bar exam questions in civil law

8/12/2019 Bar Exam Questions in Civil Law

1/24

BAR EXAM QUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW: 1990-1993

ARTICLE QUESTION ANSWER

1990PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

Effectivity of Laws

(1990)Article 2

After a devastating storm causing

widespread destruction infour Central Luzon provinces, theexecutive and legislativebranches of the government agreed toenact a special lawappropriating P1 billion for purposes ofrelief andrehabilitation for the provinces. In viewof the urgent natureof the legislative enactment, it isprovided in its effectivityclause that it shall take effect uponapproval and aftercompletion of publication in the OfficialGazette and anewspaper of general circulation in thePhilippines. The lawwas passed by the Congress on July 1,1990. signed into lawby the President on July 3, 1990, andpublished in suchnewspaper of general circulation onJuly 7, 1990 and in theOfficial Gazette on July 10, 1990.

(a) Yes, there is sufficientcompliance. The law itselfprescribes the requisites ofpublication for its effectivity, andall requisites have been compliedwith. (Article 2, Civil Code)(b) The law takes effect uponcompliance with all theconditions for effectivity, and the lastcondition was compliedwith on July 10, 1990. Hence, the"law became effective onthat date.(c) No. It was not yet effective whenit was approved byCongress on July 1, 1990 andapproved by the President onJuly 3, 1990. The other requisites forits effectivity were notyet complete at the time.

Marriage;Annulment; Effects;

Requisites BeforeRemarriage(1990)

(a)Articles 53. 52, 43.44 Family Code

(b)(Article 54)

(c)Article 174

The marriage of H and W was annulledby the competent

court. Upon finality of the judgment ofnullity. H beganlooking for his prospective secondmate. He fell in love witha sexy woman S who wanted to bemarried as soon aspossible, i.e., after a few months ofcourtship. As a younglawyer, you were consulted by H,(a) How soon can H be joined in lawfulwedlock to hisgirlfriend S? Under existing laws, arethere certain requisites

that must be complied with before hecan remarry? Whatadvice would you give H?(b) Suppose that children were bornfrom the union of Hand W, what would be the status of saidchildren? Explainyour answer.(c) If the subsequent marriage of H to Swas

(a) H, or either spouse for thatmatter, can marry again after

complying with the provisions ofArticle 52 of the FamilyCode, namely, there must be apartition and distribution, ofthe properties of the spouses, andthe delivery of the children'spresumptive legitimes which shouldbe recorded in the appropriate civilregistry and registries of property. Hshould be so advised.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: for (a)The following are the requisites

prescribed by law and Iadvice to H is to comply with them,namely:1) If either spouse contracted themarriage in bad faith,his or her share of the net profits ofthe community property :or conjugal partnership property shallbe forfeited in favor ofthe common children or, if there are


2/24

contracted before compliance with thestatutory conditionfor its validity, what are the rights of thechildren of the firstmarriage (i.e., of H and W) and of thechildren of thesubsequent marriage (of H and S)?

none, the children of theguilty spouse by a previous marriageor, in default of children,the innocent spouse;2) Donations by reason of marriageshall remain validexcept that if the donee contractedthe marriage in bad faith,such donations made to said doneeare revoked by operationof law;3) The spouse who contracted thesubsequent marriagein bad faith shall be disqualified toinherit from the innocentspouse by testate and intestatesuccession;4) If both spouses of the subsequentmarriage acted inbad faith all donations by reason of

marriage andtestamentary dispositions made byone in favor of the otherare revoked by operation of law.5) The judgment of annulment of themarriage, thepartition and distribution of theproperties of the spouses,and the delivery of the children'spresumptive legitimes shallbe recorded in the appropriate civilregistry and registers ofproperty, (Articles 53. 52, 43.

44. Family Code).

SUGGESTED ANSWER:(b) The children born from the unionof H and W would belegitimate children if conceived orborn before the decree ofannulment of the marriage (underArt. 45 of the FamilyCode) has become final andexecutory (Art. 54, FamilyCode}.SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(c) The children of the first marriageshall be consideredlegitimate children if conceived orborn before the Judgmentof annulment of the marriage of Hand W has become finaland executory. Children conceived orborn of the subsequentmarriage shall likewise be legitimateeven if the marriage of H


3/24

and S be null and void for failure tocomply with the requisitesof Article 52 of the Family Code(Article 53, Family Code). Aslegitimate children, they have thefollowing rights;a) To bear the surnames of thefather and themother in conformity with theprovisions of the CivilCode on Surnames;b) To receive support from theirparents, theirascendants, and in proper cases,their brothers andsisters, in conformity with theprovisions of this Code onSupport; andc) To be entitled to the legitime andother

successional rights granted to themby the Civil Code(Article 174, Family Code).

