2014 Civil Law Mock Bar Suggested Answers

7/24/2019 2014 Civil Law Mock Bar Suggested Answers

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2014-civil-law-mock-bar-suggested-answers 1/13

2014 Suggested Answers to Civi l Law Mock Bar Examinations for Jur ists Bar Review Center 1

JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER™ SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO

2014 MOCK BAR EXAMINATIONS in CIVIL LAW

ESSAY QUESTIONSI

Andres, Bong, and Carlos entered into an agreement (embodied in a public instrument) wherein Andres and Bong would contribute land which was to be developed into a subdivision while Carlos wouldcontribute his technical expertise and efforts in developing and marketing the subdivision. The land wouldthen be sold to the public and Andres and Bong would be entitled to 60% and Carlos 40% of the salesproceeds. Pursuant to the agreement the land was mortgaged to a bank and the loan proceeds were usedto develop the land.

a) What is the name or the designation of the contract entered into among Andres, Bong, andCarlos?

The subdivision project flopped because adverse claims on the lots scared away buyers. The bank

eventually foreclosed on the land. Andres and Bong sued Carlos for the latter to bear a part of thelosses.

b) Is Carlos liable to bear a part of the losses?

SUGGESTED ANSWERS:

(a)

The contract entered into among Andres, Bong, and Carlos is the contract of partnership.Under the Civil Code provisions on Partnership, a partnership exists when two or more

people agree to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund with the intention of

dividing the profits among themselves.Here Andres and Bong would contribute property while Carlos would contribute his industryand they would divide the proceeds of the sales. Hence there is a contract of partnership amongthem.

(b)

No, Carlos is not liable to bear a part of the losses.Under the Civil Code provisions on Partnership, an industrial partner is not liable for losses

of the partnership. [Art. 1797] An industrial partner is one who contributes industry rather thanmoney or property to the partnership.

Here Carlos is an industrial partner for he contributed only his industry or expertise. Hencehe is not liable for the partnership’s losses.

II

On 1 April 2010, Pedro sent a text message to his brother, Jose, a resident of Iloilo City, saying, “Idonate my vintage Alfa Romeo sports car to u wc I know u hav long bin wanting.” Jose texted back saying,“Tnx 4 giving d Alfa 2me! ” Pedro texted back, “Ur welcome.” Upon his lawyer’s advice, Jose mailed aletter of acceptance of the donation to Pedro, but it was received in Pedro’s house a day after the demise ofPedro in a helicopter crash while campaigning for congressman. Jose filed an action against theadministrator of Pedro’s estate for the delivery of the Alfa Romeo based on the donation. Jose presentedthe text messages between him and Pedro which are stored in his cellular phone and also the letter of

acceptance. The executor opposed the claim on the ground that the donation was void. Will Jose’s suitprosper?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, Jose’s suit for the delivery of the Alfa Romeo will prosper.Under the Law on Property [Art. 748], a donation of a movable with a value exceeding

P5,000 requires for its validity that the donation and the acceptance be in writing. Under the




Electronic Commerce Act, where the law requires a document to be in writing, that requirement ismet by an electronic document. [Sec. 7(a), Electronic Commerce Act]

Here the donation of the Alfa Romeo, a movable with a value exceeding P5,000, and itsacceptance were in writing as the text messages which were stored are electronic documents

under the Electronic Commerce Act. Hence the donation as well as its acceptance were in writing

and thus the donation was valid.

IIISpouses Limot executed a Contract to Sell their land in favor of Pee Daf whereby the latter shall pay

P100,000.00 as partial payment and the balance of P400,000.00 shall be paid in ten installments. It wasstipulated that Spouses Limot will transfer the title upon the payment of the full price. Three months later,the Spouses Limot sent a letter to Pee Daf rescinding the sale for his failure to pay the installments.Thereafter, they executed a deed of sale over the same parcel of land in favor of Napu Les. Pee Daf suedfor specific performance and argued that Spouses Limot could not have validly sold the land to Napu Lesbecause they were no longer the owners of the same and that as the buyer who first took possession of theland, he has a better right than Napu Les because the latter was in bad faith. Both transactions were as yetunregistered. If you were the judge, how will you decide the case?

