2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

1/46

2009 CIVIL LAW

PART I

I

TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false.

Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)

The doctrine of "processual presumption" allows the court of the forum to presume that the

foreign law applicable to the case is the same as the local or domestic law.

In reserva troncal, all reservatarios (reservees) inherit as a class and in equal shares

regardless of their proximity in degree to the prepositus.

An oral partnership is valid.

An oral promise of guaranty is valid and binding.

A dead child can be legitimated.

jor_el wrote:

a. TRUE. Under the doctrine of processual presumption, where a foreign law is not pleaded

or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the same as Philippine

law.

b. FALSE. In reserva troncal, the reservatarios inherit in accordance with the rules of intestacy.

Thus, there is a preference, first between lines, and within each line, the nearest in degree

excludes the more remote.

c. TRUE. As a general rule, the form of a contract of partnership is immaterial to the validity of

the partnership (Article 1771, Civil Code). The exception is where real property or rights to real

property are contributed to the partnership in which case the contract of partnership must be

in a public instrument.

d. TRUE. Since the law only requires that the contract of guaranty be express but does not

provide that it be in writing, then an oral promise of guaranty is valid. However, under the

Statute of Frauds, a promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another (which

includes guaranty) must be in writing; otherwise, it is unenforceable unless ratified.

e. TRUE. The Civil Code (Article 181) speaks of legitimation of children who died before the

celebration of the marriage. The legitimated dead childrens descendants are entitled to

benefit from such legitimation.

It is the Family Code which so provides, not the Civil Code.

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

2/46

jor_el wrote:

again, xerxes shows his perceptiveness. It is Article 181 of the Family Code which provides

that:

Quote:

Art. 181. The legitimation of children who died before the celebration of the marriage shall

benefit their descendants.

Nonetheless, the above provision was taken from Article 274 of the Civil Code which provides:

Quote:

Art. 274. The legitimation of children who died before the celebration of the marriage shall

benefit their descendants.

Thus, both under the Civil Code and the Family Code, the answer to the question will be TRUE.

Art 274 of the New Civil Code had been amended by the FC. Hence, it is the FC which governs

legitimation of children although both NCC and FC with respect to the provisions of law have

the same wordings. But for purposes of citation, FC shall govern being the amendatory law.

a. TRUE. Under the doctrine of processual presumption, where a foreign law is not pleaded

or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the same as Philippine

law.

b. FALSE. In reserva troncal, the reservatarios inherit in accordance with the rules of intestacy.

Thus, there is a preference, first between lines, and within each line, the nearest in degree

excludes the more remote.

c. TRUE. As a general rule, the form of a contract of partnership is immaterial to the validity of

the partnership (Article 1771, Civil Code). The exception is where real property or rights to real

property are contributed to the partnership in which case the contract of partnership must be

in a public instrument.





e. TRUE. The Civil Code (Article 181) speaks of legitimation of children who died before the

celebration of the marriage. The legitimated dead childrens descendants are entitled to

benefit from such legitimation.

_________________

Fiat justitia ruat coelum.

++++++++++

1. FALSE. the doctrine of processual presumption arises when the foreign law is not alleged or

even if alleged but not proved, then the domestic law presumes that it is the same as that of

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

3/46

the foreign law.

it is not the other way around. in the given question, it shows that it is the foreign law that is

to apply and shall be presumed to be the same as that of the domestic law.

in other words, dapat ang makikisama eh ang foreign law. lols.

3. FALSE. the word express means that it is to be in writing. the only thing is, the CONTRACT ofguaranty is not subjected to any form or solemnity before it becomes valid and binding. and

the mere fact that in statute of frauds, if not in writing then unenforceable gave the

impression that it may be valid.. but not yet binding.. eh di moreso if the oral PROMISE of

guaranty is valid AND binding.

and Art. 2055 states, A guaranty is not presumed; it must be express and cannot extend to

more than what is stipulated therein.

ahehe

jor_el wrote:

d. An oral promise of guaranty is valid and binding.

It is clear that the statement is asking if an oral promise of guaranty is valid AND binding, AND

NOT if an oral promise of guaranty is only valid. Hence, False.

jor_el wrote:





As far as i understand, the concept of guaranty is like that of an assumption of obligation of

another person. hence, there must be a showing of an act of express consent from the

guarantor. that is, it must be in writing. The purpose of guaranty is for the creditor's right to

enforce an obligation upon the guarantor in default of the primary debtor. It must not only be

valid but also binding. Mere validity is lacking to effect the creditor's right to enforce against

the guarantor.

peace!

thanks sir jor-el... ayos ang paglapat mo ng tagalog. ahehe... may nahanap na kongjurisprudence about it. thanks talaga. ang hirap talaga pag wala na sa law school.. dami na

nakakalimutan. hays..

d. An oral promise of guaranty is valid and binding.

here naman the question pertains to the promise of guranty done orally.

nag hahanap ako ng jurisprudence about sa argument mo na parang contract of guaranty does

not need to be written. kasi nga for you, yung word na express does not mean it to be

written... pero kasi ang buong sentence nun eh...Art. 2055 states, A guaranty is not presumed;it must be express and cannot extend to more than what is stipulated therein. so meaning,

kelangan kung ano lang ang nakasulat dun, yun lang ang masusunod... guaranty being an

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

4/46

ancillary to the principal contract. ang alam ko ... kahit sa pambalot lang ng pandesal nakasulat

yung guarantry... pwede na. basta kelangan nakasulat yung obligation ng guarantor. pero kung

meron kang jurisprudence na alam.. paki post na lang dito.. thanks..

1. TRUE, while foreign laws must be pleaded and proved, the court may, however, assume that

the foreign law of the same as the law of the forum (processual presumption) in case of failure

to prove and plead the proper foreign law; provided, however, that the case falls under any of

the exceptions to the application of foreign law, i.e. when application of the foreign law may

work undeniable injustice to the citizens of the forum.

2. FALSE, the Civil Code did not provide for the rules on how the reservatarios would succeed

to the reservista (ascendant) and one rule on inestacy provides that the reservatarios are

relatives to the 3rd degree and belong to the line from which the reservable property came.

3. FALSE, the essential features of partnership provides that there must be a valid contract.

Art. 1784 of the Civil Code provides a partnership begins from the moment of the execution of

the contract.

4. TRUE, an oral promise of guaranty are express warranties which may be valid and binding

provided it complied with the requisites therefor. One is that the buyer purchase the subject

matter relying on said oral promise.

5. YES, a dead child can be legitimated by the subsequent marriage of parents provided the

action for which is filed within five (5) after his or her death and the child dies before reaching

the age of majority.

valid kontrak ba ang oral partnership?.. impliedly, yun ang tanong.. sabe sa art.1771,civil code:

partnership may be constituted in any form ang verbal or oral form ba ay form of

kontrak?

PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:20 pm Post subject: Re: From a Freshman of PUNP Urdaneta

City Reply with quoteWRE10H wrote:

1. TRUE, while foreign laws must be pleaded and proved, the court may, however, assume that

the foreign law of the same as the law of the forum (processual presumption) in case of failure

to prove and plead the proper foreign law; provided, however, that the case falls under any of

the exceptions to the application of foreign law, i.e. when application of the foreign law may

work undeniable injustice to the citizens of the forum.

2. FALSE, the Civil Code did not provide for the rules on how the reservatarios would succeed

to the reservista (ascendant) and one rule on inestacy provides that the reservatarios arerelatives to the 3rd degree and belong to the line from which the reservable property came.

3. FALSE, the essential features of partnership provides that there must be a valid contract.

Art. 1784 of the Civil Code provides a partnership begins from the moment of the execution of

the contract.

4. TRUE, an oral promise of guaranty are express warranties which may be valid and binding

provided it complied with the requisites therefor. One is that the buyer purchase the subject

matter relying on said oral promise.