Paternity & Filiation;Rights of LegitimateChildren (1990)Article 174, 176 and177

B and G (college students, both singleand not disqualified tomarry each other) had a romantic affair,G was seven monthsin the family way as of the graduation ofB. Right aftergraduation B went home to Cebu City.Unknown to G, B hada commitment to C (his childhoodsweetheart) to marry her

after getting his college degree. Twoweeks after B marriagein Cebu City, G gave birth to a son E inMetro Manila. Afterten years of married life in Cebu, Bbecame a widower by thesudden death of C in a plane crash. Outof the union of Band C, two children, X and Y were born.Unknown to Cwhile on weekend trips to Manila duringthe last 5 years oftheir marriage, B invariably visited G

and lived at herresidence and as a result of which, theyrenewed theirrelationship. A baby girl F was born to Band G two years before the death of C.before the death of C. Bringing hisfamily later to Manila, B Paulita left theconjugal home because of theexcessivefinally married G. Recently. G died.

Under the facts stated, X and Y arelegitimate children of Band C. E is the legitimate children ofB and G. E is thelegitimated child of B&G. F is theillegitimate child of B andC. As legitimate children of B and C,X and Y have thefollowing rights: 1) To bear thesurnames of the father and

the mother, inconformity with the provisions of theCivil Code onSurnames; 2) To receive supportfrom their parents, theirascendants,and in proper cases, their brothersand sisters, inconformity with the provisions of theFamily Code onSupport; and3) To be entitled to the legitime andother successional

rights granted to them by the CivilCode. (Article 174, FamilyCode).E is the legitimated child of B and G.Under Art. 177 of theFamily Code, only childrenconceived and born outside ofwedlock of parents who, at the timeof the conception of theformer, were not disqualified by any


4/24

What are the rights ofB's four children: X and Y of his firstmarriage; and E and F,his children with G? Explain youranswer.

impediment to marryeach other may be legitimated. E willhave the same rightsas X and Y.F is the illegitimate child of B and G.F has the right to usethe surname of G, her mother, and isentitled to support aswell as the legitime consisting of 1/2of that of each of X, Yand E. (Article 176, Family Code)

SUCCESSION

Wills; Formalities(1990)(Article 815, 816 and

817)

(1) If a will is executed by a testator whois a Filipino citizen,what law will govern if the will isexecuted in the Philippines?What law will govern if the will isexecuted in anothercountry? Explain your answers.(2) If a will is executed by a foreigner,for instance, aJapanese, residing in the Philippines,what law will govern ifthe will is executed in the Philippines?And what law willgovern if the will is executed in Japan,or some other country,for instance, the U.S.A.? Explain youranswers.

(1) a. If the testator who is a Filipinocitizen executes his willin the Philippines, Philippine law willgovern the formalities.b. If said Filipino testator executeshis will in another country,the law of the country where hemaybe or Philippine law willgovern the formalities.

(2) a. If the testator is a foreignerresiding in the Philippinesand he executes his will in thePhilippines, the law of thecountry of which he is a citizen orPhilippine law will governthe formalities.b. If the testator is a foreigner andexecutes his will in aforeign country, the law of his placeof residence or the law of

the country of which he is a citizen orthe law of the place ofexecution, or Philippine law willgovern the formalities(Articles 17. 816. 817. Civil Code).POSSIBLE ADDITIONALANSWERS:a. In the case of a Filipino citizen,Philippine law shallgovern substantive validity whetherhe executes his will in thePhilippines or in a foreign country.

b. In the case of a foreigner, hisnational law shall governsubstantive validity whether heexecutes his will in thePhilippines or in a foreign country.

Wills; Probate;Intrinsic Validity(1990)Article 739 and 1028

H died leaving a last will and testamentwherein it is statedthat he was legally married to W bywhom he had twolegitimate children A and B. H devised

(a) Yes, the will may be probated ifexecuted according to theformalities prescribed by law.(b) The institution giving X the freeportion is not valid,


5/24

to his said forcedheirs the entire estate except the freeportion which he gaveto X who was living with him at the timeof his death.In said will he explained that he hadbeen estranged from hiswife W for more than 20 years and hehas been living with Xas man and wife since his separationfrom his legitimatefamily.In the probate proceedings, X asked forthe issuance ofletters testamentary in accordance withthe will wherein she isnamed sole executor. This wasopposed by W and herchildren.(a) Should the will be admitted in said

probate proceedings?(b) Is the said devise to X valid?(c) Was it proper for the trial court toconsider the intrinsicvalidity of the provisions of said will?Explain your answers,

because the prohibitions under Art.739 of the Civil Code ondonations also apply to testamentarydispositions (Article1028, Civil Code), Among donationswhich are consideredvoid are those made betweenpersons who were guilty ofadultery or concubinage at the timeof the donation.(c) As a general rule, the will shouldbe admitted in probateproceedings if all the necessaryrequirements for its extrinsicvalidity have been met and the courtshould not consider theintrinsic validity of the provisions ofsaid will. However, theexception arises when the will ineffect contains only one

testamentary disposition. In effect,the only testamentarydisposition under the will is the givingof the free portion to X,since legitimes are provided by law.Hence, the trial court mayconsider the intrinsic validity of theprovisions of said will.(Nuguid v. Nuguid, etal.. No. L23445,June 23, 1966, 17 SCRA;Nepomuceno v. CA, L-62952,9 October 1985. 139 SCRA 206)

