Court, the court acquired
jurisdiction over the entire case, criminal as well as civil. Since
the conviction of homicide had been appealed, there
is no finality in the amount of indemnity because the civil A van owned by Orlando and
driven by Diego, while
liability arising from the crime and the judgment on the crime
has not yet become final
c) Yes. Since the civil indemnity is an award in the civil action
arising from the criminal offense, the rule that a party cannot
be granted affirmative relief unless he himself has appealed
should apply. Therefore, it was error for the Court of Appeals
to have expanded the indemnity since the judgment on the
civil liability had become final.
d) No. Courts can review matters not assigned as errors.
(Hydro Resource vs. CA . 204 SCRA 309).
Defense; Due Diligence in Selection (2003)
As a result of a collision between the taxicab owned by A
and another taxicab owned by B, X, a passenger of the first
taxicab, was seriously injured. X later filed a criminal action
against both drivers.
May both taxicab owners raise the defense of due diligence in
the selection and supervision of their drivers to be absolved
from liability for damages to X? Reason. 5%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It depends. If the civil action is based on a quasi-delict the
taxicab owners may raise the defense of diligence of a good
father of a family in the selection and supervision of the
driver; if the action against them is based on culpa contractual
or civil liability arising from a crime, they cannot raise the
defense.
Filing of Separate Civil Action; Need for Reservation (2003)
As a result of a collision between the taxicab owned by A
and another taxicab owned by B, X, a passenger of the first
taxicab, was seriously injured. X later filed a criminal action
against both drivers.
Is it necessary for X to reserve his right to institute a civil
action for damages against both taxicab owners before he
can file a civil action for damages against them? Why
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It depends. If the separate civil action is to recover damages
arising from the criminal act, reservation is necessary. If the
civil action against the taxicab owners is based on culpa
contractual, or on quasi-delict, there is no need for
reservation.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, such reservation is not necessary. Under Section 1 of
Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure, what is
―deemed instituted‖ with the criminal action is only the action
to recover civil liability arising from the crime or ex delicto.
All the other civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176
of the New Civil Code are no longer ―deemed instituted‖, and
may be filed separately and prosecuted independently even
without any reservation in the criminal action (Section 3, Rule
111, Ibid). The failure to make a reservation in the criminal
action is not a waiver of the right to file a separate and
independent civil action based on these articles of the New
Civil Code (Casupanan v. Laroya GR No. 145391, August 26,
2002).
Fortuitous Event; Mechanical Defects (2002)
negotiating a downhill slope of a city road, suddenly gained
speed, obviously beyond the authorized limit in the area, and
bumped a car in front of it, causing severed damage to the
care and serious injuries to its passengers. Orlando was not in
the car at the time of the incident. The car owner and the
injured passengers sued Orlando and Diego for damages
caused by Diego’s negligence. In their defense, Diego claims
that the downhill slope caused the van to gain speed and that,
as he stepped on the brakes to check the acceleration, the
brakes locked, causing the van to go even faster and
eventually to hit the car in front of it. Orlando and Diego
contend that the sudden malfunction of the van’s brake
system is a fortuitous even and that, therefore, they are
exempt from any liability. Is this contention tenable? Explain.
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Mechanical defects of a motor vehicle do not constitute
fortuitous event, since the presence of such defects would
have been readily detected by diligent maintenance check.
The failure to maintain the vehicle in safe running condition
constitutes negligence.
Liability; Airline Company; Non-Performance of an Obligation
(2004)
DT and MT were prominent members of the frequent
travelers’ club of FX Airlines. In Hongkong, the couple were
assigned seats in Business Class for which they had bought
tickets. On checking in, however, they were told they were
upgraded by computer to First Class for the flight to Manila
because the Business Section was overbooked.
Both refused to transfer despite better seats, food, beverage
and other services in First Class. They said they had guests in
Business Class they should attend to. They felt humiliated,
embarrassed and vexed, however, when the stewardess
allegedly threatened to offload them if they did not avail of
the upgrade. Thus they gave in, but during the transfer of
luggage DT suffered pain in his arm and wrist. After arrival in
Manila, they demanded an apology from FX’s management as
well as indemnity payment. When none was forthcoming,
they sued the airline for a million pesos in damages. Is the
airline liable for actual and moral damages? Why or why not?