5. YES, a dead child can be legitimated by the subsequent marriage of parents provided the

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

5/46

action for which is filed within five (5) after his or her death and the child dies before reaching

the age of majority.

valid kontrak ba ang oral partnership?.. impliedly, yun ang tanong.. sabe sa art.1771,civil code:

partnership may be constituted in any form Wink ang verbal or oral form ba ay form of

kontrak? Wink

+++++++++

it is true that art. 1771 says partnership may be constituted in any form. pag sinabing form, it

entails something written. so di ko ma gets kung dun sa tanong mo if you are going for

WRE10H's answer or dun ka sa TRUE. ahehehe..

but for me, there can be a valid oral contract of partnership. although it is stated, partnership

may be constituted in any form, but it does not mean that it is only limited and can only be

constituted in any form.

partnership arises when two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property

or industry to a common fund with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves. so

therefore, there can be oral contract of partnership as long as no real property or capital of

3,000 worth is contributed without accompanying public instrument.

johnwong30 wrote:


entails something written. so di ko ma gets kung dun sa tanong mo if you are going forWRE10H's answer or dun ka sa TRUE. ahehehe..




partnership arises when two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property

or industry to a common fund with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves. so

therefore, there can be oral contract of partnership as long as no real property or capital of3,000 worth is contributed without accompanying public instrument.

sabe mo: pag sinabing form, it entails something written? hwaw! bago yan tol

pag sinabing "form" yung concept ng "form" hinde automatically n eksklusibli dapat in writing..

ang form w/ reference to kontraks pwede oral pwede written at kung written pwede private

document pwede notarial document.. yun ang concept ng form w/ reference to kontraks

kaya nga kinukwestyon ko sagot ni WRE10H kase may objeksyon ako sa sagot nya hinde ako

agree sa anser nya.. so TRUE anser ko

by d way, valid pa ren oral kontrak of partnership kahet at least P3,000 or more ang

kontribusyon sa partnership.. sabe sa art.1772, kahet di in public instrument or di narehistro

sa SEC yung partnership liable pa ren ang parnership n d partners to 3rd persons.. d law speaks

of d liability of d "partnership" n d "partners" ibig sabihen may partnership pa ren..

aderways, y speak of "partnership" n "partners"?

consciouslymad wrote:

johnwong30 wrote:


entails something written. so di ko ma gets kung dun sa tanong mo if you are going for

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

6/46

WRE10H's answer or dun ka sa TRUE. ahehehe..




partnership arises when two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, propertyor industry to a common fund with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves. so

therefore, there can be oral contract of partnership as long as no real property or capital of

3,000 worth is contributed without accompanying public instrument.

sabe mo: pag sinabing form, it entails something written? hwaw! bago yan tol

pag sinabing "form" yung concept ng "form" hinde automatically n eksklusibli dapat in writing..

ang form w/ reference to kontraks pwede oral pwede written at kung written pwede private

document pwede notarial document.. yun ang concept ng form w/ reference to kontraks

kaya nga kinukwestyon ko sagot ni WRE10H kase may objeksyon ako sa sagot nya hinde akoagree sa anser nya.. so TRUE anser ko

by d way, valid pa ren oral kontrak of partnership kahet at least P3,000 or more ang

kontribusyon sa partnership.. sabe sa art.1772, kahet di in public instrument or di narehistro

sa SEC yung partnership liable pa ren ang parnership n d partners to 3rd persons.. d law speaks

of d liability of d "partnership" n d "partners" ibig sabihen may partnership pa ren..

aderways, y speak of "partnership" n "partners"?

++++++

aheheehe.. for me.. when the law says form, it entails something written. unless there is a

jurisprudence on that or any authority to that respect, please post it here. thanks.

and yeah.. i got it wrong nung sinama ko yung 3k unregistered sa dti/sec.

++++++++

II

Dr. Lopez, a 70-year old widower, and his son Roberto both died in a fire that gutted their

home while they were sleeping in their air-conditioned rooms. Robertos wife, Marilyn, and

their two children were spared because they were in the province at the time. Dr. Lopez left

an estate worth P20M and a life insurance policy in the amount of P1M with his three

children --- one of whom is Roberto --- as beneficiaries.

Marilyn is now claiming for herself and her children her husbands share in the estate left by

Dr. Lopez, and her husbands share in the proceeds of Dr. Lopezs life insurance policy. Rule

on the validity of Marilyns claims with reasons. (4%)

ganda ng mga sagot ni jor-el.

...for me,

MARILYN CANNOT claim for herself for her husband's share in the estate of Dr. Lopez. wala

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

7/46

namang relasyon si marilyn at si dr. lopez. yung mga anak nila ang meron by right of

representation.

II




an estate worth P20M and a life insurance policy in the amount of P1M with his three children

--- one of whom is Roberto --- as beneficiaries.


Dr. Lopez, and her husbands share in the proceeds of Dr. Lopezs life insurance policy. Rule on

the validity of Marilyns claims with reasons. (4%)

YES, the claim of Marilyn, both on the estate of the late Dr. Lopez and that of the insurance

proceeds, is valid following the order of intestate succession and by representation, she, being

the surviving spouse of the deceased Roberto, who, in turn, is one of the three (3) legitimate

children of the deceased Dr. Lopez.

I used this answer.

Marilyn cannot claim.

Art. 43. If there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each

other, as to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall

prove the same; in the absence of proof, it is presumed that they died at the same time and

there shall be no transmission of rights from one to the other.

Marilyn cannot claim for herself and her children her husband's share in the estate left by Dr.Lopez. The persons who are called to succeed eachother were considered to have died at the

same time, in the absence of proof that one died prior to the other. Therefore, there is no

transmission of rights from Dr. Lopez to Roberto.

Marilyn can claim for Roberto's share in the proceeds of Dr. Lopez's life insurance policy. This

is not an issue of succession, rather an issue of survivorship. The Rules of Court shall apply in

determining the survivorship. Dr. Lopez, being the older person, at 70, is considered to have

died first. Therefore, the share of the proceeds of Dr. Lopez's life insurance has been

transfered to Roberto.

Please enlighten me, this is my answer:

crack wrote:

Marilyn cannot claim for herself and her children her husband's share in the estate left by Dr.

Lopez. The persons who are called to succeed eachother were considered to have died at the

same time, in the absence of proof that one died prior to the other. Therefore, there is no

transmission of rights from Dr. Lopez to Roberto.

Marilyn can claim for Roberto's share in the proceeds of Dr. Lopez's life insurance policy. This

is not an issue of succession, rather an issue of survivorship. The Rules of Court shall apply in

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

8/46

determining the survivorship. Dr. Lopez, being the older person, at 70, is considered to have

died first. Therefore, the share of the proceeds of Dr. Lopez's life insurance has been

transfered to Roberto.

@Crack

i agree with you. ito din ang answer ko.

chrisbarber5 wrote:

I used this answer.

Marilyn cannot claim.Art. 43. If there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each

other, as to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall

prove the same; in the absence of proof, it is presumed that they died at the same time and

there shall be no transmission of rights from one to the other.

I agree with this one. Further, although Marilyn cannot claim her share in the estate, she is

however entitled to receive the proceeds of the life insurance policy, provided the designationof Roberto is an irrevocable one. Otherwise, she cannot.

Art 43 of the CC provides that when two persons are called to succeed each other, and it

cannot be determined who died first, he who alleges the death of the other prior to the other

shall prove the same, if it cannot be ascertained as to who died first, it will be presumed that

they died at the same time and there shall be no transmission of rights. Therefore, Marilyn

cannot inherit thru intestate succession from the estate of P20M.

However, Marilyn can inherit from the share of Roberto as beneficiary in the life insurance of

Dr. Lopez thru right of representation being the wife of Roberto.

Quote:




an estate worth P20M and a life insurance policy in the amount of P1M with his three children

--- one of whom is Roberto --- as beneficiaries.


Dr. Lopez, and her husbands share in the proceeds of Dr. Lopezs life insurance policy. Rule on

the validity of Marilyns claims with reasons. (4%)

"Art. 43. If there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to succeed eachother xxx in the absence of proof, it is presumed that they died at the same time and there

shall be no transmission of rights from one to the other."

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

9/46

in this case, the children of roberto are called to the succession of Dr. Lopez directly by right of

representation and not through their father roberto. marilyn's claim for herself must be

denied because she is not a relative by blood to Dr. Lopez, hence she has no right to represent

roberto. however, her claims for her children's share should be allowed. marilyn's children will

inherit from Dr. Lopez by right of representation.