PROPERTY

Extra-JudicialPartition; Fraud(1990)(Articles 1327 and1391)

X was the owner of a 10,000 squaremeter property. Xmarried Y and out of their union. A, Band C were born. After the death of Y, Xmarried Z and they begot as children,D, E and F. After the death of X, thechildren ofthe first and second marriages executedan extrajudicialpartition of the aforestated property onMay 1, 1970. D, Eand F were given a one thousandsquare meter portion of the

property. They were minors at the timeof the execution ofthe document. D was 17 years old, Ewas 14 and F was 12;and they were made to believe by A, Band C that unless theysign the document they will not get anyshare. Z was notpresent then. In January 1974, D, E andF filed an action in

(a) Yes, minority can be a basis tonullify the partitionbecause D, E and F were notproperly represented by theirparents or guardians at the time theycontracted the extrajudicialpartition. (Articles 1327. 1391, CivilCode).(b) In the case of fraud, whenthrough insidious words ormachinations of one party the otheris induced to enter intothe contract without which he would

not have agreed to, theaction still prosper because underArt, 1391 of the CivilCode, in case of fraud, the action forannulment may bebrought within four years from thediscovery of the fraud.


6/24

court to nullify the suit alleging theydiscovered the fraudonly in 1973.(a) Can the minority of D, E and F be abasis to nullify thepartition? Explain your answer.(b) How about fraud? Explain youranswer.


Family;ConstitutionalMandates; Divorce(1991)Article 1 Family Code

A. How does the 1987 Constitutionstrengthen the familyas an Institution?B. Do the Constitutional policy on thefamily and theprovision that marriage is the foundationof the family andshall be protected by the State barCongress from enacting alaw allowing divorce in the Philippines?

A. Sec, 2, Article II of theConstitution provides that: TheState recognizes the sanctity offamily life and shall protectand strengthen the family as a basicautonomous socialinstitution. It shall equally protect thelife of the mother andthe life of the unborn fromconception. The natural andprimary right and duty of parents inthe rearing of the youthfor civic efficiency and thedevelopment of moral charactershall receive the support of theGovernment.Section I, Article XV, further providesthat: The Staterecognizes the Filipino family as thefoundation of the nation.Accordingly, it shall strengthen itssolidarity and actively

promote its total development.(Note: The Committee recommendsthat a citation of either one ofthe provisions be credited as acomplete answer).SUGGESTED ANSWER:B, No, the Constitutional policy, aswell as the supportingprovision, does not amount to aprohibition to Congress toenact a law on divorce. TheConstitution only meant to helpthe marriage endure, to "strengthen

its solidarity and activelypromote its total development."ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:B. Yes. Congress is barred fromenacting a law allowingdivorce, since Section 2 of Article XVprovides: "Sec. 2.Marriage, as an inviolable socialinstitution, is the foundationof the family and shall be protected


7/24

by the State." Sincemarriage is "Inviolable", it cannot bedissolved by an absolutedivorce.

Marriage; PropertyRelations; Void

Marriages (1991)Article 40, 148

In June 1985, James married Mary. InSeptember 1988, he

also married Ophelia with whom hebegot two (2) children,A and B. In July 1989, Mary died. InJuly 1990, he marriedShirley and abandoned Ophelia, Duringtheir union. Jamesand Ophelia acquired a residential lotworth P300,000.00.Ophelia sues James for bigamy andprays that his marriagewith Shirley be declared null and void.James, on the otherhand, claims that since his marriage toOphelia was

contracted during the existence of hismarriage with Mary, theformer is not binding upon him, thesame being void ab initiohe further claims that his marriage toShirley is valid andbinding as he was already legallycapacitated at the time hemarried her. a) Is the contention ofJames correct? b) Whatproperty Relations governed the unionof Jamesand Ophelia? c) Is the estate of Mary

entitled to a share in theresidential lot acquired by James andOphelia?

