• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
2010 civil-mock-bar-answers
 

2010 civil-mock-bar-answers

on

  • 457 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
457
Views on SlideShare
457
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    2010 civil-mock-bar-answers 2010 civil-mock-bar-answers Document Transcript

    • JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER ANSWERS TO 2010 MOCK BAR EXAMINATIONS CIVIL LAW ISUGGESTED ANSWER MEMORANDUMTO: ATTY. MANUEL RIGUERAFROM: ASSOCIATERE: RIGHT OF CARLA OVER THE LANDISSUESThe main issue is who between Beth and Carla is entitled to the land. The resolution ofthe main issue in turn depends on whether Carla is an innocent purchaser for value. Ifshe is, then Carla would be entitled to the ownership of the land as the first registrant ingood faith pursuant to Article 1544 of the Civil Code. If not, then it would be Beth who isentitled to the land as she is the first possessor in good faith of the land. The executionof a deed of sale in a public instrument is a constructive delivery of possession to thevendee.OPINIONIt is Carla who is entitled to the land as she is an innocent purchaser for value.The Supreme Court has held that a transaction is deemed registered from the time thatthe same is entered in the primary entry book. Hence the mere fact that the notice ofadverse claim was not annotated on the title does not mean that Carla does not haveconstructive notice thereof.However, under the Property Registration Decree, an adverse claim is proper only whenthere is no other provision in the decree for registering the claimant’s right or interest.Here the basis of the adverse claim is a deed of sale which could have been registeredas a voluntary transaction under the Property Registration Decree. Hence theregistration of the deed of sale as an adverse claim was improper and did not serve asconstructive notice on Carla. Hence Carla is an innocent purchaser for value.ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: MEMORANDUMTO: ATTY. MANUEL RIGUERAFROM: ASSOCIATERE: RIGHT OF CARLA OVER THE LANDISSUESThe main issue is who between Beth and Carla is entitled to the land. The resolution ofthe main issue in turn depends on whether Carla is an innocent purchaser for value. Ifshe is, then Carla would be entitled to the ownership of the land as the first registrant in 1
    • good faith pursuant to Article 1544 of the Civil Code. If not, then it would be Beth who isentitled to the land as she is the first possessor in good faith of the land. The executionof a deed of sale in a public instrument is a constructive delivery of possession to thevendee.OPINIONIt is Beth who is entitled to the land as Carla is not an innocent purchaser for value.Here Beth was able to register the adverse claim in his favor. Carla is deemed to haveconstructive notice of the adverse claim and hence is not an innocent purchaser forvalue.The fact that the adverse claim was not annotated on the title does not prejudice Bethbecause the Supreme Court has held that a transaction is deemed registered from thetime that the same is entered in the primary entry book.The filing of the adverse claim is proper. The deed of sale could not be registered as avoluntary transaction since the owner’s duplicate was not in the possession of the sellerbut in that of the mortgagee. IISUGGESTED ANSWER: The opposition should be denied. The opposition that a holographic will is not allowed under Australian law iswithout merit. Under the Civil Code provisions on Succession, the will of an alien abroadproduces effect in the Philippines if it is executed in accordance with the Civil Code. Here what was executed was a holographic will which is recognized by theCivil Code. Hence the will was validly executed. The opposition that the sons were deprived of their legitime under Philippinelaw is also without merit. Under the Civil Code, capacity to succeed shall be governed by the nationallaw of the decedent. Here the decedent is a national of Australia whose law allows a testator to willhis estate to anyone provided the instituted heir is alive at the time of the testator’sdeath. Hence the institution of Kate as sole heir was valid. IIISUGGESTED ANSWER Yes, the RTC should grant the petition for authority to remarry. The Supreme Court has held that for purposes of applying the second paragraphof Article 26 of the Family Code, the reckoning point of determining whether themarriage is mixed is the citizenship of the parties at the time a valid divorce is obtainedabroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry, not their citizenship at thetime of the celebration of the marriage. Here Wilma was already a U.S. citizen at the time she divorced Harry in theUnited States and such divorce capacitated her to remarry which she in fact did. HenceHarry may likewise remarry under Philippine law. [Republic v. Orbecido, G.R. 154380,5 Oct 05] 2