III

In December 2000, Michael and Anna, after obtaining a valid marriage license, went to the

Office of the Mayor of Urbano, Bulacan, to get married. The Mayor was not there, but the

Mayors secretary asked Michael and Anna and their witnesses to fill up and sign the

required marriage contract forms. The secretary then told them to wait, and went out to

look for the Mayor who was attending a wedding in a neighboring municipality.

When the secretary caught up with the Mayor at the wedding reception, she showed him

the marriage contract forms and told him that the couple and their witnesses were waiting

in his office. The Mayor forthwith signed all the copies of the marriage contract, gave them

to the secretary who returned to the Mayors office. She then gave copies of the marriage

contract to the parties, and told Michael and Anna that they were already married.

Thereafter, the couple lived together as husband and wife, and had three sons.

Is the marriage of Michael and Anna valid, voidable, or void? Explain your answer. (3%)

What is the status of the three children of Michael and Anna? Explain your answer. (2%)

What property regime governs the properties acquired by the couple? Explain. (2%)

jor_el wrote:

a. The marriage of Michael and Anna is void ab initio. It lacked one of the formal requisites of

marriage, a marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting

parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other

as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age. The law

requires the presence of the solemnizing officer during the ceremony. Michael and Anna did

not appear before the mayor because the mayor was not present in his office where the

marriage was supposed to have been celebrated. As such, the marriage was not solemnized by

the mayor.

b. Since the marriage was void ab initio, the three children were conceived and born out of

wedlock. Hence, the children are illegitimate. They will remain so unless their parents, Michael

and Anna, subsequently contract a valid marriage.

c. The property regime governing the properties acquired by Michael and Anna during their

cohabitation is as follows: their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares andthe property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the

rules on co-ownership. In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they

lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

10/46

industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares. A party who did not participate in the

acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in

the acquisition thereof if the former's efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the

family and of the household.

Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property

acquired during cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of the other, untilafter the termination of their cohabitation.

a. same answer

b. same answer

c. The property regime that governs the acquired properties will depend upon what is agreed

upon in the marriage settlement. In default thereof, absolute community of property shallgovern. Where the old rule provides that it is the conjugal partnership of gains, the Family

Code mandates that in the absence of any agreement as regards the property regime that is to

govern the properties of the spouses during their marriage, absolute community of property

shall govern.

oo nga ano... susmaryosep... iba answer ko sa bar

a. The marriage is valid. Under the Family Code, marriages solemnized by any person notlegally authorized to perform marriages shall be void or voidable unless such marriages were

contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had

the legal authority to do so. From the facts presented it can be clearly seen that the

contracting parties where both in good faith. It is also clear that the one who actually acted as

solemnizing officer was the Mayor's Secretary which under the law is not authorized to do so.

b. They are all Legitimate.......................

c. absolute community of property.................

true the contracting parties were in good faith but there had been no solemnizing of marriage.

In December 2000, Michael and Anna, after obtaining a valid marriage license, went to the

Office of the Mayor of Urbano, Bulacan, to get married. The Mayor was not there, but the

Mayors secretary asked Michael and Anna and their witnesses to fill up and sign the requiredmarriage contract forms. The secretary then told them to wait, and went out to look for the

Mayor who was attending a wedding in a neighboring municipality.

When the secretary caught up with the Mayor at the wedding reception, she showed him the

marriage contract forms and told him that the couple and their witnesses were waiting in his

office. The Mayor forthwith signed all the copies of the marriage contract, gave them to the

secretary who returned to the Mayors office. She then gave copies of the marriage contract to

the parties, and told Michael and Anna that they were already married. Thereafter, the couple

lived together as husband and wife, and had three sons.

Is the marriage of Michael and Anna valid, voidable, or void? Explain your answer. (3%)

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

11/46

What is the status of the three children of Michael and Anna? Explain your answer. (2%)

What property regime governs the properties acquired by the couple? Explain. (2%)

+++++++

it is void. consent was not given in the presence of solemnizing officer.the three children are illegitimate.

the propty. regime is co-ownership.

ahm. asan naman ang good faith dun.. eh in the first place.. alam nilang secretary yung kausap

nila. alam nilang mayor ang dapat na mag solemnize.

+

void ang marriage. illegitimate ang mga anak. CO-ownership ang mag go govern sa kanila.

parang same as jor-el's answer

@ jor-el's answer letter c:

I think when the question asks what property governs, what it wants to elicit are any of the

property regimes provided for in the Family Code: conjugal partnership, absolute community,

complete separation of property.

jor_el wrote:

The property regimes mentioned (absolute community of property, conjugal partnership of

gains and complete separation of property) apply only to valid marriages. Here, the "marriage"

of Michael and Anna is void ab initio. Besides, the property relationship of special co-

ownership in case of unions without marriage is a property regime provided under the Family

Code, particularly in Article 147.*

Woah...dko yata alam to...salamat, salamat!

1. It is VOID AB INITIO for lack of the essential requisite of marriage that consent freely given

before the solemnizing officer and the formal requisite that there must be a marriage

ceremony where the contracting parties appear before the solemnizing officer with their

personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not lessthan two witnesses of legal age.

2. They are ILLEGITIMATE for having been born outside a valid marriage. It is only in cases

when marriage is void as provided in Art. 36 and Art. 53 that the children may be considered

legitimate. When Michael and Anna contracts a valid marriage, however, the children may be

legitimated.

3. Art. 147 of the Family Code or co-ownership governs the property regime of Michael and

Anna, both having no legal impediment to contract a valid marriage.

OzqC wrote:

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

12/46

oo nga ano... susmaryosep... iba answer ko sa bar

a. The marriage is valid. Under the Family Code, marriages solemnized by any person not

legally authorized to perform marriages shall be void or voidable unless such marriages were

contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had

the legal authority to do so. From the facts presented it can be clearly seen that the

contracting parties where both in good faith. It is also clear that the one who actually acted assolemnizing officer was the Mayor's Secretary which under the law is not authorized to do so.

b. They are all Legitimate.......................

c. absolute community of property.................

Ito rin ang answer ko. Based on logic, I was thinking, in real life situations, not everyone knows

the strict formalities required in a marriage. There are some people who would assume and

will just agree to anything that the secretary will tell them.

Anyway, just to give legal basis:

a. Valid.The lack of marriage ceremony is only an irregularity, and those who are parties to theirregularity are administratively liable (the mayor should know the proper procedure).

b. Children born out of a valid marriage are legitimate.

c. In the absence of an agreement, absolute community.

chrisbarber5 wrote:

...Based on logic, I was thinking, in real life situations, not everyone knows the strict formalities

required in a marriage. There are some people who would assume and will just agree to

anything that the secretary will tell them...

pero ignorance of d law isn't a valid excuse di ba? sabe nga sa art.3,civil code: ignorance of

the law excuses no one from compliance therewith..

tapos under art.5,civil code: Art. 5. acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or

prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity... at art.4,

family code: the absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriagevoid ab initio, except as stated in Article 35 (2)..

iron_eagle wrote:

pls refer 2 Orbecido Case

para sa kwestyon na eto? di nga? pls refer agen to d kwestyon.. n to orbecido

hahaha...oo nga.. mali pala yung number na nilagyan ko ng orbecido case..hehehe..dapat #4

pala..churi..tanx

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

13/46

The issue is the essential requisite of a valid marriage, which in this case is the presence of a

solemnizing officer. Art. 35(2) and mistake of fact are irrelevant.

hello crack and iron eagle!

please do introduce yourselves muna sa GTKY section. thanks!

a. The marriage is void for want of marriage ceremony as a formal requisite of marriage under

A3 of the FC in relation to A4 of the FC and the absence of consent freely given in the presence

of the solemnizing officer as an essential requisite of marriage under A2 of the FC in relation to

A4 of the FC.

b. Children conceived and born of void marriages are illegitimate under A165 of the FC.

c. Co-ownership under A147 of the FC of property regimes of union w/o marriages shall govern

the property relations of the spouses due to a void marriage. In the instant case, there is

cohabitation between spouses who have no legal impediment to marry each other.

qualify first, don't assume.c. the property regime will either be 147, if the cohabitation has no legal impediment, 148 if

there is a legal impediment.

nowhere in the problem did the examiner stated that there is or there is no legal impediment

in the cohabitation.

bluet0ps wrote:

qualify first, don't assume.c. the property regime will either be 147, if the cohabitation has no legal impediment, 148 if

there is a legal impediment.

nowhere in the problem did the examiner stated that there is or there is no legal impediment

in the cohabitation.

so what is your answer? would you assume that there is legal impediment when there is no

express mention as you said so?

