Upload
law-ssc
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/12/2019 Bar Civil Law 2001-2003edited
1/17
2001 Bar Examination Questions
Persons and Family Relations
Qualification of
Adopter; Applicable
Law
A German couple filed a petition
for adoption of a minor Filipino
child with the Regional TrialCourt of Makati under the
proviion of the Child and !outh
"elfare Code which allowed
alien to adopt# $efore thepetition could be heard% the
Famil& Code% which repealed the
Child and !outh "elfare Code%came into effect# Cone'uentl&%
the (olicitor General filed a
motion to dimi the petition% onthe ground that the Famil& Code
prohibit alien from adopting# )f
&ou were the *udge% how will &ourule on the motion+ ,-./
SUGGESTED ANSER!
The motion to dimi the petition for adoption
hould be denied# The law that hould governthe action i the law in force at the time of
filing the petition# At that time% it wa the Child
and !outh "elfare Code that wa in effect% not
the Famil& Code# 0etitioner have alread&ac'uired a veted right on their 'ualification to
adopt which cannot be taken awa& b& the
Famil& Code# "Re#u$li% &' (iller G'R' No'
12)*+2, A#ril 21, 1***, %itin- Re#u$li% &'
.ourt o/ A##eals, 20) S.RA +)
ATERNAT34E ANSER!
The motion ha to be granted# The new law
hall govern their 'ualification to adopt andunder the new law% the German couple i
di'ualified from adopting# The& cannot claimthat the& have alread& ac'uired a veted right
becaue adoption i not a right but a mereprivilege# 1o one ac'uire a veted right on a
privilege#(Note: If the examinee based his
answer on the current law, RA 8552, hisanswer should be considered correct. This
uestion is based on the re!ealed !ro"ision of
the #amil$ %ode on Ado!tion.&
Su%%ession
0reterition; Art# 2-3%
Art# 456% Art# 7567
$ecaue her eldet on 8uan had
been petering her for capital totart a buine% 8oefa gave him
0755%555#55# Five &ear later%8oefa died% leaving a lat will
and tetament in which he
intituted onl& her four &oungerchildren a her ole heir# At the
time of her death% her onl&
propert& left wa 0455%555#55 ina bank% 8uan oppoed the will on
the ground of preterition# 9ow
hould 8oefa: etate be dividedamong her heir+ (tate briefl& thereaon,/ for &our anwer# ,-./
SUGGESTED ANSER!
There wa no preterition of the oldet onbecaue the tetatri donated 755%555 peo to
him# Thi donation i conidered an advanceon the on: inheritance# There being no
preterition% the intitution in the will hall be
repected but the legitime of the oldet on hato be completed if he received le#
After collating the donation of 0755%555#55 tothe remaining propert& of 0455%555#55% the
etate of the tetatri i 07%555%555#
8/12/2019 Bar Civil Law 2001-2003edited
2/17
will% to be divided e'uall& among them# >achwill receive 0??-%555#
ATERNAT34E ANSER!
Auming that the donation i valid a to form
and ubtance% 8uan cannot invoke preterition
becaue he actuall& had received a donationinter vivo from the tetatri ,))) Tolentino
722%744? ed#/# 9e would onl& have a right to acompletion of hi legitime under Article 456 of
the Civil Code# The etate hould be dividede'uall& among the five children who will each
receive 0??-%555 becaue the total hereditar&
etate% after collating the donation to 8uan ,Art#7567% CC/% would be 07 million# )n the actual
ditribution of the net etate% 8uan get nothing
while hi ibling will get 0??-%555 each#
Pro#erty
$uilder; Good Faith v#
$ad Faith; 0reumptionArt# 332; Art# 334; Art#
3-5; Art# 3-7
Mike built a houe on hi lot in
0aa& Cit Two &ear later% aurve& dicloed that a portion of
the building actuall& tood on theneighboring land of 8oe% to the
etent of 35 'uare meter# 8oe
claim that Mike i a builder inbad faith becaue he hould know
the boundarie of hi lot% and
demand that the portion of thehoue which encroached on hi
land hould be detro&ed or
removed# Mike replie that he i abuilder in good faith and offer tobu& the land occupied b& the
building intead#
7/ ) Mike a builder in good faithor bad faith+ "h&+ ,@./
?/ "hoe preference hould be
followed+ "h&+ ,?./
SUGGESTED ANSER!