SUGGESTED ANSWER

If I were the judge, I would decide the case in favor of the Spouses Limot and Napu Les bydismissing the action for specific performance.

The Supreme Court has held that a stipulation wherein the sellers would transfer the titleupon the full payment is characteristic of a contract to sell and not a deed of absolute sale. TheSupreme Court has also held that the failure of the buyer to comply with his obligation to pay theprice in a contract to sell means that the seller’s obligation to transfer ownership to the buyer will

not arise.

Here Pee Daf failed to comply with his obligation to pay the price when he failed to pay theinstallments on the balance. Hence the Spouses Limot remained the owners as their obligation totransfer ownership never arose and thus they could validly sell the land to Napu Les.

Pee Daf’s contention that he has a better right because he was first in possession andbecause Napoles was in bad faith is misplaced.

Pee Daf’s contention is evidently based on the Civil Code provision on double sale.However such provision is inapplicable.

The Supreme Court has held that the provision on double sale applies if both sales areabsolute.

Here the first sale is not an absolute sale but a contract to sell. Hence the provision isinapplicable and Pee Daf’s contention is misplaced.

IVKate, a Filipina, married John, an Australian national who was domiciled in Canada. The union was

blessed with three children Joey, Jess and Jen. In 2005, John executed a holographic will in Sydney which

although not recognized as a valid form of a will under the laws of Australia was so recognized under thelaws of Canada. He instituted Kate as sole heir to his estate. Under Australian law a person may will hisestate to anyone provided the instituted heir is alive at the time of the testator’s death. The following year,John died in a plane crash. He left an estate worth $2 million dollars. His will was presented for probatebefore the Regional Trial Court of Makati. The three sons filed an opposition to the probate on the grounds:a) The laws of Australia do not allow holographic wills; b) they were deprived of their legitimes underPhilippine law. Resolve the opposition.




SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The opposition should be denied.

The opposition to the probate on the ground that the laws of Australia do not allowholographic wills is without merit.

Under the Civil Code provisions on Succession, the will of an alien abroad produceseffect in the Philippines if it is executed in accordance with the law of his domicile. [Art. 816]

Here the will was executed in accordance with the law of Joh n’s domicile, Canada, whichrecognizes holographic wills. Hence John’s holographic will produces effect in the Philippinesand thus the opposition is without merit.

The opposition to the probate on the ground that the will deprives John’s sons of their legitimes under Philippine law is also without merit.

Under the Law on Succession, the amount of successional rights shall be regulated bythe national law of the person whose succession is under consideration. [Art. 16, Civil Code]

Here Australian law, the national law of John the person whose succession is underconsideration, allows him to will his estate to anyone who is alive at the time of his death.Hence the opposition that the will deprives John’s sons of their legitimes is without merit.

VDrew borrowed P500,000 from Cindy, with Steve acting as surety for the loan. The loan was also

secured by a real estate mortgage executed by Martin in favor of Cindy. On the maturity date, Steveoffered to pay Cindy the P500,000 in cash. Cindy asked Steve if Drew knew about Steve’s offer to pay and

Steve replied that Drew did not know about it.a) Can Steve compel Cindy to accept payment from him? Explain.b) Assuming that Cindy refuses to accept Steve’s payment, what is the recourse of Steve, if any?

Explain.c) Let us assume that Drew did not know of Steve’s payment of the debt. When Steve tried to

seek reimbursement from Drew, the latter was unable to pay because of insolvency. May Steveforeclose upon the mortgage executed by Martin? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWERS:

(a)

Yes, Steve can compel Cindy to accept payment from him.Under the Civil Code provisions on Obligations and Contracts, a person interested in the

fulfillment of the obligation can compel the creditor to accept payment from him. [Art. 1236, CivilCode]

Here the surety Steve is a party interested in the fulfillment of the obligation as he is liabletogether with the principal debtor Drew in favor of the creditor Cindy. Hence Steve can compelCindy to accept payment from him.