    • IVSUGGESTED ANSWER: The marriage was attended by the following defects/irregularities1) Zandro and Zita were both 18 years of age and hence, the consent of theirparents would still be required. This does not make the marriage void but merelyvoidable.2) The license was irregularly issued because of lack of posting but this does notaffect the marriage but may subject the LCR to civil, criminal or administrativesanctions.3) The solemnizing officer had no authority because only incumbent members ofthe judiciary may solemnize marriages. The marriage on this score is void unlesseither or both parties believed in good faith that he had authority.4) There was no marriage ceremony which is one of the formal requisites. Be itnoted that the judge merely asked the parties to fill up the blank form and he did notreally perform the ceremony. Total absence of the ceremony makes the marriagevoid. VSUGGESTED ANSWER: (a) No, international long distance calls are not personal property of PLDT whichmay be the subject of theft. The Supreme Court has held that international long distance calls are not thepersonal property of PLDT since it could not have acquired ownership over such calls.PLDT merely encodes, decodes, enhances and transmits the said calls using itscommunications facilities. (b) Yes the business of providing telecommunications services is a personalproperty which may the subject of theft. The Supreme Court has held that interest in business, as well as the businessitself, is personal property and hence may be the subject of theft. Here when Luis used the facilities of PLDT without its consent, he was unlawfullytaking the telephone services and business of PLDT. [Luis v. Abrogar, G.R. No.155076, 13 January 2009]. VISUGGESTED ANSWER: I would decide the controversy by dismissing the complaint for cancellation ofright of way. The Supreme Court has held that the failure to annotate an existing compulsoryeasement on the servient estate’s title does not extinguish the easement. 3
    • Here the right of way in favor of Georgina’s land is a compulsory one sinceGeorgina’s land is without an outlet to a public highway. Hence the right of way was notextinguished. VII SUGGESTED ANSWER The court should resolve the issue of the Alfa Romeo’s ownership in favor ofPedro. Under the Electronic Commerce Act, where the law requires a document to be inwriting, that requirement is met by an electronic document. [Sec. 7(a), ElectronicCommerce Act] Here the text messages which were stored are electronic documents. Hence thedonation as well as its acceptance was in writing and thus the donation was valid. VIIISUGGESTED ANSWER: (a) No a Torrens title may not be subject to a collateral attack. Under the Property Registration Decree, a certificate of title shall not be subjectto a collateral attack. (b) A direct attack is an action the object of which is to nullify the title and hence tochallenge the proceeding pursuant to which the title was decreed. An indirect orcollateral attack is an action the purpose of which is to seek a different relief but inwhich an attack on the title or the proceeding is made as an incident thereof. (c) No the counterclaim should not be dismissed. The Supreme Court has held that a direct attack on the title may be by way of acounterclaim in which the certificate of title is sought to be nullified. [Leyson v.Bontuyan, G.R. 156357, 18 Feb 05] IXSUGGESTED ANSWER: (a) Yes the will should be allowed. The Supreme Court has held that Article 811 applies only if the holographic will iscontested, that is, its authenticity or that of the testator’s signature is challenged. Here the will was not contested for the ground of opposition was undue influencenot the authenticity of the will or the testator’s signature therein. Hence the testimony oftwo witnesses was sufficient. 4
    • (b) No my answer would not be the same. The Supreme Court has held that if a holographic will is contested, thepresentation of three witnesses is mandatory. [Codoy v. Calugay, 12 Aug 99]. Here only two witnesses were presented. Hence the will should not be allowed. (c) The formal requirement for the validity of a holographic will are the following: [KEYWORD: EDS] 1. The will must be Entirely handwritten by the testator. 2. The will must be Dated by the hand of the testator. 