7/ !e% Mike i a builder in good faith#There i no howing that when he built hi
houe% he knew that a portion thereofencroached on 8oe: lot# nle one i vered
in the cience of urve&ing% he cannot
determine the precie boundarie or location ofhi propert& b& merel& eamining hi title# )n
the abence of contrar& proof% the law
preume that the encroachment wa done ingood faith 5Te%6no-asP6ils, &' .A, 27
S.RA ), 1) "1**89'
?/ 1one of the preference hall befollowed# The preference of Mike cannot
prevail becaue under Art# 332 of the Civil
Code% it i the owner of the land who ha theoption or choice% not the builder#
8/12/2019 Bar Civil Law 2001-2003edited
3/17
Accretion; AlluvionArt# 3-B; Art# 3-4; Art#
-@B
>aement; Right of"a&; )neparabilit&
Art# 67B; Art# 6@7
For man& &ear% the Rio granderiver depoited oil along it
bank% beide the titled land of
8oe# )n time% uch depoitreached an area of one thouand
'uare meter# "ith the
permiion of 8oe% icente
cultivated the aid area# Ten &earlater% a big flood occurred in the
river and tranferred the 7555
'uare meter to the oppoitebank% beide the land of Agutin#
The land tranferred i now
conteted b& 8oe and Agutin a
riparian owner and b& icentewho claim ownerhip b&
precription# "ho hould prevail+
"h&+ ,-./
>mma bought a parcel of landfrom >'uitable=0C) $ank% which
ac'uired the ame from Felia%
the original owner# Thereafter%>mma dicovered that Felia had
granted a right of wa& over theland in favor of the land of
Georgina% which had no outlet toa public highwa&% but the
eaement wa not annotated when
the ervice etate wa regiteredunder the Torren &tem# >mma
then filed a complaint for
cancellation of the right of wa&%on the ground that it had been
etinguihed b& uch failure to
good faith becaue he built hi houe withoutfirt determining the corner and boundarie of
hi lot to make ure that hi contruction wa
within the perimeter of hi propert 9e couldhave done thi with the help of a geodetic
engineer a an ordinar& prudent and reaonable
man would do under the circumtance#
?/ 8oe: preference hould be followed#9e ma& have the building removed at the
epene of Mike% appropriate the building ahi own% oblige Mike to bu& the land and ak
for damage in addition to an& of the three
option# ,Article 334% 3-5% 3-7% CC/#
SUGGESTED ANSER!8oe hould prevail# The diputed area% which
i an alluvion% belong b& right of accretion to
8oe% the riparian owner ,Art# 3-B CC/# "hen%a given the problem% the ver& ame area wa
DtranferredE b& flood water to the oppoite
bank% it became anvulion and ownerhip
thereof i retained b& 8oe who ha two &earto remove it ,Art# 3-4% CC/# icente: claim
baed on precription i baele ince hi
poeion wa b& mere tolerance of 8oe and%therefore% did not adverel& affect 8oe:
poeion and ownerhip ,Art# -@B% CC/#
)namuch a hi poeion i merel& that of a
holder% he cannot ac'uire the diputed area b&precription#
SUGGESTED ANSER!