Explain briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
FX Airlines committed breach of contract when it upgraded
DT and MT, over their objections, to First Class because they
had contracted for Business Class passage. However,
although there is a breach of contract, DT and MT are
entitled to actual damages only for such pecuniary losses
suffered by them as a result of such breach. There seems to
be no showing that they incurred such pecuniary loss. There
is no showing that the pain in DT's arm and wrist resulted
directly from the carrier's acts complained of. Hence, they
are not entitled to actual damages. Moreover, DT could have
avoided the alleged injury by requesting the airline staff to do
the luggage transfer as a matter of duty on their part. There is
also no basis to award moral damages for such breach of
contract because the facts of the problem do not show bad
faith or fraud on the part of the airline. (Cathay Pacific v.
Vazquez, 399 SCRA 207 [2003]). However, they
may recover moral damages if the cause of action is based The action may or may not
prosper. Moral damages include
on Article 21 of the Civil Code for the humiliation and
embarrassment they felt when the stewardess threatened to
offload them if they did not avail of the upgrade.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
If it can be proved that DT's pain in his arm and wrist
occasioned by the transfer of luggage was caused by fault or
negligence on the part of the airline's stewardess, actual
damages may be recovered.
The airline may be liable for moral damages pursuant to Art.
2219 (10) if the cause of action is based on Article 21 or an
act contrary to morals in view of the humiliation suffered by
DT and MT when they were separated from their guests and
were threatened to be offloaded.
Liability; Airline Company; Non-Performance of an Obligation
(2005)
Dr. and Mrs. Almeda are prominent citizens of the country
and are frequent travelers abroad. In 1996, they booked
round-trip business class tickets for the Manila-Hong
Kong-Manila route of the Pinoy Airlines, where they are
holders of Gold Mabalos Class Frequent Flier cards. On their
return flight, Pinoy Airlines upgraded their tickets to first class
without their consent and, inspite of their protestations to be
allowed to remain in the business class so that they could be
with their friends, they were told that the business class was
already fully booked, and that they were given priority in
upgrading because they are elite members/holders of Gold
Mabalos Class cards. Since they were embarrassed at the
discussions with the flight attendants, they were forced to take
the flight at the first class section apart from their friends who
were in the business class. Upon their return to Manila, they
demanded a written apology from Pinoy Airlines. When it
went unheeded, the couple sued Pinoy Airlines for breach of
contract claiming moral and exemplary damages, as well as
attorney's fees. Will the action prosper? Give reasons. (5%)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, the action will prosper. Article 2201 of the Civil Code
entitles the person to recover damages which may be
attributed to non-performance of an obligation. In Alitalia
Airways v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 77011, July 24, 1990) ,
when an airline issues ticket to a passenger confirmed on a
particular flight, a contract of carriage arises and the passenger
expects that he would fly on that day. When the airline
deliberately overbooked, it took the risk of having to deprive
some passengers of their seat in case all of them would show
up. For the indignity and inconvenience of being refused the
confirmed seat, said passenger is entitled to moral damages.
In the given problem, spouses Almeda had a booked
roundtrip business class ticket with Pinoy Airlines. When
their tickets were upgraded to first class without their
consent, Pinoy Airlines breached the contract. As ruled in
Zulueta v. Pan American (G.R. No. L-28589, January 8, 1973),
in case of overbooking, airline is in bad faith. Therefore,
spouses Almeda are entitled to damages.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social
humiliation, and similar injury. Although incapable of
pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if
they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act
or omission. Moral damages predicated upon a breach of
contract of carriage are recoverable only in instances where
the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith or where the mishap
resulted in the death of a passenger. (Cathay Pacific Airways,
Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 60501, March 5, 1993) Where
there is no showing that the airline acted fraudulently or in
bad faith, liability for damages is limited to the natural and
probable consequences of the breach of the contract of
carriage which the parties had foreseen or could have
reasonably foreseen. In such a case the liability does not
include moral and exemplary damages.
In the instant case, if the involuntary upgrading of the
Almedas' seat accommodation was not attended by fraud or
bad faith, the award of moral damages has no leg to stand on.
Thus, spouses would not also be entitled to exemplary
damages. It is a requisite in the grant of exemplary damages
that the act of the offender must be accompanied by bad
faith or done in wanton, fraudulent or malevolent manner.