Quote:

so what is your answer? would you assume that there is legal impediment when there is no

express mention as you said so?

tama. i stand corrected. legal impediment, like bad faith, is NEVER presumed. nadala lang sainit ng discussion. haha! thanks!

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

14/46

IV

Harry married Wilma, a very wealthy woman. Barely five (5) years into the marriage, Wilma

fell in love with Joseph. Thus, Wilma went to a small country in Europe, became a

naturalized citizen of that country, divorced Harry, and married Joseph. A year thereafter,Wilma and Joseph returned and established permanent residence in the Philippines.

Is the divorce obtained by Wilma from Harry recognized in the Philippines? Explain your

answer. (3%)

If Harry hires you as his lawyer, what legal recourse would you advise him to take? Why?

(2%)

Harry tells you that he has fallen in love with another woman, Elizabeth, and wants to marryher because, after all, Wilma is already married to Joseph. Can Harry legally marry Elizabeth?

Explain. (2%)

Hi.......my answers here are quite long...the gist of which are the following:

1) No, there is no divorce law in the Philippines

2) Since the crime of Bigamy can not be charged upon the wife; Adultery may be instead

charged upon the two if husband desires so...

3)yes, I harped on the Orbecido case; Art. 26 of FC

jor_el wrote:IV


fell in love with Joseph. Thus, Wilma went to a small country in Europe, became a naturalized

citizen of that country, divorced Harry, and married Joseph. A year thereafter, Wilma and

Joseph returned and established permanent residence in the Philippines.

a. Is the divorce obtained by Wilma from Harry recognized in the Philippines? Explain your

answer. (3%)

b. If Harry hires you as his lawyer, what legal recourse would you advise him to take? Why?

(2%)

c. Harry tells you that he has fallen in love with another woman, Elizabeth, and wants to marry

her because, after all, Wilma is already married to Joseph. Can Harry legally marry Elizabeth?

Explain. (2%)

a. No. Divorce is not recognized in the Philippines. Foreign declaration or judgments involving

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

15/46

the status of Filipino citizens which are against public policy cannot be given a valid effect.

b. Although Wilma cannot be held guilty of bigamy, she may be held guilty of adultery. So too,

there was abandonment oh her part when she left Harry for five (5) years. With this, I would

advise Harry that he can file an action for legal separation on the ground of adultery and

abandonment on the part of Wilma.

c. No. Since the divorce decree obtained by Wilma cannot be validated under our laws, the

marriage between Harry and Wilma still subsists. Therefore, he cannot as yet marry Elizabeth

until and unless the marital bond between him and Wilma is severed.

jor_el wrote:

IV






answer. (3%)

b. If Harry hires you as his lawyer, what legal recourse would you advise him to take? Why?(2%)



Explain. (2%)

a. No. Philippine courts do no take judicial notice of foreign judgments. To be valid in thisjurisdiction, it must be proved as a fact before Philippine judicial tribunals.

b. Legal Separation

c. Yes. But Harry has to prove the fact of the validity of divorce obtained by his spouse abroad

capacitating her to remarry.






answer. (3%)

b. If Harry hires you as his lawyer, what legal recourse would you advise him to take? Why?

(2%)



8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

16/46

Explain. (2%)

_________________

++++++

a. yes, decree of divorce is recognized in the philippines if the one who filed for divorce is the

foreigner spouse. in order for former filipinos to effectively enforce in the philippines the

divorce decree they obtained in the foreign court, they must show first that they are already

citizen of that country prior to the divorce decree or else, such has no effect in the Philippines.

+++

b. i will advise harry to question the validity of the divorce decree obtained by his wife, that

the foreign law must be proved as a fact since our courts do not take judicial notice of such.

+++

c. yes, but he has to show to the court that the divorce decree obtained by his former spousecapacitates her to remarry.. if not, then harry cannot remarry also.

++++

observation lang ... sa republic vs. orbecido, declaratory relief yung dapat na i file kasi sabi ng

supreme court, first time na nangyari yung ganung sitwasyon. to ascertain yung rights chorba..

but since nagkaron na ng jurisprudence, hindi na petition for declaratory relief yung i fa file..

kasi may precedence na..feeling ko ang dapat i file ... enforcement of foreign judgment and/or petition to remarry..

The rule laid down in the Obrecido case sets a dangerous precedent to unscrupulous

individuals. What cannot be done directly, should not be allowed to be done indirectly.

1. YES, the divorced decree obtained by Wilma following her naturalization in said small

country in Europe is recognized in the Philippines This is in line with the ruling of the Supreme

Court in Republic vs. Orbecido III (472 SCRA 114).

2. I will advise Harry to question the validity of the divorce decree, if not to let go of Wilma,

she being not worthy of her love and affection.

3. YES, as equally ruled upon in the case of Republic vs. Orbecido III (472 SCRA 114), Harry can

legally marry Elizabeth, Wilma having acquired a valid divorce decree.

a. Yes, Wilma is already a foreign citizen when she obtained divorce.

b. Judicial declaration of nullity of previous marriage for purposes of remarriage.

c. Yes, local laws cannot dicriminate against its own citizens because Wilma as a foreigner has

already obtained a divorce.

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

17/46

As to letter B. husband can file an action for damages based on Article 19, abuse of right.

b. If I were the counsel of Harry, I would advise him to file a legal separation case on the

ground of abandonment coupled with a petition of judicial separation of property. Wilma

being the guilty spouse would not be entitled to any share in the conjugal properties.

A. Yes, the divorced obtained by Wilma can be recognized in the Philippines.

The recognition of divorce in the Philippines is embodied upon the specific provision of the

Family Code which provides in essence that if the foreigner spouse obtained a divorce in his

country capacitating him to remarry, the Filipino spouse may likewise be allowed to remarry.

B. If I were the lawyer of Harry, I would advise him to file a petition for the confirmation of a

foreign judgment of divorce obtained by Wilma.

C. Yes Harry can legally marry Elizabeth provided that the foreign decree of divorce obtained

by Wilma was duly confirmed by the Philippine Court.

popoy wrote:

B. If I were the lawyer of Harry, I would advise him to file a petition for the confirmation of aforeign judgment of divorce obtained by Wilma.

question po...can harry legally ask the court to confirm the foreign judgment e hindi naman

sya party dun sa case na yun?

IV

a. Yes. Since Wilma is already a citizen of Europe at the time the divorce decree was obtainedfollowing the nationality theory (A15 under CC) where a divorce validly obtained by the alien

spouse under his own national law shall be recognized here in the Philippines.

b. Harry should file a petition for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage under A40 of the FC

which provides that the absolute nullity of a previous marriage shall for the purpose of

remarriage be invoked on the basis solely of declaring such previous marriage void.

c. Yes. A26 par. 2 of the FC provides that in mix marriages where a filipino spouse married to

an alien spouse and the alien spouse has obtained a decree of absolute divorce, valid under hisown national law, capacitating such alien spouse to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise

regain his capacity to remarry. Provided that, prior to such subsequent marriage, a petition for

judicial declaration of nullity of marriage as provided under A40 of the FC, shall be obtained by

Harry. This case was ruled by the SC in Republic vs Orbecido III.

joey_jrc wrote:

Hi.......my answers here are quite long...the gist of which are the following:

1) No, there is no divorce law in the Philippines

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

18/46

2) Since the crime of Bigamy can not be charged upon the wife; Adultery may be instead

charged upon the two if husband desires so...

