2023 JOAP Suggested Answers To The Civil Law Mock Bar Examination

JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER™
2023 JURISTS ONLINE ADVANCE PRE-BAR (JOAP) REVIEW PROGRAM
SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE

CIVIL LAW MOCK BAR EXAMINATION
1
Marla owned a registered parcel of land under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
No. 1234. The spouses Ventanilla filed an action for specific performance over the land
against Marla. The trial court rendered judgment ordering Marla to execute an absolute
deed of sale over the land in favor of the spouses Ventanilla. In January 1991, pursuant
to the judgment, a notice of levy on execution in favor of the spouses Ventanilla over the
land covered by TCT No. 1234 was entered in the primary entry book but was not
annotated on TCT No. 1234. In May 1991, Marla sold the land to the spouses Saberon
who examined the certificate of title and found no encumbrance thereon. A new TCT No.
5678 was issued in favor of the Saberons. The Saberons built a house thereon. In 1992,
upon learning of the transfer of title to the Saberons, the Ventanillas forthwith filed an
action to nullify the certificate of title issued in favor of the Saberons and to demolish the
house built by the Saberons. May the certificate of title in the Saberons’ names be
nullified? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the certificate of title in the Saberons’ names may be nullified.

The Supreme Court has held that entry of a transaction or deed in the primary
entry book is sufficient registration and will bind a subsequent purchaser whose certificate
of title may accordingly be nullified.
Here, the notice of levy on execution was entered in the primary entry book.
Hence, the notice of levy on execution was sufficiently registered and is thus
binding upon the subsequent purchasers who are the Saberons. Thus, the certificate of
title in the Saberons’ names may be nullified. [Saberon v. Ventanilla, 21 April 2014,
Mendoza, J.]
Same facts as the preceding question. May the trial court order the demolition of
the house built by the Saberons? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the trial court may not order the demolition of the house built by the Saberons.
In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that the purchaser who
was unaware of a prior registered lien because of the failure to annotate the lien on the
certificate of title and who builds on the land bought is considered a builder in good faith.
Since the Saberons are builders in good faith, the owner spouses Ventanilla do
not have the right of demolition as against them.
2023 JOAP Suggested Answers to the Civil Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2023 by Jurists Review
Center Inc. Copying, dissemination, storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without
the express written consent of Jurists Review Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected
to criminal prosecution and administrative charges, including the appropriate complaint with the Bar
Confidant’s Office and IBP. Page 1 of 9
Hence, the trial court cannot order the demolition of the house. [Art. 448, Saberon
v. Ventanilla]
Adi sold in a public instrument to Feliz a parcel of land, 2/3 of which was in the
possession of Thirdy, who claimed ownership thereof. Adi sued Feliz for the price of the
sale. Feliz filed an answer and counterclaimed for rescission of the sale since she could
not take actual possession of the 2/3 portion. Adi argued that rescission could not take
place since he had complied with his obligation to deliver the property to Feliz through the
execution of the sale in a public instrument. May the sale be rescinded by the court?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the sale to Feliz may be rescinded by the court for failure of the seller to
deliver the land sold.
The Supreme Court has held that there is no constructive delivery through the
execution of the sale in a public instrument if there is an impediment to the buyer taking
actual possession of the thing sold.
Here, there is an impediment to the buyer Feliz taking actual possession of the
land, that is, the adverse possession of Villafuerte. Since there was non-delivery of a
substantial portion or 2/3 of the land, then there is a material breach of the contract and
thus a ground for rescission. [Addison v. Felix, 38 Phil. 404 (1918)]
Hence, the sale to Feliz may be rescinded.
Punky filed with the RTC a complaint to recover a ₱3,000,000 loan from Darcy.
The complaint contained no allegation that Punky made a prior demand upon Darcy to
pay. Darcy filed an answer raising the affirmative defense that the complaint failed to
state a cause of action since there was no allegation in the complaint that there was a
prior demand upon Darcy which demand went unheeded. Is Darcy’s affirmative defense
meritorious?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Darcy’s affirmative defense of failure to state a cause of action since there was
no prior demand is not meritorious.
Under the Law on Obligations and Contracts, the demand which will put the debtor
in default may either be judicial or extrajudicial; there is no need for a judicial demand to
be preceded by an extrajudicial one. [Article 1169, Civil Code]
Here, there was a judicial demand by Punky upon Darcy made through the filing
of a court case. Such demand, which need not be preceded by a prior extrajudicial
demand, put Darcy in default. A cause of action already accrued when Punky failed to
pay the loan
Hence, Darcy’s affirmative defense is not meritorious.
5
The sheriff, levying a writ of execution, harvested bangus from the judgment
defendant’s fishpond. The judgment defendant contended that the levy was not proper.
The judgment defendant argued that the levy should have been made by filing with the
proper register of deeds the notice of levy because fish in a fishpond is real property. Is
the argument meritorious?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The argument that the levy was not proper because the fish in a fishpond is real
property is not meritorious.
Under the doctrine of mobilization by anticipation, if the implementation or