A. Yes. His marriage to Ophelia isvoid ab initio because of

his subsisting prior marriage to Mary.His marriage to Shirley,after Mary's death, is valid andbinding.ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:A. No. The contention of James isnot correct. Art. 40, FamilyCode, provides that the "absolutenullity of a previousmarriage may be invoked forpurposes of remarriage on thebasis solely of a final judgmentdeclaring such previousmarriage void." It can be said,

therefore, that the marriage ofJames to Shirley is void since hisprevious marriage toOphelia, although itself void, had notyet been judiciallydeclared void,ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:A. No. The contention of James isnot correct. He cannotset up as a defense his own criminalact or wrongdoing-SUGGESTED ANSWER:B. The provisions of Art 148 of the

Family Code, shall govern: Art.148. In cases of cohabitation notfalling under

Marriage;Annulment; Grounds(1991)(Article 45 and 46)

One of the grounds for annulment ofmarriage is that either party,at the time of their marriage wasafflicted with a sexually-transmissibledisease, found to be serious andappears incurable. Two (2) years aftertheir marriage, which tookplace on 10 October 1988, Betheldiscovered that her husband

James has a sexually-transmissibledisease which he contractedeven prior to their marriage althoughJames did not know ithimself until he was examined two [2)years later when a childwas already born to them. Bethel suesJames for annulment oftheir marriage. James opposes theannulment on the ground that

A. The marriage can be annulled,because good faith is not adefense when the ground is baseduponsexually-transmissible disease onthe part of either party.SUGGESTED ANSWER:B. Yes, the marriage can still beannulled because the fact

that both of them are afflicted withsexually-transmissiblediseases does not efface or nullitythe ground.Alternative Answer:B. No, the marriage can no longer beannulled, because thefact that both were afflicted and thatboth knew of theirrespective infirmities constitutes a


8/24

he did not even know that he had sucha disease so that therewas no fraud or bad faith on his part.Decide.

B. Suppose that both parties at the timeof their marriagewere similarly afflicted with sexually-transmissible diseases,serious and incurable, and both knew oftheir respectiveinfirmities, can Bethel or James sue forannulment of theirmarriage?

waiver of that ground.

Property Relations;Marriage Settlements(1991)Article 84

Bar Candidates Patricio Mahigugmaonand Rowena Amor decided to marryeach other before the last day of the1991Bar Examinations. They agreed to

execute a MarriageSettlement. Rowena herself preparedthe document in herown handwriting. They agreed on thefollowing: (1) a conjugalpartnership of gains; (2) each donatesto the other fiftypercent (50%) of his/her presentproperty, (3) Rowena shalladminister the conjugal partnershipproperty; and (4) neithermay bring an action for the annulmentor declaration of

nullity of their marriage. Both signed theagreement in thepresence of two (2) witnesses. They didnot, however,acknowledge it before a notary public.A. As to form, is the MarriageSettlement valid? May itbe registered in the registry of property?If not, what stepsmust be taken to make it registerable?B. Are the stipulations valid?C. If the Marriage Settlement is valid asto form and

the above stipulations are likewise valid,does it now followthat said Marriage Settlement is validand enforceable?

A. Yes, it is valid as to form becauseit is in writing. No, itcannot be registered in the registry ofproperty because it is

not a public document. To make itregisterable, it must bereformed and has to be notarized.SUGGESTED ANSWER:B. Stipulations (1) and (3) are validbecause they are notcontrary to law. Stipulation (4) is voidbecause it is contraryto law. Stipulation (2) is valid up to1/5 of their respectivepresent properties but void as to theexcess (Art 84, FamilyCode).

SUGGESTED ANSWER:C. No. on September 15, 1991, themarriage settlement is notyet valid and enforceable until thecelebration of themarriage, to take place before thelast day of the 1991 barExaminations.

SUCCESSION

Succession; Death;PresumptiveLegitime (1991)(Article 51, 52, 84,

a) For purposes of succession, when isdeath deemed tooccur or take place? b) May successionbe conferred by

A. Death as a fact is deemed tooccur when it actually takesplace. Death is presumed to takeplace in the circumstances


9/24

390, 391, 1058, 1080,1898

contracts or acts intervivos? Illustrate. c) Is there any lawwhich allows the deliverytocompulsory heirs of their presumptivelegitimes duringthe lifetime of their parents? If so, inwhat instances?

under Arts. 390-391 of the CivilCode. The time of death ispresumed to be at the expiration ofthe 10year period asprescribed by Article 390 and at themoment of disappearanceunder Article 391.B. Under Art. 84 of the Family Codeamending Art 130 ofthe Civil Code, contractualsuccession is no longer possiblesince the law now requires thatdonations of future propertybe governed by the provisions on thetestamentary successionand formalities of wills.ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:B. In the case of Coronado vs.CA(l91SCRA81),it was ruledthat no property passes under a will

without its beingprobated, but may under Article 1058of the Civil Code of1898, be sustained as a partition byan act inter vivos[Many-Oy vs. CA 144SCRA33).And in the case of Chavez vs, IAC1191 SCRA211),it was ruledthat while the law prohibits contractsupon future inheritance,the partition by the parent, asprovided in Art. 1080 is a caseexpressly authorized by law. A

person has two options inmaking a partition of his estate:either by an act inter vivos orby will. If the partition is by will, it isimperative that suchpartition must be executed inaccordance with the provisionsof the law on wills; if by an act intervivos, such partition mayeven be oral or written, and need notbe in the form of a will,provided the legitime is notprejudiced.