3)yes, I harped on the Orbecido case; Art. 26 of FC

1) Wrong. Divorce is recognized here if both spouses are foreigner or if one spouse is Filipino

while the other is a foreigner and it was the foreigner-spouse who obtained the divorce

decree. Here, it was Wilma (who became a foreigner) who obtained the divorce. Hence, the

same will be recognized in the Philippines. This used to be a jurisprudence only but later

adopted as a provision in the Family Code.

2) I will advise Harry to charge Wilma and Joseph of Adultery since the sexual act happened in

the Philippines before Wilma left for Europe and while her marriage to Harry was still

subsisting.

3) Harry will first have to file "Declaratory Relief" in order to establish the divorce decree as a

valid foreign judgment and thereafter, marry Elizabeth.

V

Four children, namely: Alberto, Baldomero, Caridad, and Dioscoro, were born to the spouses

Conrado and Clarita de la Costa. The childrens birth certificates were duly signed by

Conrado, showing them to be the couples legitimate children.

Later, one Edilberto de la Cruz executed a notarial document acknowledging Alberto and

Baldomero as his illegitimate children >with Clarita. Edilberto died leaving substantial

properties. In the settlement of his estate, Alberto and Baldomero intervened claiming

shares as the deceaseds illegitimate children. The legitimate family of Edilberto opposed the

claim.

Are Alberto and Baldomero entitled to share in the estate of Edilberto? Explain. (4%)

NO, they are not entitled. The birth certificates of Alberto and Baldomero, having been duly

signed by Conrado and unquestioned by their mother Clarita, must be upheld in line with

Legaspi v. CA (142 SCRA 82) where the Supreme Court ruled that "the evidentiary nature of

public documents must be sustained in the absence of strong, complete and conclusive proof

of its falsity and nullity." The notarial document of acknowledgment executed by Edilberto is

deemed not a strong, complete and conclusive proof of the falsity and nullity of the birth

certificates.

they are not entitled. to begin with, they are not illegitimates. they are legitimates of conrado

and clarita. first, the law favors legitimacy over illegitimacy. they were born during the valid

wedlock. therefore, they are legitimate children of spouses conrado. secondly, it is only

conrado who can question the filiation of the two boys within a specified time. Conrado not

disputing the filiation, and in fact, he signed as the father in both birth certs, thus, they areboth legitimates.

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

19/46

XXX wrote:

V

Four children, namely: Alberto, Baldomero, Caridad, and Dioscoro, were born to the spouses

Conrado and Clarita de la Costa. The childrens birth certificates were duly signed by Conrado,

showing them to be the couples legitimate children.

Later, one Edilberto de la Cruz executed a notarial document acknowledging Alberto and

Baldomero as his illegitimate children with Clarita. Edilberto died leaving substantial

properties. In the settlement of his estate, Alberto and Baldomero intervened claiming shares

as the deceaseds illegitimate children. The legitimate family of Edilberto opposed the claim.

Are Alberto and Baldomero entitled to share in the estate of Edilberto? Explain. (4%)

No. Baldomero and Alberto are not entitled to the estate of Edilberto.

The notarial acknowledgment of Edilberto as to the illegitimacy status of Alberto and

Baldomero cannot be given any legal effect because it constitutes a collateral attack as to the

legitimacy status of Alberto and Baldomero which is proscribed by law. As a rule, legitimate

status can only be impugned by the putative father, which is in this case, Dioscoro.

alberto and baldomero are not entitled to any share in the estate because, being illegitimate,

they can only claim their illegitimacy during the lifetime of edilberto. it would be unfair toedilberto who can no longer offer his side as regards the claim of filiation by alberto and

baldomero. since edilberto is already dead, alberto and baldomero's claim have already

prescribed.

No. They are not entitled to the estate of Edilberto.

Under A164 of the FC, children conceived or born inside a valid marriage are legitimate.

Therefore, Alberto and Baldomero are legitimate the children of Conrado and Clarita. Further,under A172 of the FC provides that the acknowledgment of Conrado as father in the birth

certificates of the children is a proof of filiation. Only Conrado can impugn the legitimacy of

the children on the grounds in A166 of the FC being a right personal to him subject to the

prescriptive period under A170 of the FC.

Legitimacy is not subject to collateral attack, to allow the children a right to succeed in the

estate of Edilberto is to indirectly assail the legitimate status of the children, which can only be

question in a direct proceeding for the purpose.

VI

On December 1, 2000, Dr. Juanito Fuentes executed a holographic will, wherein he gave

nothing to his recognized illegitimate son, Jay. Dr. Fuentes left for the United States, passed

the New York medical licensure examinations, resided therein, and became a naturalizedAmerican citizen. He died in New York in 2007. The laws of New York do not recognize

holographic wills or compulsory heirs.

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

20/46

Can the holographic will of Dr. Fuentes be admitted to probate in the Philippines? Why or

why not? (3%)

Assuming that the will is probated in the Philippines, can Jay validly insist that he be given

his legitime? Why or why not? (3%)

a.) Yes. The holographic will can be probated in the Philippines because said will was executed

in the Philippines and he was a Filipino citizen at the time of the execution of the will.

a. Yes, the will can be probated here in the Philippines inasmuch as it was executed here by Dr.

Fuentes who was then a Filipino citizen. The subsequent acquisition of Dr. Fuentes of american

citizenship is immaterial. In fact, probate can be made of any will, whether executed here orabroad by a Filipino citizen or a foreigner.

b. Yes. There is preterition in this case, Jay being a recognized illegitimate child, hence a

compulsory heir. The institution of the heirs is rendered null and void without Jay having been

instituted. As such, he can validly claim that he be given his legitime. In fact, no judicial order is

required. The will is ipso facto annulled.

a. yes. formal validity lang ang tinitingnan sa probate n governed ang form of wills by law of d

place of their execution n d will was executed in d Phils.

b. no. coz order of succession n amount of successional rights are regulated by national law of

d person whose succession is under consideration.. since NY law, d national law of Dr.

Fuentes, doesnt recognize compulsory heirs, Jay cant be recognized as legal heir of Dr.

Fuentes.. derfor there can be no preterition kase nga di naman kinikilala si Jay na compulsory

heir.. of cors, NY law on the matter must be alleged n proved para walang processual

presumption na tanong naman sa part I-a


b. no. coz order of succession n amount of successional rights are regulated by national law of

d person whose succession is under consideration.. since NY law, d national law of Dr.

Fuentes, doesnt recognize compulsory heirs, Jay cant be recognized as legal heir of Dr.

Fuentes.. derfor there can be no preterition kase nga di naman kinikilala si Jay na compulsory

heir.. of cors, NY law on the matter must be alleged n proved para walang processual

presumption na tanong naman sa part I-a

-------------

Right, intrinsic validity of a will is governed by the national law of the decedent. But in the

viewpoint of time, what will govern? law in force at the time the will was made or the law in

force at the time of the decedent's death?

en toto wrote:

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

21/46

Right, intrinsic validity of a will is governed by the national law of the decedent. But in the

viewpoint of time, what will govern? law in force at the time the will was made or the law in

force at the time of the decedent's death?

sabe sa art.17,civil code: intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the

order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of

testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whosesuccession is under consideration.. sabe naman sa art.777: rights to succession are transmitted

from the moment of death of the decedent.. so since sa moment ng decedents death

natatransmit ang rights to succession sa moment din ng decedents death dapat ikonsider ang

intrinsic validity ng will.. besyds, kelan ba dinedetermine ang successional right di ba pag

namatay na yung decedent?

What's the legal basis po? any specific civil code provision?

'di ba napaka-unfair naman if a person is deemed a compulsory heir under the old law at the

time the will was made, but considered not a compulsory heir under the new law existing at

the time of the testator's death? Are we supposed to give expression to the testator's wishes

at the time it was made?

en toto wrote:






legal basis? civil code provisions?

ano tawag mo sa art.17, civil code n art.777,civil code? illegal basis?.. di pa ba specific civil

code provisions ang art.17 n art.777?

d law may be unfair onli coz ur luking at it n d point of view of Phil. law on preterition pero

under Phil. law itself, art.17 civil code, d law governing succession to d estate of d decedent is

his national law.. national law pa ren ba nya ang Phil. law kung US citizen na sya?..

walang "compulsory heir" under d "old law" kase so long as buhay pa yung tao, in this case si

dr. fuentes, wala pa syang compulsory heir hinde pa "compulsory heir" si jay.. wala ding

"compulsory heir" sa new law kase nga hinde nirerecognize ng NY law ang compulsory heirs..

so never naging compulsory heir si jay

kung unfair pa ren, sori, d law may be unfair but it's d law.. dura lex sed lex

1. YES, the Civil Code of the Philippines governs on the formal validity of the holographic will,

the same having been executed before Dr. Fuentes left for the US, resided therein and became

a naturalized American citizen.