The complaint for cancellation of eaement of
right of wa& mut fail# The failure to annotate
the eaement upon the title of the ervientetate i not among the ground for
etinguihing an eaement under Art# 6@7 ofthe Civil Code# nder Art# 67B% eaement are
ineparable from the etate to which the&activel& or paivel& belong#
8/12/2019 Bar Civil Law 2001-2003edited
4/17
Mortgage; 0actum
Commiorium
annotate# 9ow would &ou decidethe controver&+ ,-./
To ecure a loan obtained from a
rural bank% 0urita aigned herleaehold right over a tall in the
public market in favour of the
bank# The deed of aignmentprovide that in cae of default in
the pa&ment of the loan% the bank
hall have the right to ell 0urita
right over the market tall a herattorne&=in=fact% and to appl& the
proceed to the pa&ment of the
loan#7/ "a the aignment of
leaehold right a mortgage or a
ceion+ "h&+ ,@./?/ Auming the aignment to be
a mortgage% doe the proviion
giving the bank the power to ell0urita right contitute pactum
commiorium or not+ "h&+,?./
nder (ection 33% 0 1o# 7-?4% ever®itered owner receiving a certificate of title
puruant to a decree of regitration% and ever&
ube'uent innocent purchaer for value% hallhold the ame free from all encumbrance
ecept thoe noted on aid certificate# Thi
rule% however% admit of eception#
nder Act 346% a amended b& Act 1o# ?57%and (ection 3% Act @6?7% an eaement if not
regitered hall remain and hall be held topa with the land until cut off or etinguihed
b& the regitration of the ervient etate#
9owever% thi proviion ha been uppreed in(ection 33% 0 1o# 7-?4# )n other word% the
regitration of the ervient etate did not
operate to cut off or etinguih the right ofwa Therefore% the complaint for the
cancellation of the right of wa& hould be
dimied#
SUGGESTED ANSER!
7/ The aignment wa a mortgage% not aceion% of the leaehold right# A ceion
would have tranferred ownerhip to the bank#
9owever% the grant of authorit& to the bank toell the leaehold right in cae of default i
proof that no uch ownerhip wa tranferred
and that a mere encumbrance wa contituted#
There would have been no need for uchauthorit& had there been a ceion#
SUGGESTED ANSER!
?/ 1o% the claue in 'uetion i not a pactum
commiorium# It is !actum commissorium
when default in the !a$ment of the loanautomaticall$ "ests ownershi! of the
encumbered !ro!ert$ in the ban'. )n the
problem given% the bank doe notautomaticall& become owner of the propert&
upon default of the mortgagor# The bank ha toell the propert& and appl& the proceed to the
indebtedne#
2002 Bar Examination Questions
Persons and Family Relations
Applicable Law; Art#
7-; Art# 76; Art# 7B
Felipe and Felia% both Filipino
citiHen% were married in Malolo%
$ulacan on 8une 7% 74-5# )n 7465%Felipe went to the nited (tate%
SUGGESTED ANSER!
A# ,7/# The divorce ecured b& Felipe in
California i recogniHable and valid in the0hilippine becaue he wa no longer a Filipino
8/12/2019 Bar Civil Law 2001-2003edited
5/17
Forum 1on Convenienand Le Loci Contractu
Art# 7B
becoming a #(# citiHen in 74B-#)n 7425% the& obtained a divorce
from Felia% who wa dul&
notified of the proceeding# Thedivorce decree became final
under California Law# Coming
back to the 0hilippine in 742?%Felipe married (egundina% a
Filipino citiHen# )n ?557% Felipe%the domiciled in Lo Angele%
California% died leaving one childFelia% and another one b&
(egundina# 9e left a will which
he left hi etate to (egundina andhi two children and nothing to
Felia# (egundina file a petition
for the probate of Felipe: will#Felia 'uetion the intrinic
validit& of the will#% arguing that
her marriage to Felipe ubiteddepite the divorce obtained b&
Felipe becaue aid divorce i not
recogniHed in the 0hilippine# For
thi reaon% he claim that thepropertie and that (egundinaha
no ucceional right#
A# ) the divorce ecured b&Felipe in California recogniHable
and valid in the 0hilippine+ 9ow
doe it affect Felipe: marriage to
Felia+ >plain# ,?./$# "hat law govern the
formalitie of the will+ >plain#
,7./C# "ill 0hilippine law
govern the intrinic validit& of
the will+ >plain# ,?./
Felipe i a Filipino citiHen# "henhe went to (&dne& for vacation%
he met a former buineaociate% who propoed to him a