"Where several sisters executedeeds of sale over their 1 /6undivided share of the paraphernalproperty of their mother, in favor ofanother sister, with their mother notonly giving her authority thereto buteven signing said deeds,there is a valid partition inter vivosbetween the mother andher children which cannot be


10/24

revoked by the mother. Saiddeeds of sale are not contractsentered into with respect tofuture inheritance."It would be unjust for the mother torevoke the sales to ason and to execute a simulated salein favor of a daughterwho already benefited by thepartition."SUGGESTED ANSWER:C. Yes, under Arts. 51 and 52 of theNew Family Code. Incase of legal separation, annulmentof marriage, declarationof nullity of marriage and theautomatic termination of asubsequent marriage by thereappearance of the absentspouse, the common or community

property of the spousesshall be dissolved and liquidated.Art, 51. In said partition, the value ofthe presumptivelegitimes of all common children,computed as of the date ofthe final judgment of the trial court,shall be delivered incash, property or sound securities,unless the parties, bymutual agreement, judiciallyapproved, had already providedfor such matters.

The children of their guardian, or thetrustee of theirproperty, may ask for theenforcement of the judgment.The delivery of the presumptivelegitimes herein prescribedshall in no way prejudice the ultimatesuccessional rights ofthe children accruing upon the deathof either or both of theparents; but the value of theproperties already receivedunder the decree of annulment or

absolute nullity shall beconsidered as advances on theirlegitime.Art. 52. The judgment of annulmentor of absolute nullity ofthe marriage, the partition anddistribution of the propertiesof the spouses, and the delivery ofthe children's presumptivelegitimes shall be recorded in the


11/24

appropriate civil registry andregistries of property; otherwise, thesame shall not affectthird persons.

Donations;Conditions;

Revocation (1991)Article 764, 1191

Spouses Michael and Linda donated a3-hectare residential

land to the City of Baguio on thecondition that the citygovernment would build thereon apublic park with a boxingarena, the construction of which shallcommence within six(6) months from the date the partiesratify the donation. Thedonee accepted the donation and thetitle to the property wastransferred in its name. Five yearselapsed but the public parkwith the boxing arena was neverstarted. Considering the

failure of the donee to comply with thecondition of thedonation, the donor-spouses sold theproperty to Ferdinand who then sued torecover the landfrom the city government. Will the suitprosper?

Ferdinand has no right to recover theland. It is true that the

donation was revocable because ofbreach of the conditions.But until and unless the donationwas revoked, it remainedvalid. Hence, Spouses Michael andLinda had no right to sellthe land to Ferdinand. One cannotgive what he does nothave. What the donors should havedone first was to have thedonation annulled or revoked. Andafter that was done, theycould validly have disposed of theland in favor of Ferdinand.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:A. Until the contract of donation hasbeen resolved orrescinded under Article 1191 of theCivil Code or revokedunder Art. 764 of the Civil Code, thedonation standseffective and valid. Accordingly, thesale made by the donorto Ferdinand cannot be said to haveconveyed title toFerdinand, who, thereby, has nocause of action for recovery

of the land acting for and in hisbehalf.B. The donation is onerous, Andbeing onerous, what appliesis the law on contracts, and not thelaw on donation (DeLuna us. Abrigo, 81 SCRA 150).Accordingly, theprescriptive period for the filing ofsuch an action would bethe ordinary prescriptive period forcontacts which mayeither be six or ten depending upon

whether it is verbal orwritten. The filing of the case fiveyears later is within theprescriptive period and, therefore,the action can prosper,Alternative Answer:The law on donation lays down aspecial prescriptive periodin the case of breach of condition,which is four years from


12/24

non-compliance thereof (Article 764Civil Code). Since theaction has prescribed, the suit willnot prosper,

1992 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

Appilicable Laws;

laws governingcontracts (1992)Article 17

X and Y entered into a contract in

Australia, whereby it wasagreed that X would build a commercialbuilding for Y in thePhilippines, and in payment for theconstruction, Y willtransfer and convey his cattle ranchlocated in the UnitedStates in favor of X. What law wouldgovern: a) Thevalidity of the contract? b) Theperformance of the contract?c) The consideration of the contract?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) The validity of the contract will begoverned by Australianlaw, because the validity refers to theelement of the makingof the contract in this case.(Optional Addendum:"... unless theparties agreed to bebound by another law".}(b) The performance will begoverned by the law of thePhilippines where the contract is tobe performed.(c) The consideration will begoverned by the law oftUhnei t ed States where the ranch islocated. (Optional Addendum:In the foregoing cases, when theforeign law would apply, theabsence of proof of that foreign lawwould render Philippine lawapplicable under the "eclectictheory".)