2. NO, in the absence of any ground to revoke the will or question its validity, the holographic

will controls the disposition of the estate of the late Dr. Fuentes and on which it is clearly and

validly stated that he gave nothing to Jay.

WRE10H wrote:

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

22/46

1. YES, the Civil Code of the Philippines governs on the formal validity of the holographic will,

the same having been executed before Dr. Fuentes left for the US, resided therein and became

a naturalized American citizen.

2. NO, in the absence of any ground to revoke the will or question its validity, the holographic

will controls the disposition of the estate of the late Dr. Fuentes and on which it is clearly and

validly stated that he gave nothing to Jay.

3 kwestyons lang.. wan, revoke the will or question its validity on wat aspek, intrinsic validity

or formal validity?.. tu, ang preterition ba ay hinde ground for annulling d will?.. tri, pano

magiging kontrolling ang dispositions ng holographic will kung hinde kinikilala ang disposition

by holographic will sa national law ni dr. Fuentes?

VI



the New York medical licensure examinations, resided therein, and became a naturalized

American citizen. He died in New York in 2007. The laws of New York do not recognize


a. Can the holographic will of Dr. Fuentes be admitted to probate in the Philippines? Why or

why not? (3%)

b. Assuming that the will is probated in the Philippines, can Jay validly insist that he be given


++++++++++

a. yes. because there is none of the grounds for the disallowance of the said will.

b. no. because the decedent's national law prohibits holographic will and compulsory heirs. jay

being a compulsory heir, he cannot validly insist that he be given his legitime.

++++++

actually, parang sa letter a, ang sarap sagutin yung no.. kasi bawal din naman sa new york yung

holographic will... so walang mangyayari pa rin. kaso mo.. the question is CAN.. o di .. safe ang

answer na yes.. it can be probated.. wag na palawakin pa ang discussion.. nakakasira lang ng

bait lolz

en toto wrote:






+++++++

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

23/46

ahm.. wala naman atang old law and new law na pinag uusapan dito. basta ang sabi lang..

pilipino sha nung ginawa nya yung holographic will dito sa pinas. tas... na tsugi sha na

amerikano na sha.. sa NY law, di nila tanggap ang holographic will o compulsory heir. so ang

tanong..

probatable ba sa pinas yung holographic will nya.. at kung probatable, keri na ba ni jay na

sumingit as compulsory heir..

dapat talaga di na probatable yung holographic will na yun eh.. kasi bale wala na talaga. kaso

mo.. ang probate court natin, eh tinitignan lang yung extrinsic validity in order to prove that it

was genuine and in accord to our law nung ginawa nya yung will na yun dito sa pinas.. tamang

tama pa...pinoy pa sha noon...

so pede talagang i probate. kaso mo. pag ka probate. hanggang dun na lang. kasi ifa follow na

ng court yung national law nya na NY LAW.. di naman nire recognize yung compulsory heirs.

dedma yung pag di pag recognize ng NY LAW sa holographic will kasi di naman nya ginawayung holographic will na yun sa NY eh. that being said, jay, as a compulsory heir cannot insist

on him being such.

b. No because there is no valid ground for disinheritance......?

VI



the New York medical licensure examinations, resided therein, and became a naturalized

American citizen. He died in New York in 2007. The laws of New York do not recognize



why not? (3%)

No. The national law of the deceased at the time of death shall govern succession. In this case,

decedent died as a naturalized citizen of New York and was domiciled thereat. The laws of

New York shall prevail.



No. The national law of the deceased at the time of death shall govern succession. In this case,decedent died as a naturalized citizen of New York and was domiciled thereat. The laws of

New York shall prevail.

a.yes.the holographic will may be admiited for probate in the philippines.under the new civil

code, a will made in accordance with the law of the country where it is executed may be

probated.

b.no.Art.16 par.2 shall govern

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

24/46

Quote:


why not? (3%)



a. yes, the holographic will of Dr. Fuentes may be admitted to probate in the Philippines. the

NCC explicitly allows a foreigner to execute a will in accordance to philippine law. thus:

" Art. 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be

governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed. When the acts referred to are

executed before the diplomatic or consular officials of the Republic of the Philippines in a

foreign country, the solemnities established by Philippine laws shall be observed in their

execution."

"Art. 816. The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made with the

formalities prescribed by the law of the place in which he resides, or according to the

formalities observed in his country, or in conformity with those which this Code prescribes."

b. no, Jay validly cannot validly insist that he be given his legitime. Art. 16.

a few notes on private international law:

Philippine courts will apply Philippine laws. it does not care about foreign laws. it will only start

looking at foreign laws when the Philippine law says so.

VII

Ramon Mayaman died intestate, leaving a net estate of P10,000,000.00. Determine how

much each heir will receive from the estate:

If Ramon is survived by his wife, three full-blood brothers, two half-brothers, and one

nephew (the son of a deceased full-blood brother)? Explain. (3%)

If Ramon is survived by his wife, a half-sister, and three nephews (sons of a deceased full-

blood brother)? Explain. (3%)

please correct me if I'm wrong...my answer to this problem is...

a. the wife will get 5M; 1M each for the three full blood brothers ; .5M each for the two half-

brothers and 1M for the nephew

im not sure also but my answer is..

a. the wife will get P5M, the other P5M will be given to the brothers and nephew with an

equal share of 1/6 each.b. the wife will get P5M, the other P5M will be equally shared by the half-sister and three

nephews.

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

25/46

hindi ako sure dito... ive researched high and low.. natatakot kasi ako na baka ma out yung

half-bloods pag may full bloods kapag may surviving spouse na kasama..

sabi lang sa art. 1001, the brothers or sisters ek ek.. does it mean na full and half-blood? kung

may jurisprudence naman kayo as this or authority na makakapagsabi na regardless to.. let me

know. thanks

anyways.. here is my answer..

1. 1/2 goes to the surviving spouse. the other half shall be divided by the collateral relatives,

the full blood sibling shall have double the amount as that of half-blood sibling, the niece shall

inherit per stirpes ( by right of representation )

therefore:

5 million - surviving spouse

3 million - 3 full blood brothers ( 1 million each )

1 million - nephew (right of representation )

1 million - 2 half-brothers ( 500k each )

______

10 million

2.

5 million - wife

3.3 million - 3 nephews ( 1.1 million each ) , since the share of

full-blood is double that of the half-blood, the ratio is 2:1

1.7 million - half-sister

__________

10 million

tumpak! really nice answers!

VIII

Jude owned a building which he had leased to several tenants. Without informing his

tenants, Jude sold the building to Ildefonso. Thereafter, the latter notified all the tenants

that he is the new owner of the building. Ildefonso ordered the tenants to vacate the

premises within thirty (30) days from notice because he had other plans for the building. The

tenants refused to vacate, insisting that they will only do so when the term of their lease

shall have expired. Is Ildefonso bound to respect the lease contracts between Jude and his

tenants? Explain your answer. (3%)

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

26/46

yes, he is bound to respect the lease contracts entered into by jude and the tenants. since

from the time he purchased the said building, he knows already that there are tenants in the

building and thus, has knowledge about the existence of the lease contracts that were

entered. Therefore, he cannot terminate it until after their expiration.

Yes, he is bound to respect the lease because he had actual knowledge of the existence of

lease.

The Civil Code provides that the purchaser of piece of land which is under lease that is not

recorded in the Registry of Property may terminate the lease save in cases when there is

stipulation to the contrary or when the purchaser knows of the existence of the lease. ( Article

1676 NCC)

Moreover, well-settled rule that actual knowledge of the purchaser of the contract is

equivalent to registration on his part.

