bar civil law 2001-2003edited

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Famil& Code% which repealed the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#


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#


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#


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&regitered 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


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


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#,-./


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


8/17

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#


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

bar civil law 2001-2003edited

Documents