(b)

If Cindy refuses to accept Steve’s payment, Steve’s recourse is to consign the amount due

with the court.Under the Civil Code provisions on Obligations and Contracts, the debtor may consign the

amount due where the creditor unjustifiably refuses the debtor’s tender of payment. [Art. 1256,Civil Code]

In this case, Cindy’s ref usal was unjustified since Steve as a surety is a person interested inthe fulfillment of the obligation. Hence Steve can consign the amount due with the court.




(c)

Yes, Steve may foreclose upon the mortgage executed by Martin.Under the Civil Code provisions on Obligations and Contracts, there is legal subrogation

when even without the knowledge of the debtor a person interested in the fulfillment of theobligation pays the creditor. [Art. 1302(3), Civil Code] In such a case, payor steps into the shoes

of the creditor and acquires the creditor’s accessory rights such as those arising from mortgage. [Art. 1303, Civil Code]

Here Steve who as surety is interested in the fulfillment of the obligation had paid Cindy.Hence Steve steps into the shoes of the creditor Cindy and acquires the latter’s rights asmortgagee. Thus Steve may foreclose upon the mortgage.

VIPeter, Andy, and Beth had an agreement wherein Peter lent his Nissan Sentra to Andy and Beth for

their free use for one week. Twelve days later, while Beth was driving the car at the South SuperHighway with due care, she met an accident in which she had no fault. The car was a total wreck. Peterthen sued Andy for payment of the P500,000 value of the car. Andy countered that he should not be liable

as the loss of the car was due to a fortuitous event and the one actually using it was Beth. Andy alsoargued that assuming he could be held liable, it should only be for the amount of P250,000.a) What is the name or the designation of the contract entered into among Peter, Andy, and Beth?

Explain.b) Should Andy be held liable to Peter for the value of the car? If so, for how much? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWERS:(a)

The name of the contract entered into among Peter, Andy, and Beth is the contract ofcommodatum.

Under the Civil Code provisions on Credit Transactions, there is commodatum when a

person gratuitously lends to another a non-consummable thing for the latter to use for a certaintime and to return it.

Here Peter gratuitously lent his car, a non-consummable thing, for Andy and Beth’s use forone 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 Credit Transactions, the bailee in commodatum is liable

for the loss of the thing even if through a fortuitous event if the bailee keeps it for a period longerthan 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 Credit Transactions, when there are two or more bailees

to whom a thing is loaned in the same contract, they are liable solidarily. In solidary liability thefault of one is the fault of all.

Here the car was lent to Andy and Beth hence they are liable solidarily. The liability beingsolidary, Peter is liable for the full value of the car or P500,000 even if the one at fault was Beth.

VIIIn 1979, Bruce brought from Selma a parcel of registered land evidenced by a duly executed deed of

sale. Before buying Bruce inspected the original certificate of title on file with the register of deeds and

found no encumbrance annotated thereon. Bruce presented the deed of sale and Selma’s owner’sduplicate title to the register of deeds. The entry was made in the primary entry book and the correspondingfees were paid as evidenced by the official receipt. However no transfer certificate of title was issued toBruce because the original certificate of title in Selma’s name was temporarily misplaced after fire partlygutted the office of the register of deeds. Meanwhile the land had been possessed by Selma’s distantcousin, Tania, openly, adversely and continuously in the concept of owner since 1974. It was only in April2012 that Bruce sued Tania to recover possession. Tania in her answer invoked the defenses that: (a)Bruce is not an innocent purchaser for value since he should have inspected the land before buying it; and(b) she had acquired ownership over the land by prescription. Decide with reasons.




ANSWER:

I would decide in favor of Bruce in his suit for recovery of possession against Tania.The defense that Bruce is not an innocent purchaser for value since he should have

inspected the land before buying it is without merit.Under the Law on Land Titles, a purchaser of registered land is bound only by those

encumbrances noted in the certificate of title and he is not compelled to look beyond the fourcorners of the title.