(Morris v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127957, February 21, 2001)
Moreover, to be entitled thereto, the claimant must first
establish his right to moral, temperate, or compensatory
damages. (Art. 2234, Civil Code) Since the Almedas are not
entitled to any of these damages, the award for exemplary
damages has no legal basis. Where the awards for moral and
exemplary damages are eliminated, so must the award for
attorney's fees be eliminated. (Orosa v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 111080, April 5, 2000; Morris v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
127957, February 21, 2001) The most that can be adjudged in
their favor for Pinoy Airlines' breach of contract is an award
for nominal damages under Article 2221 of the Civil Code.
(Cathay Pacific Airways v. Sps. Daniel & Maria Luisa Vasquez,
G.R. No. 150843, March 14, 2003)
However, if spouses Almeda could prove that there was bad
faith on the part of Pinoy Airlines when it breached the
contract of carriage, it could be liable for moral, exemplary as
well as attorney's fees.
Liability; Employer; Damage caused by Employees (1997)
a) When would an employer's liability for damage, caused
by an employee in the performance of his assigned
tasks, be primary and when would it be subsidiary in
nature? b) Would the defense of due diligence in the
selection and
supervision of the employee be available to the
employer in both instances?
SUGGESTED ANSWER::
(a) The employer's liability for damage based on culpa
aquiliana under Art, 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code is
primary; while that under Art. 103 of the Revised Penal Code
is subsidiary.
(b) The defense of diligence in the selection and the vehicle at the time of the accident, be
held solidarily
supervision of the employee under Article 2180 of the Civil
Code is available only to those primarily liable thereunder,
but not to those subsidiarily liable under Article 103 of the
Revised Penal Code (Yumul vs. Juliano, 72 Phil. 94).
Liability; owner who was in the vehicle (1996)
Marcial, who does not know how to drive, has always been
driven by Ben, his driver of ten years whom he had chosen
carefully and has never figured in a vehicular mishap. One
day, Marcial was riding at the back seat of his Mercedes Benz
being driven along EDSA by Ben. Absorbed in reading a
book, Marcial did not notice that they were approaching the
corner of Quezon Avenue, when the traffic light had just
turned yellow. Ben suddenly stepped on the gas to cross the
intersection before the traffic light could turn red. But, too
late. Midway in the intersection, the traffic light changed, and
a Jeepney full of passengers suddenly crossed the car's path. A
collision between the two vehicles was inevitable. As a result,
several jeepney passengers were seriously injured. A suit for
damages based on culpa aquiliana was filed against Marcial
and Ben, seeking to hold them jointly and severally liable for
such injuries. May Marcial be held liable? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Marcial may not be liable because under Art. 2184, NCC, the
owner who is in the vehicle is not liable with the driver if by
the exercise of due diligence he could have prevented the
injury. The law does not require the owner to supervise the
driver every minute that he was driving. Only when through
his negligence, the owner has lost an opportunity to prevent
the accident would he be liable (Caedo v. Ytt Khe Thai, 26
SCRA 410 citing Chapman v. Underwood and Manlangit v.
Mauler, 250 SCRA 560). In this case, the fact that the owner
was absorbed in reading a book does not conclusively show
that he lost the opportunity to prevent the accident through
his negligence.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, Marcial should be held liable. Art. 2164. NCC makes an
owner of a motor vehicle solidarily liable with the driver if,
being in the vehicle at the time of the mishap, he could have
prevented it by the exercise of due diligence. The traffic
conditions along EDSA at any time of day or night are such
as to require the observance of utmost care and total alertness
in view of the large number of vehicles running at great
speed. Marcial was negligent in that he rendered himself
oblivious to the traffic hazards by reading a book instead of
focusing his attention on the road and supervising the
manner in which his car was being driven. Thus he failed to
prevent his driver from attempting to beat the traffic light at
the junction of Quezon Avenue and EDSA, which Marcial,
without being a driver himself could have easily perceived as
a reckless course of conduct.
A Gallant driven by John and owned by Art, and a Corolla driven
by its owner, Gina, collided somewhere along Adriatico Street. As
a result of the accident, Gina had a concussion. Subsequently.