tranaction which took him toMocow# Felipe brokered a
contract between (&dne& Coal
Corp# ,Coal/% an Autralian firm%and Mocow >nerg& Corp#
,>nerg&/% a Ruian firm% for
Coal to uppl& coal to >nerg& ona monthl& bai for three &ear#
$oth thee firm were not doing%
at that time he ecured it% alien ma& obtaindivorce abroad which ma& be recogniHed in the
0hilippine provided that the& are valid
according to their national law ,an orn vRomillo% 8r#% 7@4 (CRA 7@4 I742-J; Quita v
Court of Appeal% @55 (CRA 356 I7442J
Llorente v# Court of Appeal% @3- (CRA -4-I?555J/#
,?/# "ith repect to Felipe the divorce i validbut with repect to Felia it i not# The divorce
will not capacitate Felia to remarr& becaue heand Felipe were both Filipino at the time of
their marriage# 9owever% in
8/12/2019 Bar Civil Law 2001-2003edited
6/17
Marriage; Re'uiite;Marriage Licene
Art# @3
and till do not do% buine in the0hilippine# Felipe huttled
between (&dne& and Mocow to
cloe the contract# 9e aloeecuted in (&dne& a commiion
contract with Coal and in
Mocow with >nerg&% underwhich contract he wa
guaranteed commiion b& bothfirm baed on a percentage of
deliverie for the three=&earperiod% pa&able in (&dne& and in
Mocow% repectivel&% through
depoit in account that heopened in the two citie# $oth
firm paid Felipe hi commiion
for four month% after which the&topped pa&ing him# Felipe
learned from hi contract% who
are reident of (&dne& andMocow% that the two firm talked
to each other and decided to cut
him off# 9e now file uit in
Manila againt both Coal and>nerg& for pecific performance#
A# efine or eplain the
principle of Dle locicontractuE# ,?./
$# efine or eplain the rule
of Dforum non
convenienE# ,@./C# (hould the 0hilippine
court aume *uridiction
over the cae+ >plain#,-./
8/12/2019 Bar Civil Law 2001-2003edited
7/17
7446% while Facundo had married%on 8ul& 7% ?55?% Quercia# 9aving
lived together a huband and
wife ince 8ul& 7% 7445% Facundoand Quercia did not ecure a
marriage licene but eecuted the
re'uiite affidavit for the purpoe#To enure that hi inheritance
right are not adverel& affectedb& hi father econd marriage%
(otero now bring a uit to eek adeclaration of the nullit& of the
marriage of Facundo and Quercia%
grounded on the abence of avalid marriage licene# Quercia
contend that there wa no need
for a marriage licene in view forher having lived continuoul&
with Facundo for five &ear
before their marriage and that ha(otero ha no legal peronalit& to
eek a declaration of nullit& of the
marriage ince Facundo i now
deceaed#A# ) the marriage of
Facundo and Quercia valid%
depite the abence of a marriagelicene+ >plain# ,?./
$# oe (otero have the
peronalit& to eek the declaration
of nullit& of the marriage%epeciall& now that Facundo i
alread& deceaed+ >plain# ,@./
marriage licene under Art# @3% Famil& Codere'uire that the man and woman mut have
lived together a huband and wife for at leat
five &ear and without legal impediment tomarr& each other during thoe five &ear# The
cohabitation of Facundo and Quercia for i
&ear from 7445 to 8ul& 7% 7446 when 0etra diedwa one with a legal impediment hence% not in
compliance with the re'uirement of law# AT T
8/12/2019 Bar Civil Law 2001-2003edited
8/17
Marriage; Legal(eparation; eclaration
of 1ullit&Art#@6; Art# 3-; Art# 36;
Art# -6
Marriage; oidMarriage;
0&chological )ncapacit&
)f drug addiction% habitualalcoholim% lebianim or
homoeualit& hould occur onl&during the marriage% would thi
contitute ground for a
declaration of nullit& or for legaleparation% or would the& render
the marriage voidable+ ,7./
A# Give a brief definition oreplanation of the term
Dp&chological incapacit&E a a
ground for the declaration ofnullit& of a marriage# ,?./
$# )f eiting at the inception
of marriage% would the tate
of being of unound mind orthe concealment of drug
addiction% habitual
alcoholim% homoeualit& orlebianim be conidered
indicia of p&chological
incapacit&+ >plain# ,?./#
the reolution of the iue i material# $eing acompulor& heir% (otero ha the peronalit& to
'uetion the validit& of the marriage of Facundo
and Quercia#
8/12/2019 Bar Civil Law 2001-2003edited
9/17
lifetime# )t i alo tated in thecodicil that in the event the