Here Bruce had inspected the certificate of title and found no encumbrance therein. Hencehe is an innocent purchaser for value even if he did not inspect the land before buying it.

The defense of Tania that she had acquired ownership over the land by prescription is alsowithout merit.

Under the Law on Land Titles, no title to registered land in derogation of the title of theregistered owner shall be acquired by prescription. [Sec. 47, P.D. 1529]

Here the land was registered in the name of Bruce since the deed of sale was alreadyentered in the primary entry book. Entry in the primary entry book is already deemed asregistration under the Property Registration Decree. [Sec. 56]. Hence Tania’s defense that she

had acquired ownership over the land by prescription is without merit.

VIIIDemi borrowed P300,000 from Polly evidenced by a promissory note. Both Demi and Polly are

residents of Manila. The promissory note signed by Demi states that the loan is “payable when able.” Fouryears had lapsed from the grant of the loan and Demi has yet to pay Polly despite the latter’s written andoral demands.

a) Polly filed a collection suit against Demi before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. If you werethe lawyer for Demi, how would you counter the suit filed by Polly? Explain.

b) Assuming that you were the lawyer for Polly, what action would you file in behalf of Polly?Where would you file the suit? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWERS:

(a)

If I were the lawyer for Demi, I would counter the suit filed by Polly by filing a motion todismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action.

Under the Civil Code provisions on Obligations and Contracts, when the debtor bindshimself to pay when his means permit him to do so, the obligation shall be deemed to be one witha 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 thepromissory note states that the note is payable when able. Hence the period should first be fixedby the court and thus the suit filed by Polly is premature and may be dismissed on the ground offailure to state a cause of action.

(b)

Assuming that I were the lawyer for Polly, I would file an action to fix the period of the loan.I would file the suit with the Regional Trial Court of Manila.

Under the Civil Code provisions on Obligations and Contracts, the court shall fix the durationof the period when it depends upon the debtor’s will.

Here the period provided depends upon the debtor’s will since it provides that the loan is“payable when able.” Hence an action to fix the period may be availed of.




I would file the action with the Regional Trial Court since it is incapable of pecuniaryestimation and I would file it in Manila since the parties reside therein.

IX

Acme Corporation mortgaged its building to the Bank of the Philippine Archipelago in order to secure

a loan of P50,000,000. The building was built by Delta Builders, Inc. using material furnished by AltisCorporation. The contract price for the construction, the price of the materials, and the 6-month’s wages ofthe workers of Acme are all unpaid. Acme also has unpaid income taxes owing to the BIR. Since Acmefailed to pay the loan, the bank foreclosed on the mortgage and the building was sold at the foreclosuresale for P40,000,000 to Value Partners, Ltd. Who would have a right to the P40,000,000? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Bank of the Philippine Archipelago would have the right to the P40,000,000 proceeds of theforeclosure sale.

The Supreme Court has held that before the Civil Code provisions on concurrence and

preference of credit would apply, there should first be a binding in rem proceeding where theclaims of all creditors would be adjudicated, such as insolvency. [Phil. Savings Bank v. Lantin, 124SCRA 476].

Here there was no binding in rem proceeding but only a foreclosure suit which is a quasi inrem action. Hence it is only the mortgagee Bank of the Philippine Archipelago who would have aright to the foreclosure proceeds.

XRosario obtained a loan of P100,000 from Jennifer and pledged her diamond ring. The pledge

contract signed by the parties stipulated that if Rosario is unable to redeem the ring on due date, she willexecute a document in favor of Jennifer providing that the ring shall automatically be considered fullpayment of the loan.

a) Is the stipulation valid? Explain.b) Assume that the pledge contract did not contain the stipulation regarding the execution of the

document but provided that in case the ring pledged is sold at public auction to satisfy thedebt and there is a deficiency, Rosario would be liable for the same. After the loan becamedue and demandable, Rosario was unable to pay the P100,000. After proper proceedings,the ring was sold at public auction for P70,000. May Jennifer file an action against Rosarioto recover the deficiency of P30,000 in case Rosario refuses to pay the same? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWERS:(a)

Yes the stipulation is valid.