Gina brought an action for damages against John and Art. There
is no doubt that the collision is due to John's negligence. Can Art,
who was in
liable with his driver, John? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Art may be held solidary liable with John, if it was proven
that the former could have prevented the misfortune with the
use of due diligence. Article 2184 of the Civil Code states: "In
motor mishaps, the owner is solidary liable with his driver, if
the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of
due diligence, prevented the misfortune, x x x"
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
1. It depends. The Supreme Court in Chapman vs, Underwood
(27 Phil 374), held: "An owner who sits in his automobile, or
other vehicle, and permits his driver to continue in a violation
of law by the performance of negligent acts, after he has had a
reasonable opportunity to observe them and to direct that the
driver cease therefrom, becomes himself responsible for such
acts, x x x On the other hand, if the driver, by a sudden act of
negligence, and without the owner having a reasonable
opportunity to prevent the act or its continuance, injures a
person or violates the criminal law, the owner of the
automobile, although present therein at the time the act was
committed is not responsible, either civilly or criminally,
therefor. The act complained of must be continued in the
presence of the owner for such a length of time that the
owner, by his acquiescence, makes his driver's act his own."
Does the presence of the owner inside the vehicle causing
damage to a third party affect his liability for his driver’s
negligence? Explain (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is made solidarily liable
with his driver if he (the owner) was in the vehicle and could
have, by the use of due diligence, prevented the mishap.
(Caedo v. Yu Khe Thai, 26 SCRA 410 [1968]).
Moral Damages & Atty Fees (2002)
Ortillo contracts Fabricato, Inc. to supply and install tile
materials in a building he is donating to his province. Ortillo
pays 50% of the contract price as per agreement. It is also
agreed that the balance would be payable periodically after
every 10% performance until completed. After performing
about 93% of the contract, for which it has been paid an
additional 40% as per agreement, Fabricato, Inc. did not
complete the project due to its sudden cessation of
operations. Instead, Fabricato, Inc. demands payment of the
last 10% of the contract despite its non-completion of the
project. Ortillo refuses to pay, invoking the stipulation that
payment of the last amount 10% shall be upon completion.
Fabricato, Inc. brings suit for the entire 10%. Plus damages,
Ortillo counters with claims for (a) moral damages for
Fabricato, Inc.’s unfounded suit which has damaged his
reputation as a philanthropist and respect businessman in his
community, and (b) attorney’s fees.
A. Does Ortillo have a legal basis for his claim for moral
damages? (2%)
B. How about his claim for attorney’s fees, having hired a
lawyer to defend him? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. There is no legal basis to Ortillo’s claim for moral
damages. It does not fall under the coverage of Article 2219
of the New Civil Code.
B. Ortillo is entitled to attorney’s fees because Fabricato’s
complaint is a case of malicious prosecution or a clearly
unfounded civil action. (Art. 2208 [4] and [11], NCC).
Moral Damages; Non-Recovery Thereof (2006)
Under Article 2219 of the Civil Code, moral damages may be
recovered in the cases specified therein several of which are
enumerated below. Choose the case wherein you cannot
recover moral damages. Explain. (2.5%) a) A criminal offense
resulting in physical injuries b) Quasi-delicts causing physical
injuries c) Immorality or dishonesty d) Illegal search e)
Malicious prosecution SUGGESTED ANSWER: Immorality and
dishonesty, per se, are not among those cases enumerated in
Article 2219 which can be the basis of an action for moral
damages. The law specifically mentions adultery or
concubinage, etc. but not any and every immoral act.
Quasi-Delict (1992)
As the result of a collision between a public service passenger
bus and a cargo truck owned by D, X sustained physical
injuries and Y died. Both X and Y were passengers of the bus.
Both drivers were at fault, and so X and Z, the only heir and
legitimate child of the deceased Y, sued the owners of both
vehicles. a) May the owner of the bus raise the defense of
having exercised the diligence of a good father of a family? b)
May D raise the same defense? c) May X claim moral
damages from both defendants? d) May Z claim moral
damages from both defendants? Give reasons for all your
answers,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) No. The owner of the bus cannot raise the defense
because the carrier's liability is based on breach of contract
(b) Yes. D can raise the defense because his liability is based
on a quasi-delict.
(c) Because X suffered physical injuries, X can claim moral
damages against D, but as against the owner of the bus. X can
claim moral damages only if X proves reckless negligence of
the carrier amounting to fraud.
(d) Z can claim moral damages against both defendants
because the rules on damages arising from death due to a
quasi-delict are also applicable to death of a passenger caused
by breach of contract by a common carrier (Arts. 1755. 1756,
1764, 2206 and 2219. Civil Code).