obligation i not fulfilled% $etina
hould immediatel& eiHe thepropert& from ivino or latter:
heir and turn over to Theodore:
compulor& heir# ivino failedto fulfill the obligation under the
codicil# $etina bring uit againtivino for the reverion of the
tract of land#a# itinguih between
modal intitution and
ubtitution of heir# ,@./b# itinguih between
imple and
fideicommiar&ubtitution of heir# ,?./
c# oe $etina have a caue
of action againt ivino+>plain ,-./
2-B% 1CC/#
$# )n a ()M0L> ($(T)TT))C
8/12/2019 Bar Civil Law 2001-2003edited
10/17
aement; 1uiance;
Abatement
Antonio% $art% and Carlo arebrother# The& purchaed from
their parent pecific portion of a
parcel of land a evidenced b&three eparate deed of ale% each
deed referring to a particular lot
in meter and bound# "hen thedeed were preented for
regitration% the Regiter of eedcould not iue eparate
certificate of Title had to beiued% therefore% in the name of
three brother a co=owner of the
entire propert The ituation hanot changed up to now% but each
of the brother ha been receiving
rental ecluivel& from the lotactuall& purchaed b& him#
Antonio ell hi lot to a third
peron% with notice to hibrother# To enable the bu&er to
ecure a new title in hi name% the
deed of ale wa made to refer to
undivided interet in the propert&of the eller ,Antonio/% with the
meter and bound of the lot old
being tated# $art and Carloreacted b& ignif&ing their
eercie of their right of
redemption a co=owner#
Antonio in hi behalf and inbehalf of hi bu&er% contend that
the& are no longer co=owner%
although the title covering thepropert& ha remained in their
name a uch# Ma& $art and
Carlo till redeem the lot old b&Antonio+ >plain# ,-./
Lauro own an agricultural land
planted motl& with fruit tree#9ernando own an ad*acent land
devoted to hi pigger& buine%which i two ,?/ meter higher in
elevation# Although 9ernando ha
contructed a wate dipoallagoon for hi pigger&% it i
inade'uate to contain the wate
water containing pig manure% andit often overflow and inundate
Lauro: plantation# Thi ha
SUGGESTED ANSER!
1o% the& ma& not redeem becaue there wa no
co=ownerhip among Antonio% $art and Carlo
to tart with# Their parent alread& partitionedthe land in elling eparate portion to them#
The ituation i the ame a in the cae of Si &'
.A, "+;2 S.RA )+520009'
SUGGESTED ANSER!
9ernando i wrong# )t i true that Lauro: land iburdened with the natural eaement to accept or
receive the water which naturall& and withoutinterruption of man decend from a higher
etate to a lower etate# 9owever% 9ernando ha
contructed a wate dipoal lagoon for hipigger& and it i thi wate water that flow
downward to Lauro: land# 9ernando ha% thu
interrupted the flow of water and ha createdand i maintaining a nuiance# nder Act# 64B
1CC% abatement of a nuiance doe not
8/12/2019 Bar Civil Law 2001-2003edited
11/17
increaed the acidit& of the oil inthe plantation% cauing the tree to
wither and die# Lauro ue for
damage caued to hi plantation#9ernando invoke hi right to the
benefit of a natural eaement in
favor of hi higher etate% whichimpoe upon the lower etate of
Lauro the obligation to receivethe water decending from the
higher etate# ) 9ernandocorrect+ ,-./
preclude recover& of damage b& Lauro even forthe pat eitence of a nuiance# The claim for
damage ma& alo be premied in Art# ?747 ,3/
1CC#
AN=T
8/12/2019 Bar Civil Law 2001-2003edited
12/17
0arental Authorit&;(pecial 0arental
Authorit&; Liabilit& of
TeacherArt# ?72 FC; Art# ?74
FC
"hich of the following remedie%i#e#%
,a/ eclaration of nullit& of
marriage%,b/ Annulment of marriage%
,c/ Legal eparation% andor
,d/ (eparation of propert&%can an aggrieved poue
avail himelfherelf of N,i/ )f the wife
dicover after themarriage that her
huband ha
DA)(E,ii/ )f he goe ,to/
abroad to work a
a nure and refueto come home
after the epiration
of her three=&earcontract there#
,iii/ )f the huband
dicover after the
marriage that hiwife ha been a
protitute before
the& got married#,iv/ )f the huband ha
a eriou affair
with hi ecretar&
and refue to topnotwithtanding
advice from
relative andfriend#
,v/ )f the huband
beat up hi wifeever& time he
come home
drunk# -.