3. The will must be Signed by the hand of the testator himself. XSUGGESTED ANSWER: (a) Only Kate and Kim, nieces of Quintin and Diana, Quintin’s sister will inheritfrom him in intestacy pursuant to the rule of proximity. The other relatives beingfarther in degree will be excluded. Kate and Kim as nieces who concur with theiraunt, Diana will inherit by right of representation. Thus, they get ½ of the estate ofQuintin which they will divide equally and the other half goes to Daisy, the sister ofQuintin. (b) If the parents of Quintin are among the survivors, they alone will get the entireestate of Quintin because being relatives in the direct line, they exclude relatives inthe collateral line pursuant to the rule of preference between lines. XISUGGESTED ANSWER: All of the survivors will inherit from Tess. Since Tess is an adopted child, andshe died intestate, her estate shall still be divided in accordance with Article 190(4)of the Family Code. Under this provision, if the adopted dies intestate survived byhis adopting parents, his/her spouse and illegitimate child or children, the estateshall be divided into three parts. 1/3 shall pertain to the adopting parents which theywill divide equally, 1/3 shall go to the surviving spouse and the other third shallpertain to the illegitimate children of the adopted child. So, Tim and Trish will get 1/3or P120,000 which they will divide equally. Tong will also get P120,000, and theremaining P120,000.00 will go to Tina. 5
    • XIISUGGESTED ANSWERS: (a) Yes, Edwin can compel Pia to accept payment from him. Under the Civil Code provisions on obligations and contracts, a person interestedin the fulfillment of the obligation can compel the creditor to accept payment from him. Here Edwin who is a surety is a party interested in the fulfillment of the obligationas he is liable together with the principal debtor in favor of the creditor. (b) If Pia refuses to accept Edwin’s payment, Edwin’s recourse is to consign theamount due with the court. Under the Civil Code provisions on obligations and contracts, the debtor mayconsign the amount due where the creditor unjustifiably refuses the debtor’s tender ofpayment. In this case, Pia’s refusal was unjustified since Edwin is a person interested inthe fulfillment of the obligation. (c) Yes, Edwin may foreclose upon the mortgage executed by Martin. Under the Civil Code provisions on obligations and contracts, there is legalsubrogation when a person interested in the fulfillment of the obligation pays thecreditor. In such a case, payor steps into the shoes of the creditor and acquires thecreditor’s accessory rights such as those arising from mortgage. Here Edwin who is interested in the fulfillment of the obligation had paid Pia.Hence Edwin steps into the shoes of Pia and acquires the latter’s rights as mortgagee. XIIISUGGESTED ANSWER: (a) I would counter Polly’s suit by arguing that under the Civil Code provisions onobligations and contracts, when the debtor binds himself to pay when his means permithim to do so, the obligation shall be deemed to be one with a period and the courtshould first fix the period before any action to enforce payment may be filed. [Arts.1180, 1197]. (b) I should first file an action to fix the period of the obligation pursuant to the CivilCode provisions on obligations and contracts. [Arts. 1180, 1197] I would file the actionwith the Regional Trial Court since it is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation. XIVSUGGESTED ANSWER: (a) Yes, the contract of sale is valid. 6
    • Under the Civil Code provisions on Obligations and Contracts, an oral sale of realproperty is unenforceable. Nevertheless an unenforceable contract is still valid as thesame may be ratified. Under the Civil Code provisions on Sales, the seller need not be the owner of theobject at the time of the perfection of the sale. Hence the sale is valid even if Dina didnot own Lot 1. (b) Yes, if I were the judge I would grant Dina’s motion to dismiss. Under the Civil Code provisions on Obligations and Contracts, sale of realproperty is covered by the Statute of Frauds and unenforceable by action. (c) The Statute of Frauds is that provision in the Civil Code which enumeratescertain contracts which are unenforceable by action, unless the same, or some note ormemorandum thereof, be in writing and subscribed by the party charged or by hisagent. [Article 1403[2], Civil Code]. The purpose of the Statute of Frauds is to prevent fraud and perjury. (d) No, if I were the judge I would not sustain the motion to strike out. Under the Civil Code provisions on Obligations and Contracts, contractsinfringing the Statute of Frauds are ratified by the failure to object to the presentation oforal evidence to prove the same. [Article 1405, Civil Code]. Here Dina’s lawyer failed to object to the presentation by Portia of oral evidenceto prove the contract. Hence the contract was ratified and the testimony of Portia mayno longer be struck out. XVSUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Pol’s contention is not correct. The Supreme Court has held that the defense of substantial compliance which isavailable in rescission under Article 1191 is not available in the case of failure to pay ina contract to sell since the failure to pay is not a breach but merely an event whichprevents the vendor’s obligation to convey title from acquiring binding force. Here the Agreement although denominated as one of purchase and sell is reallya contract to sell since the deed of absolute sale and the clean title would only bedelivered to the buyer upon full payment. Hence the defense of substantial complianceis not available to the buyer. [Ong v. CA, G.R. No. 97347, 6 July 99] XVISUGGESTED ANSWER: (a) The contract entered into among Andres, Bong, and Carlos is the contract ofpartnership. 7