Quasi-Delict (2005)
Under the law on quasi-delict, aside from the persons who
caused injury to persons, who else are liable under the
following circumstances:
a) When a 7-year old boy injures his playmate while
playing with his father's rifle. Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The parents of the 7-year old boy who caused injury to his
playmate are liable under Article 219 of the Family Code, in
relation to Article 2180 of the Civil Code since they exercise
parental authority over the person of the boy. (Tamargo v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85044, June 3, 1992; Elcano v. Hill,
G.R. No. L-24803, May 26, 1977)
b) When a domestic helper, while haggling for a lower
price with a fish vendor in the course of buying foodstuffs
for her employer's family, slaps the fish vendor, causing
her to fall and sustain injuries. Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Employer of the domestic helper who slapped a fish vendor.
Under Article 2180, par. 5 of the Civil Code, "employers shall
be liable for the damages caused by their employees and
household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned
tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business
or industry."
c) A carpenter in a construction company accidentally
hits the right foot of his co-worker with a hammer.
Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The owner of the construction company. Article 2180,
paragraph 4 states that "the owners and managers of an
establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for
damages caused by their employees in the service of the
branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion
of their functions."
d) A 15-year old high school student stabs his classmate
who is his rival for a girl while they were going out of the
classroom after their last class. Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The school, teacher and administrator as they exercise special
parental authority. (Art. 2180, par. 7 in relation to Art. 218
and Art. 219 of the Family Code)
e) What defense, if any, is available to them? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The defense that might be available to them is the observance
of a good father of the family to prevent the damage. (Last
par., Art. 2180, Civil Code)
Quasi-Delict; Acts contrary to morals (1996)
Rosa was leasing an apartment in the city. Because of the Rent
Control Law, her landlord could not increase the rental as
much as he wanted to, nor terminate her lease as long as she
was paying her rent. In order to force her to leave the
premises, the landlord stopped making repairs on the
apartment, and caused the water and electricity services to be
disconnected. The difficulty of living without electricity and
running water resulted in Rosa's suffering a nervous
breakdown. She sued the landlord for actual and moral
damages. Will the action prosper? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, based on quasi-delict under the human relations for quasi-delict may nonetheless
prosper. The Supreme
provisions of the New Civil Code (Articles 19, 20 and 21)
because the act committed by the lessor is contrary to morals.
Moral damages are recoverable under Article 2219
(10) in relation to Article 21. Although the action is based on
quasi-delict and not on contract, actual damages may be
recovered if the lessee is able to prove the losses and
expenses she suffered.
a) Yes, based on breach of contract. The lessor has the
obligation to undertake repairs to make the apartment
habitable and to maintain the lessee in the peaceful and
adequate enjoyment of the lease for the entire duration of the
contract (Article 1654. NCC). Since there was willful breach
of contract by the lessor, the lessee is entitled to moral
damages under Article 3220, NCC. She is also entitled to
actual damages, e. g. loss of income, medical expenses, etc.,
which she can prove at the trial.
b) Yes, based on contract and/or on tort. The lessor willfully
breached his obligations under Article 1654. NCC, hence, he
is liable for breach of contract. For such breach, the lessee
may recover moral damages under Art. 2220 of the NCC, and
actual damages that she may have suffered on account
thereof. And since the conduct of the lessor was contrary to
morals, he may also be held liable for quasi-delict. The lessee
may recover moral damages under Article 2219 (10) in
relation to Article 21, and all actual damages which she may
have suffered by reason of such conduct under Articles 9, 20
and 21.
c) Yes, the action should prosper for both actual and moral
damages. In fact, even exemplary damages and attorney's fees
can be claimed by Rosa, on the authority of Magbanua vs.
IAC (137 SCRA 328), considering that, as given, the lessor's
willful and illegal act of disconnecting the water and electric
services resulted in Rosa's suffering a nervous breakdown.
Art. 20 NCC and Art, 21, NCC authorize the award of
damages for such willful and illegal conduct.
Quasi-Delict; Mismanagement of Depositor’s Account (2006)
Tony bought a Ford Expedition from a car dealer in
Muntinlupa City. As payment, Tony issued a check drawn
against his current account with Premium Bank. Since he has
a good reputation, the car dealer allowed him to immediately
drive home the vehicle merely on his assurance that his check
is sufficiently funded. When the car dealer deposited the
check, it was dishonored on the ground of "Account Closed."