No. Basic principle under civil law that a contract of lease is a personal contract which only

binds the parties who are privies thereto. Hence, unless the contract has been registered in

the registry of deeds or the third person has constructive knowledge of the existence of the

contract before he acquires the property, such third person may be bound by the contract.

NO, he is not bound to respect the lease contract. in order for a transferee of leased property

to be bound to the lease contracts constituted on the leased property it is necessary that the

transferee has knowledge of the existence of the lease contracts at the time of transfer or that

it was stipulated upon in the agreement. here, the facts do not show that ildefonso has

knowledge thereof at the time the property was sold or that it was agreed upon between him

and jude that he should respect the lease. that being the case, he cannot be compelled to

respect the lease rigths and consequently he can order the tenants to vacate from the

premises.

IX

Before migrating to Canada in 1992, the spouses Teodoro and Anita entrusted all their legal

papers and documents to their nephew, Atty. Tan. Taking advantage of the situation, Atty.

Tan forged a deed of sale, making it appear that he had bought the couples property in

Quezon City. In 2000, he succeeded in obtaining a TCT over the property in his name.

Subsequently, Atty. Tan sold the same property to Luis, who built an auto repair shop on the

property. In 2004, Luis registered the deed of conveyance, and title over the property wastransferred in his name.

In 2006, the spouses Teodoro and Anita came to the Philippines for a visit and discovered

what had happened to their property. They immediately hire you as lawyer. What action or

actions will you institute in order to vindicate their rights? Explain fully. (4%)

an action for cancellation and/or reconveyance of title with damages

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

27/46

unang una padisbar ko si torni tan, lokong yun pamangkin pa man den ng kliyente ko

pinagkatiwalaan nila tapos gagawa ng falsified deed of sale para ipagbenta ang lupa na

ipinagkatiwala sa kanya.. yung mga ganung tao di dapat maging abugado dapat madisbar!

secondly sampahan ko ng criminal case na estafa thru falsification of public documents.. yung

ganung tao di lang dapat madisbar dapat din makulong!

pero pagsampa ko ng crim case ireserba ko civil aksyon para mas madali makabawi ng

damages tapos magfile ako ng aksyon for damages vs. torni tan para mabawi yung marketvalue ng lupa plus legal interest, moral damages, exemplary damages n attorney's fees

pano pa makakansela yung titulo ni luis at mababawe yung lupa eh innocent purchaser for

value hu bought d property in gud faith kase nagrely sya sa titulo ni torni tan na on its face eh

wala namang any defect? pag cancellation of property n/or rekonveyans of title ang ifile

magsasayang lang ang kliyente ng pera at oras kase matatalo lang sila.. kawawa naman sila

naloko na nga ng pamangking abugado pinayuhan pa ng mali ng kinuhang abugado..

seguradong isusumpa na nila ang mga abugado

lols.. oo nga.. kawawa naman sila. i stand to be corrected..

since nalipat na sa innocent purchaser for value yung title.. action for damages na lang ang

pede isampa nung mag asawa sa abugado.

thanks ha.. am relearning again.. wag naman sanang isumpa ng mag asawang yan ang

munting maling payo ng isang abugado. ahehe.. thanks ulit consciouslymad. ahehe

They can also file for recovery of the sale proceeds from Atty. Tan, plus damages.

Chain of Title Doctrine

The only remedy is to file a case for damages because as a rule a forged title will not ripen into

ownership, unless if the title passed to a purchaser for value in good faith.


johnwong30 wrote:

an action for cancellation and/or reconveyance of title with damages

pano pa makakansela yung titulo ni luis at mababawe yung lupa eh innocent purchaser for

value hu bought d property in gud faith kase nagrely sya sa titulo ni torni tan na on its face eh

wala namang any defect? pag cancellation of property n/or rekonveyans of title ang ifile

magsasayang lang ang kliyente ng pera at oras kase matatalo lang sila.. kawawa naman sila

naloko na nga ng pamangking abugado pinayuhan pa ng mali ng kinuhang abugado..

seguradong isusumpa na nila ang mga abugado

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

28/46

pero wala namang sinabi ang problem na purchaser in good faith and for value siya diba.

I think it would be proper if the answer would be qualified:

reconveyance - not purchaser in good faith

damages - purchaser in good faith

lawyer wanna be wrote:

pero wala namang sinabi ang problem na purchaser in good faith and for value siya diba.

I think it would be proper if the answer would be qualified:

reconveyance - not purchaser in good faith

damages - purchaser in good faith

oo nga, pero di ba presumed ang gud faith?.. if presumed ang gud faith kelangan pa ba

iallege/istate sa problem yun bago ikonsider ang bagay na yun?

eh yung for value?.. di ba kasama yun sa presampsyon that private transaksyones are fair n

regular? kung may ganung presampsyon kelangan pa ba yun iallege/istate sa problem bagoikonsider ang bagay na yun?

Action for reconveyance to recover the property and an administrative case against the

lawyer.

Before migrating to Canada in 1992, the spouses Teodoro and Anita entrusted all their legal

papers and documents to their nephew, Atty. Tan. Taking advantage of the situation, Atty. Tanforged a deed of sale, making it appear that he had bought the couples property in Quezon

City. In 2000, he succeeded in obtaining a TCT over the property in his name. Subsequently,

Atty. Tan sold the same property to Luis, who built an auto repair shop on the property. In

2004, Luis registered the deed of conveyance, and title over the property was transferred in

his name.

In 2006, the spouses Teodoro and Anita came to the Philippines for a visit and discovered what

had happened to their property. They immediately hire you as lawyer. What action or actions

will you institute in order to vindicate their rights? Explain fully. (4%)

1. File an action for restitution equal to the FMV of the property plus indemnification for

damages against Atty. Tan, the buyer presumed acting in good faith when the sale was

consummated making rescission impossible.

2. File a criminal case against Atty. Tan for estafa since there is juridical possession of the

property, forgery and falsification of public documents.

3. File a disbarment case against Atty. Tan.

the action will be reconveyance of property based on implied trust which will prescribe in 10

years from the time the trustee asserts a claim adverse to that of the owner. the rule is that

when a person acquires a property by fraud he becomes a trustee of an implied trust for the

benefit of the person from whom the property came. the period to file the action shall

commence from the time of the registration of the property.

a disbarment case against the lawyer nephew may also be had. (pero mukhang nalalayo na sya

sa civil law eh...peace )

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

29/46

X

Rommels private car, while being driven by the regular family driver, Amado, hits a

pedestrian causing the latters death. Rommel is not in the car when the incident happened.

Is Rommel liable for damages to the heirs of the deceased? Explain. (2%)

Would your answer be the same if Rommel was in the car at the time of the accident?

Explain. (2%)

yes. by virtue of vicarious liability or the master-servant rule. But here, Rommel can seek for

reimbursement.

yes, by virtue of solidary liability.

johnwong30 wrote:

X

Rommels private car, while being driven by the regular family driver, Amado, hits a pedestrian

causing the latters death. Rommel is not in the car when the incident happened.

a. Is Rommel liable for damages to the heirs of the deceased? Explain. (2%)

b. Would your answer be the same if Rommel was in the car at the time of the accident?

Explain. (2%)

a. yes, vicariously liable si rommel as employer for d damage caused by amado, his employee,

who was acting w/in d scope of his assigned task..

b. yes, if by the use of due diligence, pwede nya naprevent yung insidente.. vicarious liabilityden..

johnwong30 wrote:


reimbursement.


sa vicarious liability ba hinde solidary liability ni rommel n amado?

a. the answer is Article 2180 and 2181 NCC.

b. the answer is Article 2184 NCC


johnwong30 wrote:

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

30/46


reimbursement.


sa vicarious liability ba hinde solidary liability ni rommel n amado?

+++++

talagang may underline pa.

kaya ganun ang sagot ko kasi iba defenses

PART II

XI

TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false.

Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)

1. A clause in an arbitration contract granting one of the parties the power to choose more

arbitrators than the other renders the arbitration contract void.

2. If there is no marriage settlement, the salary of a "spouse" in an adulterous marriage

belongs to the conjugal partnership of gains.