    • Under the Civil Code provisions on partnership, a partnership exists when two ormore people agree to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund with theintention of dividing the profits among themselves. Here Andres and Bong would contribute property while Carlos would contributehis industry and they would divide the proceeds of the sales. Hence there is a contractof partnership among them. (b) Carlos is not liable to bear a part of the losses. Under the Civil Code provisions on partnership, an industrial partner is not liablefor losses of the partnership. [Art. 1797] An industrial partner is one who contributesindustry rather than money or property to the partnership. Here Carlos is an industrial partner for he contributed only his industry orexpertise. Hence he is not liable for the partnership’s losses. XVIISUGGESTED ANSWER: (a) The name of the contract entered into among Peter, Andy, and Beth is thecontract of commodatum. Under the Civil Code provisions on loan, there is commodatum when a persongratuitously lends to another a non-consummable thing for the latter to use for a certaintime and to return it. Here Peter lent his car, a non-consummable thing, for Andy and Beth’s free usefor one week. Hence there was a contract of commodatum. (b) Yes Andy should be held liable to Peter for the value of the car. Under the Civil Code provisions on loan, the bailee in commodatum is liable forthe loss of the thing even if through a fortuitous event if the bailee keeps it for a periodlonger than that stipulated. Here Beth kept the car longer than one week. Hence Beth is liable. Andy should also be liable. Under the Civil code provisions on loan, when there are two or more bailees towhom a thing is loaned in the same contract, they are liable solidarily. In solidaryliability the fault of one is the fault of all. Here the car was lent to Andy and Beth hence they are liable solidarily. Theliability being solidary, Peter is liable for the full value of the car or P500,000 even if theone at fault was Beth. XVIIISUGGESTED ANSWER: Bank of the Philippine Archipelago would have the right over the P40,000,000proceeds of the foreclosure sale. The Supreme Court has held that before the Civil Code provisions onconcurrence and preference of credit would apply, there should first be a binding in remproceeding where the claims of all creditors would be adjudicated, such as insolvency,settlement of a decedent’s estate, and other liquidation proceedings of similar import.[Phil. Savings Bank v. Lantin, 124 SCRA 476]. In this case there was no binding in rem proceeding but only a foreclosure suit.Hence it is only the mortgagee who would have a right to the foreclosure proceeds. 8
    • XIXSUGGESTED ANSWER: (a) Actual damages: Damages recoverable because of pecuniary loss. Moral damages: Damages incapable of pecuniary estimation but awardedbecause of the physical suffering, mental anguish, besmirched reputation, socialhumiliation and similar injury which are the proximate result of the defendant’s wrongfulact or omission. Exemplary damages: Damages which are imposed by way of example orcorrection for the public good. Nominal damages: Damages which are awarded in order to vindicate orrecognize the plaintiff’s right and not for the purpose of indemnification. Temperate damages: Damages which are more than nominal but less thanactual damages and which are awarded when there is pecuniary loss but its amountcannot be proved with certainty. Liquidated damages: Damages which are agreed to by the parties in a contractto be paid in case of its breach. (b) Ding’s defense is not meritorious. Article 2219(7) of the Civil Code authorizes the recovery of moral damages incases of libel, slander, or any other form of defamation. The Supreme Court has heldin a recent case that this article does not qualify whether the plaintiff is a natural orjuridical person. Here Ding was guilty of libel or defamation when he lambasted ANI in a radiobroadcast. Hence he is liable for moral damages to ANI. [Filipinas Broadcasting Corp.v. Ago Medical and Educational Center, G.R. 141994, 17 Jan 05] NOTHING FOLLOWS. 9