After an investigation, it was found that an employee of the
bank misplaced Tony's account ledger. Thus, the bank
erroneously assumed that his account no longer exists. Later it
turned out that Tony's account has more than sufficient funds
to cover the check. The dealer however, immediately filed an
action for recovery of possession of the vehicle against Tony
for which he was terribly humiliated and embarrassed. Does
Tony have a cause of action against Premium Bank? Explain.
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Tony may file an action against Premium Bank for damages
under Art. 2176. Even if there exists a contractual relationship
between Tony and Premium Bank, an action
Court has consistently ruled that the act that breaks the
contract may also be a tort. There is a fiduciary relationship
between the bank and the depositor, imposing utmost
diligence in managing the accounts of the depositor. The
dishonor of the check adversely affected the credit standing
of Tony, hence, he is entitled to damages (Singson v. BPI,
G.R. No. L-24932, June 27, 1968; American Express
International, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. 72383, November 9, 1988;
Consolidated Bank and Trust v. CA, G.R. No. L-70766
November 9,1998).
Vicarious Liability (1991)
Romano was bumped by a minivan owned by the Solomon
School of Practical Arts (SSPA). The minivan was driven by
Peter, a student assistant whose assignment was to clean the
school passageways daily one hour before and one hour after
regular classes, in exchange for free tuition. Peter was able to
drive the school vehicle after persuading the regular driver,
Paul, to turn over the wheel to him (Peter). Romano suffered
serious physical injuries. The accident happened at night when
only one headlight of the vehicle was functioning and Peter
only had a student driver's permit. As a consequence, Peter
was convicted in the criminal case. Thereafter, Romano sued
for damages against Peter and SSPA. a) Will the action for
damages against Peter and SSPA
prosper? b) Will your answer be the same if, Paul, the regular
driver, was impleaded as party defendant for allowing
Peter to drive the minivan without a regular driver's
license. c) Is the exercise of due diligence in the selection and
supervision of Peter and Paul a material issue to be
resolved in this case?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Yes. It will prosper (Art, 2180) because at the time he
drove the vehicle, he was not performing his assigned tasks as
provided for by Art. 2180. With respect to SSPA, it is not
liable for the acts of Peter because the latter was not an
employee as held by Supreme Court in Filamer Christian
Institute vs. CA. (190 SCRA 485). Peter belongs to a special
category of students who render service to the school in
exchange for free tuition fees.
B. I would maintain the same answer because the incident did
not occur while the employee was in the performance of his
duty as such employee. The incident occurred at night time,
and in any case, there was no indication in the problem that
he was performing his duties as a driver.
C. In the case of Peter, if he were to be considered as
employee, the exercise of due diligence in the selection and
supervision of peter would not be a material issue since the
conviction of Peter would result in a subsidiary liability where
the defense would not be available by the employer.
In the case of Paul, since the basis of subsidiary liability is the
pater familias rule under Art. 2180, the defense of selection
and supervision of the employee would be a valid defense.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
C. In the case of Peter, if he were to be considered an The doctrine of VICARIOUS
LIABILITY is that which
employee, the exercise of due diligence in the selection and
supervision of Peter would not be a material issue since the
conviction of Peter would result in a subsidiary liability where
the defense would not be available by the employer.
In the case of Paul, since he was in the performance of his
work at the time the incident occurred, the school may be
held subsidiarily liable not because of the conviction of Peter,
but because of the negligence of Paul under Art. 2180.
After working overtime up to midnight, Alberto, an executive
of an insurance company drove a company vehicle to a
favorite Videoke bar where he had some drinks and sang
some songs with friends to "unwind". At 2:00 a.m., he drove
home, but in doing so, he bumped a tricycle, resulting in the
death of its driver. May the insurance company be held liable
for the negligent act of Alberto? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The insurance company is not liable because when the
accident occurred, Alberto was not acting within the assigned
tasks of his employment.
It is true that under Art. 2180 (par. 5), employers are liable for
damages caused by their employees who were acting within
the scope of their assigned tasks. However, the mere fact that
Alberto was using a service vehicle of the employer at the time
of the injurious accident does not necessarily mean that he was
operating the vehicle within the scope of his employment. In
Castilex Industrial Corp. v. Vasquez Jr (321 SCRA393 [1999]) .