3. Acquisitive prescription of a negative easement runs from the time the owner of the

dominant estate forbids, in a notarized document, the owner of the servient estate from

executing an act which would be lawful without the easement.

4. The renunciation by a co-owner of his undivided share in the co-owned property in lieu of

the performance of his obligation to contribute to taxes and expenses for the preservation

of the property constitutes dacion en pago.

5. A person can dispose of his corpse through an act intervivos.

1. false. it is only the clause and not the whole arbitration contract that is rendered void and

no effect

2. false. it will belong to the absolute community property. in case there is no marriage

settlement, acp shall automatically govern their marriage settlement.

3.true.

4. false. pano mo naman idi dispose ang bangkay mo kung buhay ka pa? ahehe. ano ba mas

magandang sagot dito

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

31/46

4.false. there is no creditor-debtor to speak of among co-owners in terms of their mutual

obligation to pay taxes and expenses for the preservation of property.

False. The salary of the "spouse" in an adulterous marriage belongs exclusively to that spouse.

Tama ba?

a. True. Art. 2045. Any clause giving one of the parties power to choose more arbitrators than

the other is void and of no effect.

b. True. Art. 142. By means of the conjugal partnership of gains the husband and wife place in

a common fund the fruits of their separate property and the income from their work or

industry...

c. True. Art. 621. In order to acquire by prescription the easements.... in negative easements,from the day on which the owner of the dominant estate forbade, by an instrument

acknowledged before a notary public, the owner of the servient estate, from executing an act

which would be lawful without the easement.

d. True. Art. 1245. Dation in payment, whereby property is alienated to the creditor in

satisfaction of a debt in money.

e. maybe true.

pls correct me about my understanding of the word "adulterous marriage"...

...is that there exists a valid marriage...however the wife is nanglalalaki...kahit tatlo pa ang

lalake nya...still her salary shall go to the conjugal partnership; ewan ko ba...tama kaya to...

Art. 119. In the absence of marriage settlements, or when the same are void, the system of

relative community or conjugal partnership of gains shall govern the property relations

between husband and wife.

Sa number 4, False.

A act intervivos is an agreement that takes effect during the lifetime of the person who

executed the same. It cannot take effect when he is already dead.

False, the salary of the spouse in an adulterous marriage shall belong to the community

property, in the absence of a marriage settlement providing for other kind of matrimonial

property regime.

No. 4. FALSE. a corpse is outside the commerce of man and therefore it cannot be a subject of

an act inter vivos, the same not considered as a property. but if parts of the body are given

inter vivos then the same constitute a valid subject of an act inter vivos.

johnwong30 wrote:

PART II

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

32/46

A clause in an arbitration contract granting one of the parties the power to choose more

arbitrators than the other renders the arbitration contract void.

TRUE. by express provision of law.

1. FALSE. Any clause giving one of the parties power to choose more arbitrators than the other

is void and of no effect (Art. 2045Civil Code), but it does not render the entire arbitration

contract void.

NOTE: Art. 2045 refers only to the clause as being void and of no effect and not the entire

arbitration contract.

biomicsoldier wrote:

NOTE: Art. 2045 refers only to the clause as being void and of no effect and not the entire

arbitration contract.

oo nga pala...right, thanks for the head's up!

XII

Emmanuel and Margarita, American citizens and employees of the U.S. State Department,

got married in the African state of Kenya where sterility is a ground for annulment of

marriage. Thereafter, the spouses were assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Manila. On the first

year of the spouses tour of duty in the Philippines, Margarita filed an annulment case

against Emmanuel before a Philippine court on the ground of her husbands sterility at the

time of the celebration of the marriage.

Will the suit prosper? Explain your answer. (3%)

Assume Emmanuel and Margarita are both Filipinos. After their wedding in Kenya, they

come back and take up residence in the Philippines. Can their marriage be annulled on the

ground of Emmanuels sterility? Explain. (3%)

1. the suit will not prosper. they are not filipino citizens and they did not get married here in

the philippines. thus, the Family Code will not govern. The court has no jurisdiction as to the

annulment case that was filed.

2. no. even assuming they are both filipinos, sterility is not one of the grounds for annulment

of marriage.

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

33/46

No. The case will not prosper because the Philippine court is not the convenient forum. The

local court when confronted with an issue involving foreign element may refuse to try and

decide a case on the ground of FORUM NON CONVENIENS. In this case, both the spouses are

foreigners. Hence, the doctrine of forum non convenience shall apply.

I argued using the State of the Most Significant Relations Doctrine, the place where the

subtantial occurence of the facts took place.

i have a question.. can our courts entertain actions which the law used by both parties are

subject to a particular foreign law?

parang ganito.. parehong amerikano. nag punta lang dito sa pilipinas dahil gustong idemanda

ni amerikano A si Amerikano B dahil di sha nag bayad ng utang nya na ginawa sa kanila.

1) Granting that the Kenyans may and will be entertained in our courts, the suit will not still

prosper as Sterility is not among the grounds for annulment in our courts

2) Same answer; ..No.

johnwong30 wrote:

XII

Emmanuel and Margarita, American citizens and employees of the U.S. State Department, got

married in the African state of Kenya where sterility is a ground for annulment of marriage.

Thereafter, the spouses were assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Manila. On the first year of thespouses tour of duty in the Philippines, Margarita filed an annulment case against Emmanuel

before a Philippine court on the ground of her husbands sterility at the time of the celebrat ion

of the marriage.

Will the suit prosper? Explain your answer. (3%)

Assume Emmanuel and Margarita are both Filipinos. After their wedding in Kenya, they come

back and take up residence in the Philippines. Can their marriage be annulled on the ground of

Emmanuels sterility? Explain. (3%)

A. Yes, the suit will prosper. The grounds for the annulment of marriage is governed by the

laws of the state alleged to have been violated or the laws of the place where the marriage

was celebrated. Since the marriage is voidable in Kenya, it shall also be voidable here. This is

particularly true even if sterility is not a ground for the annulment of marriage under our own

laws.

B. Yes, the marriage can still be annulled. Since the marriage is voidable according to the laws

of Kenya where the marriage is celebrated, it shall also be voidable here. The grounds for the

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

34/46

annulment of marriage is not governed by national laws of the parties but by the laws of the

place alleged to have been violated. Their being both Filipinos is immaterial in the case.

No. The suit will not prosper for neither are Filipino citizens and our courts cannot acquire

jurisdiction.

No. Impotency is the ground for annulment under A45(5) of the FC not sterility. Impotency

refers to the incapacity to perform the sexual act at the time of celebration of marriage which

is an essential marital obligation under A68 of the FC. Sterility is the impossibility of

procreation despite the ability to have an erection and perform the sexual act.

a.no,the suit will not prosper.annulment in the case is not within the coffers of our court.

b.no, sterility is not one of the ground mentioned under the fc .

XIII

Rafael, a wealthy bachelor, filed a petition for the adoption of Dolly, a one-year old

foundling who had a severe heart ailment. During the pendency of the adoption

proceedings, Rafael died of natural causes. The Office of the Solicitor General files a motion

to dismiss the petition on the ground that the case can no longer proceed because of thepetitioners death.

Should the case be dismissed? Explain. (2%)

Will your answer be the same if it was Dolly who died during the pendency of the adoption

proceedings? Explain. (2%)

1. no. to protect the best interest of the adoptee and it is provided for in RA 8552.

1. no, my answer will be different. there is no more best interest of the adoptee to protect

since dolly died already. the case should then be dismissed.

XIV

Rodolfo, married to Sharon, had an illicit affair with his secretary, Nanette, a 19-year old girl,

and begot a baby girl, Rona. Nanette sued Rodolfo for damages: actual, for hospital and

other medical expenses in delivering the child by caesarean section; moral, claiming that

Rodolfo promised to marry her, representing that he was single when, in fact, he was not;

and exemplary, to teach a lesson to like-minded Lotharios.

If you were the judge, would you award all the claims of Nanette? Explain. (3%)

8/14/2019 2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf

35/46

Suppose Rodolfo later on acknowledges Rona and gives her regular support, can he compel

her to use his surname? Why or why not? (2%)

When Rona reaches seven (7)

Documents

2009 CIVIL LAW.pdf