consummation of a contract or transaction will require the removal of the real property
from the land or immovable to which it is attached, then such real property is considered
as personal property for purposes of that contract or transaction. [Sibal v. Valdez, 50 Phil.
512 (1927)]
Here, the bangus would have to be taken from the fishpond to sell them at the
execution sale. Thus, the bangus are mobilized in anticipation of the forthcoming
execution sale and are considered as personal property. The levy was therefore proper.
Hence, the judgment defendant’s argument is not meritorious.
A holographic will was presented for probate. The oppositors challenged the
validity of the will on the ground that the testator executed the same under undue
influence. The proponent presented two witnesses who know the testator’s handwriting
and signature and who explicitly declared that the will and the signature are in the
handwriting of the testator and that no undue influence was exerted upon her. The
oppositors argued that the will should not be allowed since the proponent did not present
three witnesses as provided for in Article 811 of the Civil Code. Should the will be
allowed? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
Yes, the holographic will should be allowed.
Under the Civil Code provisions on Succession, in the probate of a holographic will
which is uncontested, the will may be allowed upon the testimony of a witness who
explicitly declares that the will and the signature thereon are in the testator’s handwriting.
[Article 811]
Here, the holographic will was uncontested because the ground of opposition was
undue influence and not the authenticity of the will or the testator’s signature therein. The
testimony of the two witnesses who explicitly declared that the will and the signature
thereon are in the handwriting of the testator was thus sufficient. [Azaola v. Singson, 5
August 1960]
Hence, the holographic will should be allowed.
7
A woman died leaving her husband and her seven siblings as her sole heirs. The
husband then executed an affidavit of self-adjudication under Rule 74 of the Rules of
Court averring that he was the sole heir and causing the registration of his wife’s real
property under his sole name. The decedent’s siblings thus filed with the RTC an action
for annulment of the affidavit and for reconveyance against the husband.
The husband filed an answer in which he argued that the preliminary determination
of the plaintiffs’ status as legal heirs of their deceased sister in a separate special
proceeding is a prerequisite to an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and possession
of estate property. Is the husband’s argument meritorious?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the husband’s argument that there must be a prior declaration of heirship is
not meritorious.
The Supreme Court has held that a prior declaration of heirship is not needed for
an heir to bring an action for the protection or vindication of his successional rights
because the rights to the succession are vested upon the heirs from the moment of the
decedent’s death. [Treyes v. Larlar, G.R. No. 232579, 8 September 2020, Caguioa, J.;
Art. 777, Civil Code]
Atty. Aoife Capablanca filed a petition with the RTC to change her surname from
Capablanca (her father’s surname) to Manalaysay, the maiden surname of her mother.
An ardent feminist, Aoife alleged in her petition that pursuant to the State’s declared policy
to ensure the fundamental equality of women and men before the law, a legitimate child
is entitled to use the surname of either parent as a last name, and that she was choosing
her mother’s surname in accordance with her strong belief in gender equality. May Aoife’s
petition to change her surname be granted based on the ground that she invoked?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Aoife’s petition to change her surname to that of her mother’s should not be
granted.
Under the Civil Code provisions on surname, a legitimate child shall principally use
the surname of the father. [Art. 364, Civil Code] The Supreme Court has stated that while
this provision does not mean that the legitimate child shall exclusively use the surname
of the father, there must be proper and reasonable cause for a legitimate child to use the
mother’s surname. [Alanis v. Court of Appeals, 11 November 2020, Leonen, J.]
Here, there was no proper and reasonable cause for the legitimate child to use the
mother’s surname. Mere invocation of gender equality does not amount to a proper and
reasonable cause because of the express terms of the Civil Code provision.
Hence, Aoife’s petition to change her surname should not be granted.
X was a former Filipino who became a naturalized American citizen in 1995. She
was based in Pennsylvania, USA, and she worked as a paralegal in a law firm handling
estate matters. As paralegal, she knew that there is no system of legitimes under the laws
of Pennsylvania. In November 2012, X went back to the Philippines to establish a hotel
business with her sister. To properly manage the business, X decided to stay in the
Philippines in the long term. She remained unmarried and did not have any children. In
2018, she executed a will, giving all her properties to her sister. In June 2020, she died
after contracting COVID-19. She was survived by her sister and father. In the probate of
X’s will, her father opposed the allowance of the will on the ground of preterition. Rule on
the opposition.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The opposition to the will’s allowance on the ground of preterition should be