the Supreme Court held that notwithstanding the fact that the
employee did some overtime work for the company, the
former was, nevertheless, engaged in his own affairs or
carrying out a personal purpose when he went to a restaurant
at 2:00 a.m. after coming out from work. The time of the
accident (also
2:00 a. m.) was outside normal working hours.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The insurance company is liable if Alberto was negligent in
the operation of the car and the car was assigned to him for
the benefit of the insurance company, and even though he
was not within the scope of his assigned tasks when the
accident happened. In one case decided by the Supreme
Court, where an executive of a pharmaceutical company was
given the use of a company car, and after office hours, the
executive made personal use of the car and met an accident,
the employer was also made liable under Art. 2180 of the
Civil Code for the injury caused by the negligent operation of
the car by the executive, on the ground that the car which
caused the injury was assigned to the executive by the
employer for the prestige of the company. The insurance
company was held liable even though the employee was not
performing within the scope of his assigned tasks when the
accident happened [Valenzuela v. CA, 253 SCRA 3O3 (1996)].
Explain the concept of vicarious liability in quasi-delicts.
(1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
renders a person liable for the negligence of others for whose
acts or omission the law makes him responsible on the theory
that they are under his control and supervision.
OJ was employed as professional driver of MM Transit bus
owned by Mr. BT. In the course of his work, OJ hit a
pedestrian who was seriously injured and later died in the
hospital as a result of the accident. The victim’s heirs sued
the driver and the owner of the bus for damages. Is there a
presumption in this case that Mr. BT, the owner, had been
negligent? If so, is the presumption absolute or not?
Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, there is a presumption of negligence on the part of the
employer. However, such presumption is rebuttable. The
liability of the employer shall cease when they prove that they
observed the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
damage (Article 2180, Civil Code).
When the employee causes damage due to his own negligence
while performing his own duties, there arises the juris tantum
presumption that the employer is negligent, rebuttable only by
proof of observance of the diligence of a good father of a
family (Metro Manila Transit v. CA, 223 SCRA 521 [1993];
Delsan Transport Lines v, C&tA Construction, 412 SCRA 524
2003).
Likewise, if the driver is charged and convicted in a criminal
case for criminal negligence, BT is subsidiarily liable for the
damages arising from the criminal act.
Arturo sold his Pajero to Benjamin for P1 Million. Benjamin
took the vehicle but did not register the sale with the Land
Transportation Office. He allowed his son Carlos, a minor who
did not have a driver's license, to drive the car to buy pan de sal
in a bakery. On the way, Carlos driving in a reckless manner,
sideswiped Dennis, then riding a bicycle. As a result, he suffered
serious physical injuries. Dennis filed a criminal complaint against
Carlos for reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical
injuries.
1. Can Dennis file an independent civil action against Carlos
and his father Benjamin for damages based on quasi-delict?
Explain. (2,5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Dennis can file an independent
civil action against Carlos and his father for damages based on
quasi-delict there being an act or omission causing damage to
another without contractual obligation. Under Section 1 of
Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure, what is
deemed instituted with the criminal action is only the action to
recover civil liability arising from the act or omission punished
by law. An action based on quasi-delict is no longer deemed
instituted and may be filed separately [Section 3, Rule 111,
Rules of Criminal Procedure].
2. Assuming Dennis' action is tenable, can Benjamin raise the
defense that he is not liable because the vehicle is not
registered in his name? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Benjamin cannot raise the called ―oncomouse‖ in Manila? What will
be your advice to
defense that the vehicle is not registered in his name. His liability,
vicarious in character, is based on Article 2180 because he is the
father of a minor who caused damage due to negligence. While
the suit will prosper against the registered owner, it is the actual
owner of the private vehicle who is ultimately liable (See Duavit v.
CA, G.R. No. L-29759, May 18, 1989). The purpose of car
registration is to reduce difficulty in identifying the party liable in
case of accidents
(Villanueva v. Domingo, G.R. No. 144274, September 14, 2004).
Vicarious Liability; Public Utility (2000)
Silvestre leased a car from Avis-Rent-A-Car Co. at the
Mactan International Airport. No sooner had he driven the
car outside the airport when, due to his negligence, he
bumped an FX taxi owned and driven by Victor, causing
damage to the latter in the amount of P100,000.00. Victor
filed an action for damages against both Silvestre and Avis,
based on quasi-delict. Avis filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint against it on the ground of failure to state a cause
of action. Resolve the motion. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion to dismiss should be granted, AVIS is not the
employer of Silvestre; hence, there is no right of action
against AVIS under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Not being
the employer, AVIS has no duty to supervise Silvestre.