Marriage; DivorceDecree; VoidMarriages (1992)Article 25, 26, 41

In 1989, Maris, a Filipino citizen,married her boss Johnson, an Americancitizen, in Tokyo in a wedding ceremonycelebrated according to Japanese laws.

One year later, Johnsonreturned to his native Nevada, and hevalidly obtained in thatstate an absolute divorce from his wifeMaris. After Marisreceived the final judgment of divorce,she married herchildhood sweetheart Pedro, also aFilipino citizen, in areligious ceremony in Cebu City,celebrated according to theformalities of Philippine law. Pedro laterleft for the United

States and became naturalized as anAmerican citizen. Marisfollowed Pedro to the United States,and after a seriousquarrel, Marts filed a suit and obtaineda divorce decree issuedby the court in the state of Maryland.Maris then returned tothe Philippines and in a civil ceremonycelebrated in Cebu

(a) The marriage of Maris and Pedrowas valid whencelebrated because the divorcevalidly obtained by Johnson in

Manila capacitated Maris to marryPedro. The marriage ofMaris and Pedro is still validlyexisting, because the marriagehas not been validly dissolved by theMaryland divorce [Art.26, Family Code).(b) The marriage of Maris andVincent is void ab initiobecause it is a bigamous marriagecontracted by Maris duringthe subsistence of her marriage withPedro (Art 25 and 41,

Family Code). The marriage of Marisand Vincent does notvalidly exist because Article 26 doesnot apply. Pedro was nota foreigner at the time of hismarriage with marts and thedivorce abroad (in Maryland) wasinitiated and obtained notby the alien spouse, but by theFilipino spouse. Hence, the


13/24

City according to the formalities ofPhilippine law, shemarried her former classmate Vincentlikewise a Filipinocitizen. a) Was the marriage of Marisand Pedro valid whencelebrated? Is their marriage still validexisting now? Reasons.b) Was the marriage of Marts andVincent valid whencelebrated? Is their marriage still validlyexisting now?Reasons. c) At this point in time, who isthe lawful husbandof Marts? Reasons.

Maryland divorce did not capacitateMarts to marry Vincent.(c) At this point in time, Pedro is stillthe lawful husband ofMaris because their valid marriagehas not been dissolved byany valid cause (Art. 26. FamilyCode)

Applicable Laws;laws governingmarriages (1992)Article 26

In 1989, Maris, a Filipino citizen,married her boss Johnson,an American citizen, in Tokyo in awedding ceremonycelebrated according to Japanese laws.

One year later,Johnson returned to his native Nevada,and he validlyobtained in that state an absolutedivorce from his wife Maris.After Maris received the final judgmentof divorce, shemarried her childhood sweetheartPedro, also a Filipinocitizen, in a religious ceremony in CebuCity, celebratedaccording to the formalities of Philippinelaw. Pedro later left

for the United States and becamenaturalized as an Americancitizen. Maris followed Pedro to theUnited States, and after aserious quarrel, Maris filed a suit andobtained a divorcedecree issued by the court in the stateof Maryland.

Maris then returned to the Philippinesand in a civil ceremonycelebrated in Cebu City according to theformalities of

Philippine law, she married her formerclassmate Vincentlikewise a Filipino citizen. a) Was themarriage of Maris andJohnson valid when celebrated? Is theirmarriage still validlyexisting now? Reasons.

(a) The marriage of Mans andJohnson was valid whencelebrated because all marriagessolemnized outside thePhilippines (Tokyo) in accordance

with the laws in force inthe country where they aresolemnized (Japan), and validthere as such, are also valid in thePhilippines.Their marriage no longer validlysubsists, because it has beendissolved by the absolute divorcevalidly obtained by Johnsonwhich capacitated Maris to remarry(Art. 26. Family Code).