The Supreme Court has held that there is no pacto comisorio if the pledgor still has toperform another act to transfer title to the pledgee. [Uy v. CA, 21 May 1988]

Here the pledgor Rosario still has to perform another act, that is, to execute a document inorder to transfer title to the pledgee Jennifer. Hence the stipulation is valid.

(b)

No, Jennifer may not file an action against Rosario in order to recover the deficiency ofP30,000.

Under the Civil Code provisions on Credit Transactions, a pledgee is not entitle to recoverthe deficiency in case the thing pledged is sold for an amount less than the principal obligation,notwithstanding any stipulation to the contrary. [Art. 2115, Civil Code]

XIThe Aegis Nursing Institution, Inc. (ANI) was lambasted by Ding in a radio broadcast as operating a

diploma mill churning out ill-trained nursing graduates who had paid their way through. ANI sued Ding for




moral damages. Ding filed an answer where he raised the defense that a juridical person is not entitled tomoral damages. Is Ding’s defense meritorious? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Ding’s defense is not meritorious.

The Supreme Court has held that a juridical person may recover moral damages in cases oflibel, slander, or any other form of defamation.

Here Ding was guilty of libel or defamation when he lambasted ANI in a radio broadcast asa diploma mill. Hence ANI although a juridical person may recover moral damages. [FilipinasBroadcasting Corp. v. Ago Medical and Educational Center, G.R. 141994, 17 Jan 05]

XIIPortia and Dina entered into an oral contract wherein Dina agreed to the sale of Lot 1 to Portia for

the price of P2,000,000. It turned out that at the time Portia and Dina agreed upon the sale, Dina was notthe owner of Lot 1.

a) Is the contract of sale valid? Explain.Later on Portia asked Dina to deliver the lot to her but Dina refused. Portia filed an action for

specific performance against Dina. Dina filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that she cannot becompelled to perform the contract since it was not in writing.

b) If you were the judge, would you grant Dina’s motion to dismiss? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWERS:

(a)

Yes, the contract of sale is valid.

Under the Civil Code provisions on Obligations and Contracts, an oral sale of real property

although unenforceable is still valid as it may be ratified.

Hence the sale of Lot 1 is valid even if made in an oral contract.

Under the Civil Code provisions on Sales, the seller need not be the owner of the object atthe time of the perfection of the sale.

Hence the sale is valid even if Dina did not own Lot 1.

(b)

If I were the judge I would grant Dina’s motion to dismiss.

Under the Statute of Frauds an agreement for the sale of real property is unenforceableunless the same is in writing. [Art. 1403(e), Civil Code]

Here the sale of Lot 1, which is real property, was not in writing as the same was donethrough an oral contract. Hence the sale of Lot 1 was unenforceable and thus Dina cannot becompelled to perform the contract.

XIIIDaimos corporation, an oil trading company based in Singapore, executed a contract wherein it

agreed to deliver 100,000 barrels of Brent crude oil at US$108 per barrel to Petron Corporation on 18September 2014. Subsequently the United Nations authorized the invasion of Iran for its failure to halt itsnuclear-weapons program. War ensued. The price of Brent crude oil rocketed to US$250 per barrel. On18 September Petron demanded delivery of the crude oil from Daimos. The latter asserted that it had beenrelieved of its obligation to deliver the crude oil because of caso fortuito and under the doctrine of rebus sicstantibus.

a) What do you understand by the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus?b) Is Daimos’ contention meritorious? Explain.




SUGGESTED ANSWERS:

(a)

The doctrine of rebus sic stantibus is the doctrine under public international law in which atreaty or agreement is binding only if the same conditions under which the parties stipulated

continue to exist and should these conditions cease to exist, the treaty or agreement itself ceasesto have any binding effect. Article 1267 of the Civil Code is based on this doctrine.

(b)

No, Daimos’ contention that it had been relieved of its obligation to deliver the crude oilbecause of caso fortuito is without merit.