Neither has AVIS the duty to observe due diligence in the
selection of its customers. Besides, it was given in the
problem that the cause of the accident was the negligence of
Silvestre.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The motion should be denied. Under the Public Service Law,
the registered owner of a public utility is liable for the
damages suffered by third persons through the use of such
public utility. Hence, the cause of action is based in law, the
Public Service Law.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Intellectual Creation (2004)
Dr. ALX is a scientist honored for work related to the human
genome project. Among his pioneering efforts concern stem
cell research for the cure of Alzheimer’s disease. Under
corporate sponsorship, he helped develop a microbe that ate
and digested oil spills in the sea.
Now he leads a college team for cancer research in MSS State.
The team has experimented on a mouse whose body cells
replicate and bear cancerous tumor. Called ―oncomouse‖, it is
a life-form useful for medical research and it is a novel
creation. Its body cells do not naturally occur in nature but
are the product of man’s intellect, industry and ingenuity.
However, there is a doubt whether local property laws and
ethics would allow rights of exclusive ownership on any
life-form. Dr. ALX needs your advice: (1) whether the
reciprocity principle in private international law could be
applied in our jurisdiction; and (2) whether there are legal and
ethical reasons that could frustrate his claim of exclusive
ownership over the life-form
him? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(1) The reciprocity principle in private international law may
be applied in our jurisdiction. Section 3 of R.A. 8293, the
Intellectual Property Code, provides for reciprocity, as follows:
"Any person who is a national, or who is domiciled, or has a
real and effective industrial establishment in a country which is
a party to any convention, treaty or agreement relating to
intellectual property rights or the repression of unfair
competition, to which the Philippines is also a party, or
extends reciprocal rights to nationals of the Philippines by law,
shall be entitled to benefits to the extent necessary to give
effect to any provision of such convention, treaty or reciprocal
law, in addition to the rights to which any owner of an
intellectual property right is otherwise entitled by this Act. (n)"
To illustrate: the Philippines may refrain from imposing a
requirement of local incorporation or establishment of a local
domicile for the protection of industrial property rights of
foreign nationals (citizens of Canada, Switzerland, U.S.) if the
countries of said foreign nationals refrain from imposing said
requirement on Filipino citizens.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Reciprocity principle cannot be applied in our jurisdiction
because the Philippines is a party to the TRIPS agreement
and the WTO. The principle involved is the most-favored
nation clause which is the principle of non-discrimination.
The protection afforded to intellectual property protection in
the Philippines also applies to other members of the WTO.
Thus, it is not really reciprocity principle in private
international law that applies, but the most-favored nation
clause under public international law.
(2) There is no legal reason why "oncomouse" cannot be
protected under the law. Among those excluded from patent
protection are "plant varieties or animal breeds, or essentially
biological process for the production of plants and animals"
(Section 22.4 Intellectual Property Code, R.A. No. 8293). The
"oncomouse" in the problem is not an essentially biological
process for the production of animals. It is a real invention
because its body cells do not naturally occur in nature but are
the product of man's ingenuity, intellect and industry.
The breeding of oncomouse has novelty, inventive step and
industrial application. These are the three requisites of
patentability. (Sec. 29, IPC)
There are no ethical reasons why Dr. ADX and his college
team cannot be given exclusive ownership over their
invention. The use of such genetically modified mouse, useful
for cancer research, outweighs considerations for animal
rights.
There are no legal and ethical reasons that would frustrate
Dr. ALX's claim of exclusive ownership over "oncomouse".
Animals are property capable of being appropriated and
owned'. In fact, one can own pet dogs or cats, or any other
animal. If wild animals are capable of being owned, with
more reason animals technologically enhanced or corrupted
by man's invention or industry are susceptible to exclusive
ownership by the inventor.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The oncomouse is a higher life form which does not fall
within the definition of the term "invention". Neither may it
fall within the ambit of the term "manufacture" which usually
implies a non-living mechanistic product. The oncomouse is
better regarded as a "discovery" which is the common
patrimony of man.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The "oncomouse" is a non-patentable invention. Hence,
cannot be owned exclusively by its inventor. It is a method
for the treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or
therapy and diagnostic methods practiced on said bodies are
not patentable under Sec. 22 of the IPC.

Answers To Bar Examination in Civil Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Answers To Bar Examination in Civil Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Answers To Bar Examination in Civil Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Law Schools

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

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

TORTS & DAMAGES

You might also like