denied.
Under Conflict of Laws, the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions and the
capacity to succeed the decedent are governed by the decedent’s national law.
Here, the national law of the decedent is that of Pennsylvania, USA, which does
not provide for a system of compulsory heirs and legitimes. [Articles 16 and 1039, Civil
Code]. Thus, under Pennsylvanian law, a will is intrinsically valid even if it omits an heir
of the testator.
Hence, the opposition to the will’s allowance should be denied.
10
Principo authorized Argento in writing to sell, on Principo’s behalf, the land of

Principo for ₱1 million. Argento, in his own name, sold the land through a deed of
absolute sale to Vindo for ₱1 million. Argento obtained the cash payment from Vindo
and absconded with it. When Vindo learned that the land belonged to Principo, Vindo
filed a suit for specific performance against Principo to enforce the sale. Will the suit
prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Vindo’s suit for specific performance against Principo to enforce the sale will
prosper.
Under the Civil Code provisions on Agency, even if an agent acts in his own name,
the person with whom he has contracted has a right of action against the principal if the
contract involves a thing belonging to the principal. [Art. 1883, Civil Code]
Here, the contract of sale involves a land belonging to the principal Principo. Thus,
Vindo has a right of action against Principo even if Argento had acted in his own name.
Hence, Vindo’s suit for specific performance against Principo will prosper.
11
Oskee owned a valuable Amorsolo painting which was stolen from his house. A
year later, Oskee saw the painting hanging in the office of Braulio. When queried, Braulio
said that he had bought the painting at a gallery auction. Could Oskee recover the
painting from Braulio?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Oskee could recover the painting from Braulio provided he reimburses Braulio
the price he paid for the painting.
Under the Civil Code provisions on Property, an owner who has been unlawfully
deprived of a movable may recover it from a possessor in good faith who had acquired
the movable at a public sale provided the owner reimburses the possessor the price paid.
[Art. 559, Civil Code]
Here, Oskee was unlawfully deprived of a movable, his painting, by theft. He may
recover it from Braulio, a possessor or buyer in good faith who had acquired it at a gallery
auction, which is a public sale. There being no showing of Braulio’s bad faith, he is
presumed to be in good faith.
Hence, Oskee may recover the painting from Braulio provided that Oskee
reimburses Braulio the price paid.
12
In the preceding problem, what if Braulio replied that he had bought the painting at
a gallery store in Ayala Malls? Could Oskee recover the painting from Braulio?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Oskee may not recover the painting from Braulio if he had bought the painting
at a gallery store.
Under the Law on Sales, the owner of a movable who was unlawfully deprived
thereof cannot recover the same from a person who had purchased it at a merchant’s
store in good faith. [Art. 1505, Civil Code]
Here, although Oskee was unlawfully deprived of the painting, he could no longer
recover the same from Braulio who had bought it in good faith at Ayala Malls, a merchant
store.
Hence, Oskee may not recover the painting.
13
Lavinia married Humbert in a church ceremony. Humbert discovered that five