Property Relations;Unions withoutMarriage (1992)

In 1989, Rico, then a widower forty (40)years of age,cohabited with Cora, a widow thirty (30)

(a) Rico and Cora are the co-ownersof the riceland. TheRelations is that of co-ownership


14/24

Article 75, 90, 147 and148

years of age. Whileliving together, they acquired from theircombined earnings aparcel of riceland.After Rico and Cora separated, Ricolived together withMabel, a maiden sixteen (16) years ofage. While living together, Rico was asalaried employee and Mabel kepthouse for Rico and did full-timehousehold chores for him.During their cohabitation, a parcel ofcoconut land wasacquired by Rico from his savings.After living together for one (1) year,Rico and Mabelseparated. Rico then met and marriedLetty, a single womantwenty-six (26) years of age. During themarriage of Rico and

Letty, Letty bought a mango orchard outof her own personalearnings. a) Who would own thericeland, and whatproperty Relations governs theownership? Explain. b) Whowould own the coconut land, and whatproperty Relationsgoverns the ownership? Explain. c)Who would own themango orchard, and what propertyRelations governs theownership? Explain.

(Art. 147, Family Code,first paragraph).(Optional Addendum: However, afterRico's marriage to Letty, thehalf interest of Rico in the ricelandwill then become absolutecommunity property of Rico andLetty.)(b) Rico is the exclusive owner of thecoconut land. TheRelations is a sole/singleproprietorship (Art. 148. FamilyCode, first paragraph is applicable,and not Art. 147 FamilyCode).(Optional Addendum: However, afterRico's marriage to Letty, thecoconut land of Rico will thenbecome absolute communityproperty of

Rico and Letty.)(c) Rico and Letty are the co-owners.The Relations is theAbsolute Community of Property(Arts, 75,90and9l, FamilyCode).

SUCCESIONBuilder; Good Faith(1992)SUGGESTEDANSWER:Article 448, 546, 548

A owns a parcel of residential landworth P500,000.00unknown to A, a residential housecosting P 100,000.00 isbuilt on the entire parcel by B whoclaims ownership of theland. Answer all the following questionsbased on the premisethat B is a builder in good faith and A isa landowner in goodfaith. a) May A acquire the house builtby B? If so, how? b) If

the land increased in value toP500,000.00 by reasonof the building of the house thereon,what amountshould be paid by A in order to acquirethe house fromB?c) Assuming that the cost of the housewas P90,000.00and not P100,000.00, may A require B

(a) Yes, A may acquire the housebuild by B by payingindemnity to B. Article 448 of theCivil Code provides thatthe owner of the land on whichanything has been built, sownor planted in good faith, shall havethe right to appropriate ashis own the works, sowing orplanting, after payment of theindemnity provided for in Articles 546and 546 of the Civil

Code.(b) A should pay B the sum ofP50,000. Article 548 of theCivil Code provides that usefulexpenses shall be refunded tothe possessor in good faith with theright of retention, theperson who has defeated him in thepossession having theoption of refunding the amount of the


15/24

to buy the land?d) If B voluntarily buys the land asdesired by A, underwhat circumstances may Anevertheless be entitled to havethe house removed?e) In what situation may a "forcedlease" arise betweenA and B. and what terms and conditionswould govern thelease?Give reasons for your answers.

expenses or of payingthe increase in value which the thingmay have acquired byreason thereof. The increase in valueamounts to P50,000.00.(c) Yes, A may require B to buy theland. Article 448 of theCivil Code provides that the owner ofthe land on whichanything has been built in good faithshall have the right tooblige the one who built to pay theprice of the land if itsvalue is not considerably more thanthat of the building,(d) If B agrees to buy land but fails topay, A can have thehouse removed ( Depra vs. Dumlao,136 SCRA 475).(e) Article 448 of the Civil Code

provides that the buildercannot be obliged to buy the land ifits value is considerablymore than that of the building. Insuch case, he shall pay reasonablerent, if the owner of the land does notchoose to appropriate the buildingafter proper indemnity. The partiesshall agree upon the terms of thelease and in case ofdisagreement, the court fix the termsthereof.

Ownership; Co-

Ownership (1992)Article 485, 488, 489,492, 493

A, B and C are the co-owners in equal

shares of a residentialhouse and lot. During their co-ownership, the following actswere respectively done by the co-owners: 1) A undertook therepair of the foundation of the house,then tilting to one side, to prevent thehouse fromcollapsing. 2) B and C mortgaged thehouse and lot to securea loan. 3) B engaged a contractor tobuild a concrete fence allaround the lot. 4) C built a beautiful

grotto in thegarden. 5) A and C sold the land to Xfor a very goodprice.(a) Is A's sole decision to repair thefoundation ofthe house binding on B and C? May Arequire B andC to contribute their 2/3 share of theexpense?