SUGGESTED ANSER!
"i (ince A)( i a eriou and
incurableeuall&= tranmiible dieae% the wife ma&
file an a%tion /or annulmentof the marriage on
thi ground whether uch fact wa concealed ornor from the wife% provided that the dieae wa
preent at the time of the marriage# Themarriage i voidable even though the huband
wa not aware that he had the dieae at the timeof the marriage#
"ii )f the wife refue to come home for
three ,@/ month from the epiration of hecontract% he i preumed to have abandoned the
huband and he ma& file an a%tion /or ?udi%ia
se#aration o/ #ro#erty# )f the refual continuefor more than one &ear from the epiration of
her contract% the huband ma& file the a%tion /or
le-al se#aration under Art# -- ,75/ of theFamil& Code on the ground of abandonment of
petitioner b& repondent without *utifiable
caue for more than one &ear# The wife i
deemed to have abandoned the huband whenhe leave the con*ugal dwelling without an&
intention of returning ,Art# 757% FC/# The
intention not to return cannot be preumedduring the @5=&ear period of her contract#
"iii )f the huband dicover after the
marriage that hi wife wa a protitute before
the& got married% he ha no remed 1omirepreentation or deceit a t character
health% rank% fortune% or chatit& hall contitute
fraud a legal ground for an action for theannulment of marriage ,Art# 36% FC/#
"i& The wife ma& file an a%tion /or le-ase#aration'The huband: eual infedilit& i aground for legal eparation ,Art# --% FC/# (he
ma& alo file an a%tion /or ?udi%ial se#aration
o/ #ro#erty for failure of her huband tocompl& with hi marital dut& of infedilit& ,Art
7@- ,3/% 757 FC/#"& The wife ma& file an a%tion /or le-a
se#arationon the ground of repeated ph&icalviolence on her peron ,Art# -- ,7/% FC/# (he
ma& alo file an a%tion /or ?udi%ial se#arationo/ #ro#erty for failure of the huband tocompl& with hi marital dut& of mutual repect
,Art# 7@- ,3/% Art# 757% FC/# (he ma& alo file
an action for declaration of nullit& of themarriage if the huband: behavior contitute
p&chological incapacit& eiting at the time of
8/12/2019 Bar Civil Law 2001-2003edited
13/17
1aturaliHation
Qualification ofAdopter
)f during cla hour% while the
teacher wa chatting with other
teacher in the chool corridor% aB &ear old male pupil tab the
e&e of another bo& with a ball pen
during a fight% cauing permanentblindne to the victim% who
could be liable for damage forthe bo&: in*ur&K the teacher% the
chool authoritie% or the guilt&bo&: parent+ >plain#
Mi nivere% from Finland%
came to the 0hilippine on atourit via# "hile in thi countr&%
he fell in love with and married a
Filipino doctor# 9er tourit via
having been epired and after themaimum etenion allowed
therefor% the $ureau of
)mmigration and eportation,$)/ i preentl& demanding that
he immediatel& leave the countr&
but he refue to do o% claimingthat he i alread& a Filipino
CitiHen b& her marriage to a
Filipino citiHen# Can the $) tillorder the deportation of Mi
nivere+ >plain# -.
the celebration of marriage#
SUGGESTED ANSER!