years before, Lavinia had married Soros in a civil ceremony. Lavinia, however, did not
know at the time she married Soros that the latter was already married. Upon learning
that Soros was already married, Lavinia immediately left Soros and since then had not
seen nor heard from him. Lavinia, however, did not take any step to have her marriage
with Soros judicially declared void before she married Humbert. Could Humbert
successfully sue for a declaration of nullity of his marriage to Lavinia?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Humbert could successfully sue for a declaration of nullity of his marriage to
Lavinia.
Under the Family Code, the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked
for purposes of remarriage if there is a final judgment declaring the previous marriage
void; otherwise, the subsequent marriage is also void.
Here, there was no final judgment declaring Lavinia’s prior marriage to Soros void.
Hence, the subsequent marriage between Lavinia and Humbert is also void and
Humbert could thus successfully sue for its nullification. [Art. 40, Family Code; Wiegel v.
Sempio-Diy, 143 SCRA 499]
14
In the preceding question, may Lavinia be prosecuted for bigamy?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Lavinia may not be prosecuted for bigamy.
The Supreme Court has held that the nullity of the previous marriage is a defense
against a criminal case for bigamy even if there was no prior judicial declaration of nullity
of the prior marriage.
Here, Lavinia’s prior marriage to Soros was void because it was a bigamous
marriage, Soros being already married. Thus, the nullity of Lavinia’s prior marriage is a
defense to the bigamy charge.
Hence, Lavinia may not be prosecuted for bigamy. [Pulido v. People, 27 July 2021,
e.b., Hernando, J.]
15
Macario bought a titled lot from Ramon, got the title and took possession of the
lot. Since Macario did not have the money to pay the taxes, fees and registration
expenses, he was not able to register the deed of absolute sale. Upon advice, he
merely executed an affidavit of adverse claim and had it annotated at the back of the
title. A few years after, he received a notice of levy on attachment and writ of execution
in favor of Alex. The notice, writ and certificate of sale were annotated at the back of
the title still in Ramon's name. Who has the superior right over the disputed property
- Macario or Alex? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It is Alex who has the superior right over the disputed property as against Macario.
The Supreme Court has held that an adverse claim which was registered even if
there is an available provision under the Property Registration Decree for the registration
of the adverse claimant’s interest is ineffective and will not confer a better right as against
third persons.
Here, the adverse claim was registered even if there was an available provision in
the Property Registration Decree for the registration of the adverse claimant Mario’s
interest, that is, the registration of the deed of absolute sale.
Hence, Mario’s adverse claim is ineffective and will not confer a better right as
against Alex who had registered his levy and writ of execution. Thus, it is Alex who has
a better right. [Sec. 70, Property Registration Decree; L.P. Leviste & Co. v. Noblejas, 89
SCRA 520 (30 April 1979)]
16
J obtained a writ of attachment over parcel of registered land owned by D. J

presented the writ of attachment for registration with the register of deeds. The RD
entered the writ in the primary entry book but failed to annotate it in the certificate of title.
X wishes to buy the land, examined the title on file and bought it from D. Later on, J who
won his suit against D, claims that he has a better right over the land. Who between J
and X has the better right over the land?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As between J and X, it is J who has the better right over the land.
Under the Law on Land Titles and Deeds, the entry of a transaction in the primary
entry book, even without annotation on the certificate of title, is regarded as sufficient
registration which will bind third parties and thus give a better right against them.
Here, the involuntary transaction of attachment was entered in the primary entry
book and is thus a sufficient registration which will bind third parties, including X.
Hence, J has a better right over the land as against X. [Caviles v. Bautista, 24
November 1999; Section 56, Property Registration Decree]
17
O is the owner of a parcel of unregistered land. O sold the land to A in a notarized