Under the Civil Code provisions on Obligations and Contracts, caso fortuito does notextinguish an obligation to deliver a generic thing. [Art. 1263]

Here the obligation to deliver barrels of Brent crude oil was a generic obligation since therewas no specification of particular barrels of oil to be delivered. Hence the defense of caso fortuitodoes not lie.

Daimos’ contention that it had been relieved of its obligation under the doctrine of rebus sicstantibus is also without merit.

The doctrine of rebus sic stantibus, as incorporated in our Civil Code provisions onObligations and Contracts, applies only to a service or an obligation to do, not an obligation togive. [Art. 1267, Civil Code]

Here what was involved is an obligation to give or to deliver crude oil and not an obligationto do. Hence the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus is inapplicable.

XIVFelipe is the owner of a piece of land, which has no outlet to a public highway because it is surrounded

by a vast track of land owned by Felina. Felipe has been passing through a pathway across Felina’s land forover thirty-five years. Felina wanted to construct a commercial building on her land and decided to close thepathway. She offered another way, which is still through her land, but is more than 500 meters longer.

a) Is Felina already barred from closing the pathway being used by Felipe?b) Supposing that Felina is not barred, may Felipe insist on a new pathway that is shorter than that

offered by Felina?

SUGGESTED ANSWERS:

(a)

No, Felina is not barred from closing the pathway being used by Felipe.

The Supreme Court has held that a right of way cannot be acquired by prescription since itis a discontinuous easement. [Ronquillo v Roco, 28 Feb 1958; Art. 620, Civil Code]

Here the fact that Felipe has been using the easement for over 35 years will not result in his

acquisition by prescription of a right of way since the same is a discontinuous easement. HenceFelina is not barred from closing the pathway being used by Felipe.

(b)

Supposing that Felina is not barred, Felipe may not insist on a new pathway that is shorterthan that offered by Felina.




Under the Civil Code provisions on Property, the easement of right of way shall beestablished at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate. [Art. 650, Civil Code]

Here the right of way although 500 meters longer would be at the point least prejudicial tothe servient estate of Felina as it would not obstruct her from constructing a commercial building onher lot. Hence Felipe cannot demand a shorter route.

[Note: The issue in (a) is a voluntary easement of right of way which cannot be acquired byprescription. However Felipe is still entitled to a legal or compulsory easement of right of wayunder Art. 649 which is the issue in (b). This however is subject to the condition that it is at thepoint least prejudicial to the servient estate]

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS

1. Tirso receives a tip that gold coins of unknown ownership are buried deep in the 1-hectare lot owned byEdgar. Tirso leases the land from Edgar and then undertakes a treasure hunt for the gold coins. Tirso isable to unearth the gold coins. Who has a right to the gold coins?

A. Edgar entirely.B. One-half to Tirso and one-half to Edgar.C. Tirso entirely.D. The state.

2. A river dried up gradually and naturally. The riparian owner however had granted the usufruct over hisproperty to another person. Who owns the dried-up river bed?

A. The state.B. The riparian owner.C. The usufructuary.D. The riparian owner and usufructuary in proportion to their interest.

3. B and C are the owners of adjoining parcels of land each covered by a Torrens title. Because ofoverlapping technical descriptions in their titles, C built a portion of his fence on what B claims to be hisland. What is the remedy of B in order to vindicate his rights?

A. Forcible entry.B. Unlawful detainer.C. Quieting of Title.D. Partition.

4. X, who has a savings deposit with Y Bank in the sum of P1,000,000 incurs a loan obligation with the saidbank in the sum of P800,000 which has become due. When X tries to withdraw his deposit, Y Bank allowsonly P200,000 to be withdrawn, claiming that it set off the savings account with X’s debt.

A. The set-off is improper because one of the debts arises from a deposit.

B. The set-off is proper because there is legal compensation.C. The set-off is proper if there is an agreement allowing the bank to do so.D. The set-off is improper because there was no prior notice to X.