The chool% it adminitrator% and teacher have
pecial parental authorit& and reponibilit&
over the minor child while under theiruperviion% intruction or cutod& ,Article ?72
FC/# The& are principall& and olidaril& liablefor the damage caued b& the act or omiion
of the unemancipated minor unle the&eercied the proper diligence re'uired under
the circumtance ,Art# ?74% FC/# )n the
problem% the T>AC9>R and the (C9
8/12/2019 Bar Civil Law 2001-2003edited
14/17
Lina% a former Filipina who
became an American citiHen
hortl& after her marriage to anAmerican huband% would like to
adopt in the 0hilippine% *ointl&with her huband% one of her
minor brother# Auming that allthe re'uired conent have been
obtained% could the contemplated
*oint adoption in the 0hilippineproper+ >plain#
Mi nivere to the Filipino doctor did noautomaticall& make her a Filipino cicitHen# (he
till ha to prove that he i not di'ualified to
become a Filipino citiHen#
SUGGESTED ANSER!!e% Lina and her American huband can *ointl&
adopt a minor brother of Lina becaue he andher huband are both 'ualified to adopt# Lina% a
a fromer Filipino citiHen% can adopt her minorbrother under (ec#B,b/,i/ of RA 2--? ,dometic
Adoption Act of 7442/% or under Art# 723 ,@/,7/
of the Famil& Code# The alien huband can nowadopt under (ec# B,b/ of RA 2--?# The (upreme
Court ha held in everal cae that when
huband and wife are re'uired to adopt *ointl&each one of them mut be 'ualified to adopt in
hi or her own right "Re#u$li% &s' Toledano
2++ S.RA * "1**;# 9owever% the Americanpoue mut compl& with the re'uirement of
the law including the reidenc& re'uirement of
three ,@/ &ear# plain#
)n 74-5% r# Alba donated a
parcel of land to Central
niverit& on condition that thelatter mut etablih a medical
college on the land to be named
after him# )n the &ear ?555% theheir of r# Alba filed an action to
annul the donation and for the
reconve&ance of the propert&
donated to them for the failure%
after -5 &ear% of the niverit&to etablih on the propert& a
medical chool named after theirfather# The niverit& oppoed
the action on the ground of
precription and alo becaue ithad not ued the propert& for
ome purpoe other than that
tated in the donation# (hould theoppoition of the niverit& to
the action of r# Alba: heir be
SUGGESTED ANSER!
A a general rule% a peron cannot donateomething which he cannot dipoe of at the
time of the donation ,Art# B-7% 1CC/#
SUGGESTED ANSER!
The donation ma& be revoked# The non
etablihed of the medical college on thedonated propert& wa a reolutor& condition
impoed on the donation b& the donor# Although
the eed of onation did not fi the time for theetablihed of the medical college% the failure of
the done to etablih the medical college% the
failure of the donee to etablih the medica
college after fift& &ear from the making of the
donation hould be conidered a occurrence ofthe reolutor& condition% and the donation ma&
now be revoked# "hile the general rule i thatin cae the period i not fied in the agreement
of the partie% the period mut be fied firt b&
the court before the obligation ma& bedemanded% the period of -5 &ear wa more than
enough time for the done to compl& with the
condition# 9ence% in thi cae% there i no moreneed for the court to fi the period becaue uch
procedure with the condition# ,.entra
8/12/2019 Bar Civil Law 2001-2003edited
15/17
"ill; Revocation of
"ill; ependent
Relative Revocation
utained+ >plain#
Mr# Re&e eecuted a will
completel& valid a to form# A
week later% however% he eecuted
another will which eprel&revoked hi firt will% which he
tore hi firt will to piece# pon
the death of Mr# Re&e% hiecond will wa preented for
probate b& hi heir% but it wa
denied probate due to formaldefect# Auming that a cop& of
the firt will i available; ma& it
now be admitted to probate andgiven effect+ "h&+
P6ili##ine Uni&ersity &' .A' 2; S.RA )11'
AN=T
8/12/2019 Bar Civil Law 2001-2003edited
16/17
Legitime; Compulor&
9eir
Art# 226% 22B 1CC
9eir% )ntetate 9eir;
(hare
Art# 42@% 1CC; Art# 7B6%
FC
Lui wa urvived b& two
legitimate children% two
illegitimate children% hi parent%and two brother# 9e left an etate
of 07 million# "ho are the
compulor& heir of Lui% howmuch i the legitime of each% and
how much i the free portion ofhi etate% if an&+
Lui wa urvived b& two
legitimate children% two
illegitimate children% hi parent%
and two brother# 9e left an etateof 07 million# Lui died intetate#
"ho are hi intetate heir% and
how much i the hare of each inhi etate+
SUGGESTED ANSER!