deed of absolute sale. Later, O sold the same land to B, who registered the deed of sale
in his favor before the register of deeds. B is unaware of the first sale to A. Who between
A and B has a better right to the land?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As between A and B, it is A who has a better right to the land.
Under the Law on Land Titles and Deeds, registration of a transaction involving
unregistered land shall be without prejudice to a party with a better right.
Here, the registration of the transaction, that is, the deed of sale in favor of B over
an unregistered land, is without prejudice to A, who is a party with a better right since the
sale to him was first in point of time and ownership was transferred to A by constructive
delivery, the deed of sale to A having been executed in a public instrument, that is, a
notarized deed of sale.
Hence, A has a better right over the land as against B. [Sec. 113, Property
Registration Decree]
18
Demi borrowed ₱3,000,000 from Polly, “payable when able.” Four years had
lapsed from the grant of the loan and Demi has yet to pay Polly despite the latter’s
demands. Polly filed with the RTC a collection suit against Demi. If you were the lawyer
for Demi, how would you counter the suit filed by Polly? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the lawyer for Demi, I would counter the suit filed by Polly by filing an
answer raising the affirmative defense of failure to state a cause of action due to
prematurity.
Under the Civil Code provisions on Obligations and Contracts, when the debtor
binds himself to pay when his means permit him to do so, the obligation shall be deemed
to be one with a period, which period shall first be fixed by the court before the creditor
may demand fulfillment. The Supreme Court has held that any action to recover filed
before the fixing of the period is premature. [Arts. 1180, 1197; Patente v Omega, 93 Phil.
218]
Here, the debtor Demi bound herself to pay when her means permit her to do so
since the promissory note states that the note is payable when able.
Hence, the period should first be fixed by the court and thus the suit filed by Polly
is premature and may be dismissed on that ground.
19
Alfredo and Benjamin are siblings. They are co-owners of a 500 square-meter
property. Without Benjamin’s consent, Alfredo sold the northern half of the property to his
friend Eduardo. When Eduardo went to the property to take possession of the northern
half, Benjamin drove him away, claiming that Alfredo cannot sell the property without his
consent, thus, accordingly, the sale is void. After which, Benjamin sued both Alfredo and
Eduardo for nullification of the sale. Is Benjamin correct that the sale is void?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Benjamin is not correct in saying that the sale is void.
Under the Law on Property, a sale made by a co-owner of a specific portion of the
property owned in common is not void but merely ineffective; it is effective as to the ideal
share of the selling co-owner but ineffective as to the share of the non-consenting co-
owner. [Bulatao vs. Estonactoc, G.R. No. 235020, 10 December 2019]
-oOo-

2023 JOAP Suggested Answers To The Civil Law Mock Bar Examination

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2023 JOAP Suggested Answers To The Civil Law Mock Bar Examination

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2023 JOAP Suggested Answers To The Civil Law Mock Bar Examination

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER™

2023 JURISTS ONLINE ADVANCE PRE-BAR (JOAP) REVIEW PROGRAM

SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE

Yes, the certificate of title in the Saberons’ names may be nullified.

Hence, the sale to Feliz may be rescinded.

Hence, Darcy’s affirmative defense is not meritorious.

Under the doctrine of mobilization by anticipation, if the implementation or

Hence, the judgment defendant’s argument is not meritorious.

Yes, the holographic will should be allowed.

Hence, the holographic will should be allowed.

Hence, Aoife’s petition to change her surname should not be granted.

The opposition to the will’s allowance on the ground of preterition should be

Hence, the opposition to the will’s allowance should be denied.

Principo authorized Argento in writing to sell, on Principo’s behalf, the land of

Hence, Oskee may not recover the painting.

Lavinia married Humbert in a church ceremony. Humbert discovered that five

In the preceding question, may Lavinia be prosecuted for bigamy?

No, Lavinia may not be prosecuted for bigamy.

J obtained a writ of attachment over parcel of registered land owned by D. J

O is the owner of a parcel of unregistered land. O sold the land to A in a notarized

As between A and B, it is A who has a better right to the land.

No, Benjamin is not correct in saying that the sale is void.

You might also like