5. Ali owns a parcel of unregistered land. Ali sells the land to Bugner who takes possession. The deed ofsale in favor of Bugner is unregistered. Subsequently Ali sells the same land to Clay, who is unaware of thesale to Bugner. The deed of sale is registered under the provisions of Sec. 113(b) of PD No. 1529 forregistering dealings with unregistered lands. Both Bugner and Clay paid fair value for the land.

Who between Bugner and Clay is the owner of the land?

A. Clay since the sale to Bugner was not registered.B. Bugner since he has a better right over the land.

C. Bugner since the sale to him was first.D. Clay since he is an innocent purchaser for value.

B

6. Same facts as No. 5 but Ali’s land is registered under the Torrens System and the deed of sale in favorof Clay is registered under the provisions for registering voluntary dealings with registered lands under P.D.No. 1529. Who between Bugner and Clay is the owner of the land?




A. Clay since the sale to Bugner is unenforceable.B. Bugner since he has a better right over the land.C. Bugner since the sale to him was first.D. Clay since he is the first registrant in good faith.

D

Questions No. 7 and 8 are based on the following fact-situation:

H died leaving a last will and testament wherein it is stated that he was legally married to W bywhom he had two legitimate children A and B. H devised to his said forced heirs the entire estate exceptthe free portion which he gave to X who was living with him at the time of his death.

In said will H explained that he had been estranged from his wife W for more than 20 years and hehas 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 thewill wherein she is named as sole executrix. This was opposed by W and A and B. Assume that the willhad been executed in accordance with the formalities required by law.

7. Is the will intrinsically valid?

A. Yes, since it complied with the formal requisites.B. No, because of the devise to X.C. Yes, because the will may be given effect with respect to W, A, and B.D. No, because X cannot be the executrix.

B

8. May the probate court disallow the will?

A. Yes, since X cannot be the executrix.B. No, since the court cannot pass upon the intrinsic validity of the will during the probate stage.C. Yes since the will is void on its face.D. No, since the will has complied with the formal requisites.

C

9. Pablo sold his car to Alfonso who issued a postdated check in full payment thereof. Before the maturityof the check, Alfonso sold the car to Gregorio who later sold it to Gabriel who is a buyer in good faith. Thetransfer to Gabriel was not registered with the LTO. When presented for payment, the check issued by

Alfonso was dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason that Alfonso had already closed the accounteven before he issued the check. May Pablo recover the car from Gabriel?

A. No because Alfonso was not unlawfully deprived of the car. B. Yes because Alfonso did not acquire any right to the car which he could transfer.C. No because Alfonso was the one who caused the loss.D. Yes because the sale was not registered with the LTO.

10. Ernesto donated in a public instrument a parcel of land a parcel of land to Demetrio, who accepted it inthe same document. It is there declared that the donation shall take effect immediately, with the doneehaving the right to take possession of the land and receive its fruits but not to dispose of the land whileErnesto is alive as well as for ten years following his death. Moreover, Ernesto also reserved in the samedeed his right to sell the property should he decide to dispose of it at any time – a right which he did notexercise at all. After his death, Ernesto’s heirs brought an action to recover the land. May the heirs recoverthe land?

A. Yes since the donation was void for lack of compliance with the formal requisites of atestamentary disposition.

B. No since the donation was one inter vivos and hence valid.C. No the action to recover the land has prescribed.D. Yes since the donation was void since the acceptance was not in a separate public instrument.

11. In January 2001, Yolly sold her land to Yeba with the right to repurchase on the date that Yolly passesthe bar. Yolly passed the bar April 2011. Immediately, she signified her intention to repurchase the land.

A. Yolly may no longer repurchase because the period has expired.




B. Yolly may still repurchase because the condition was fulfilled only in 2011.C. Yolly may no longer repurchase because the period in only four years from the date of the

contract.D. Yolly may still repurchase because the period has not yet expired.