The compulor& heir are two legitimate
children and the two illegitimate children# The
parent are ecluded b& the legitimate childrenwhile the brother are not compulor& heir a
all# Their repective legitime areK
,a/ The legitime of the two ,?/ legitimatechildren i one half ,7?/ of the etate
,0-55%555#55/ to be divided betweenthem e'uall&% or 0?-5%555#55 each#
,b/ The legitime of each illegitimate child ione=half ,7?/ the legitime of each
legitimate child or 07?-%555#55#
,c/ (ince the total legitime of thecompulor& heir i 0B-5%555#55% the
balance of 0?-5%555#55 i the free
portion#
SUGGESTED ANSER!The intetate heir are the two ,?/ legitimate
children and the two ,?/ illegitimate children# )n
intetac&% the etate of the decedent i divided
among the legitimate and illegitimate childrenuch that the hare of each illegitimate child i
one=half of the hare of each legitimate child
Their hare areK For each legitimate child =0@@@%@@@#@@# For each illegitimate child N
0766%666#66#
PR=PERT>
Chattel Mortgage;)mmovable
contructed a houe lot whichhe wa leaing from !# later% eecuted a chattel mortgage over
aid houe in favor of O a
ecurit& for a loan obtained fromthe latter# (till later% ac'uired
ownerhip of the land where hi
houe wa contructed% afterwhich he mortgaged both houe
and land in favor of a bank% which
mortgage wa annotated on the
Torren Certificate of Title# "hen failed to pa& hi loan to the
bank% the latter% being the highet
bidder at the forecloure ale%forecloed the mortgage and
ac'uired : houe and lot#
Learning of the proceedingconducted b& the bank% O i now
demanding that the bank
reconve& to him : houe or pa&: to him plu interet# ) O:
SUGGESTED ANSER!1o% O: demand i not valid# A building iimmovable or real propert& whether it i erected
b& the owner of the land% b& a uufructuar&% or
b& a leee# )t ma& be treated a a movable b&the partie to chattel mortgage but uch i
binding onl& between them and not on third
partie ,>vangelita v# Alto (uret& Col% inc# 75@0hil# 357 I74-2J/# )n thi cae% ince the bank i
not a part& to the chattel mortgage% it i not
bound b& it% a the $ank i concerned% the
chattel mortgage% doe not eit# Moreover% thechattel mortgage doe not eit# Moreover% the
chattel mortgage i void becaue it wa no
regitered# Auming that i it valid% it doe notbind the $ank becaue it wa not annotated on
the title of the land mortgaged to the bank# O
cannot demand that the $ank pa& him the loan Oetended to % becaue the $ank wa not priv&
to uch loan tranaction#
AN=T
8/12/2019 Bar Civil Law 2001-2003edited
17/17
Accretion; Avulion
demand againt the bank validand utainable+ "h&+ -.
Andre i a riparian owner of aparcel of regitered land# 9i
land% however% ha graduall&
diminihed in area due to the
current of the river% while theregitered land of Mario on the
oppoite bank ha graduall&
increaed in area b& ?55 'uaremeter#
,a/ "ho ha the better right over
the ?55='uare meter area that ha
been added to Mario: regiteredland% Mario or Andre+
,b/ Ma& a third peron ac'uire
aid ?55='uare meter land b&precription+
1o% O: demand againt the bank i not valid9i demand that the bank reconve& to him :
houe preuppoe that he ha a real right over
the houe# All that O ha i a peronal rightagaint for damage for breach of the contract
of loan#
The treatment of a houe% even if built on rented
land% a movable propert& i void inofar athird peron% uch a the bank% are concerned