Questions 12 to 14 are based on the following fact-situation:

In January 2008 Alfred executed a document captioned “deed of donation inter vivos” which states that hewas donating a 6-hectare parcel of land (Lot 1) to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Imus, Cavite(RCAIC). The deed of donation contains the following condition: “RCAIC shall construct a chapel named inhonor of Alfred within one year from the donation and the donation shall be ipso facto invalidated if thiscondition is not complied with.” Alfred died in 2010. Up to now RCAIC has not constructed the chapel.The heirs of Alfred filed today an action to revoke the donation on the ground of the donee’s non -compliance with the condition to build a chapel. The lawyer for RCAIC filed a motion to dismiss on theground that the action had already prescribed and that the death of the donor extinguished the right to bringthe action.

12. The donation is subject to a:

A. Suspensive condition.B. Resolutory condition.C. Mode.D. Potestative condition.

B

13. If you were the judge, will you grant the motion to dismiss?

A. Yes, since the action was filed more than 4 years from the non-compliance with the condition.B. No, since the prescriptive period is 6 years from the non-compliance with the condition.C. No, since the prescriptive period is 10 years from the non-compliance with the condition.D. Yes, since the donor’s death extinguished the right to bring the action.

C

14. What if the phrase, “and the donation shall be ipso facto invalidated if this condition is not compliedwith” was deleted? Should the motion to dismiss be granted?

A. Yes, since the action was filed more than 4 years from the non-compliance with the condition.B. No, since the prescriptive period is 6 years from the non-compliance with the condition.C. No, since the prescriptive period is 10 years from the non-compliance with the condition.D. Yes, since the donor’s death extinguished the right to bring the action.

A

[15 Bonus]

16. Emma bought a parcel of land from Equitable-PCI Bank, which acquired the same from Felisa, theoriginal owner. Thereafter, Emma discovered that Felisa had granted a right of way over the land in favor ofthe land of Georgina, which had no outlet to a public highway, but the easement was not annotated whenthe servient estate was registered under the Torrens system. Emma then filed a complaint for thecancellation of the right of way. How should the court decide?

A. The complaint should be granted since the right of way was not annotated on the certificate oftitle of Felisa.

B. The complaint should be denied since Emma should have inspected the land, having bought the

same from a bank.C. The complaint should be granted since the right of way was extinguished by non-user.D. The complaint should be denied since the right of way is a legal easement.

Questions 17 and 18 are based on the following fact-situation:

About 15 years ago, Adelaida constructed a house on her lot at Alfonso, Cavite, adjoining a lot owned byBernie. Adelaida provided the house with several large windows a meter away from the boundary line andgiving a good view of Bernie’s lot.




17. A month ago, Bernie brought an action against Adelaida for the closure of the windows alleging thatthey violate the law on distances. Should the case be dismissed?

A. No, since Adelaida has acquired the easement of light and view.B. Yes, since the action has prescribed.

C. No, the action has not prescribed.D. Yes, since Adelaida has not acquired the easement of light and view.

B

18. May Bernie built a structure a meter from the boundary line which blocks the view of Adelaida’swindows?

A. No, since Adelaida has acquired the easement of light and view.B. Yes, since there is still a right to close the windows.C. No, since there is no longer any right to close the windows.D. Yes, since Adelaida has not acquired the easement of light and view.

D

19. Tony surreptitiously built a house on a portion of a vast track of land owned by Ted. When Ted learnedabout the construction, he did not stop it. It was only when the house was finished that Ted took legalaction. Under the law, Ted has the following alternative rights, at the first instance, except:

A. Appropriate the houseB. Demand the removal of the houseC. Compel Tony to pay the value of the landD. None of the above

B

20. Jack inherited an old map showing where a purported chest of diamonds was buried by some soldiersduring World War I. He conducted a search of the treasure and found it beneath an abandoned river bed.The river which used to flow in the said river bed now traverses the estate of Barbosa. To whom shall thechest of diamonds be given?

A. The StateB. JackC. BarbosaD. Both b and c

D

-oOo-

All rights reserved 2014 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized copying or dissemination prohibited.




Documents

2014 Civil Law Mock Bar Suggested Answers