(a) Yes. A's sole decision to repair

the foundation is bindingupon B and C. B and C mustcontribute 2/3 of the expense.Each co-owner has the right tocompel the other co-ownersto contribute to the expense ofpreservation of the thing (thehouse) owned in common inproportion to their respectiveinterests (Arts. 485 and 488, CivilCode).SUGGESTED ANSWER:(b) The mortgage shall not bind the

1/3 right and interest of A and shallbe deemed to cover only the rightsandinterests of B and C in the house andlot. The mortgage shallbe limited to the portion (2/3) whichmay be allotted to Band C in the partition (Art. 493, CivilCode).SUGGESTED ANSWER:


16/24

Reasons.(b) What is the legal effect of themortgagecontract executed by B and C?Reasons.(c) Is B's sole decision to build the fencebindingupon A and C? May B require A and Cto contributetheir 2/ 3 share of the expense?Reasons.(d) Is C's sole decision to build thegrotto bindingupon A and B? May C require A and Bto contributetheir 2/ 3 share of the expense?Reasons.(e) What are the legal effects of thecontract ofsale executed by A. C and X? Reasons.

(c) B's sole decision to build theconcrete fence is not bindingupon A and C. Expenses to improvethe thing owned incommon must be decided upon by amajority of theco-owners who represent thecontrolling interest (Arts. 489and 492. Civil Code).SUGGESTED ANSWER:(d) C's sole decision to build thegrotto is not binding upon Aand B who cannot be required tocontribute to the expensesfor the embellishment of the thingowned in common if notdecided upon by the majority of thecoowners who representthe controlling interest (Arts. 489 and492, Civil Code).

SUGGESTED ANSWER:(e) The sale to X shall not bind the1/3 share of B and shallbe deemed to cover only the 2/3share of A and C in theland (Art. 493, Civil Code). B shallhave the right to redeemthe 2/3 share sold to X by A and Csince X is a third person(Art. 1620, Civil Code).

Intestate Succession(1992)Article 977

F had three (3) legitimate children: A, B,and C. B has one(1) legitimate child X. C has two (2)

legitimate children: Yand Z. F and A rode together in a carand perished togetherat the same time in a vehicularaccident, F and A died, eachof them leaving substantial estates inintestacy.a) Who are the intestate heirs of F?What are theirrespective fractional shares?b) Who are the intestate heirs of A?What are theirrespective fractional shares?

c) If B and C both predeceased F, whoare Fs intestateheirs? What are their respectivefractional shares? Dothey inherit in their own right or byrepresentation?Explain your answer.d) If B and C both repudiated theirshares in the estate ofF who are F's intestate heirs? What are

SUGGESTED ANSWER:(a) B =1/2

(b) B = 1/2 Z = 1/4 by representationof C C= 1/2 Article 982of the Civil Code provides thatgrandchildren inherit by rightof representation.

(c) X = 1/2 by representation of BC=l/2 Y = 1/4 byrepresentation of C(d) X - 1/3 in his own right Y- 1/3 inhis own right 2 - 1/3in his own rightArticle 977 of the Civil Code provides

that heirs whorepudiate their share cannot berepresented.


17/24

their respectivefractional shares? Do they inherit intheir own right or byrepresentation? Explain your answer,

PROPERTY

Prescription; RealRights (1992)Article 1129

A owned a parcel of unregistered landlocated on the Tarlacside of the boundary between Tarlacand Pangasinan. Hisbrother B owned the adjoining parcel ofunregistered land onthe Pangasinan side.A sold the Tarlac parcel to X in a deedof sale executed as apublic instrument by A and X. After Xpaid in full the, priceof the sale, X took possession of thePangasinan parcel in thebelief that it was the Tarlac parcelcovered by the deed ofsale executed by A and X.After twelve (12) years, a controversyarose between B and Xon the issue of the ownership of thePangasinan parcel, Bclaims a vested right of ownership overthe Pangasinan parcelbecause B never sold that parcel to X orto anyone else.On the other hand, X claims a vestedright of ownership overthe Pangasinan parcel by acquisitive

prescription, because Xpossessed this parcel for over ten (10]years under claim ofownership.

Decide on these claims, giving yourreasons. The right to recoverpossession of registered land likewise

At this point in time, X cannot claimthe right of vestedownership over the Pangasinanparcel by acquisitiveprescription. In addition to therequisites common to ordinaryand extraordinary acquisitiveprescription consisting ofuninterrupted, peaceful, public,adverse and actual possessionin the concept of owner, ordinaryacquisitive prescription forten (10) years requires (1)possession in good faith and (2) justtitle. "Just title" means that theadverse claimant came intopossession of the property throughone of the modesrecognized by law for the acquisitionof ownership but thegrantor was not the owner or couldnot transmit any right (Art.1129. Civil Code). In this case, thereis no "just title" and no"mode" that can be invoked by X forthe acquisition of thePangasinan parcel. There was no

constructive delivery of thePangasinan parcel because it wasnot the subject-matter of thedeed of sale. Hence, B retainsownership of the Pangasinanparcel of land.


Applicable Laws;

Wills executedabroad (1993)Article 17, 815

A, a Filipino, executed a will in Kuwait

while there as acontract worker. Assume that under thelaws of Kuwait, it isenough that the testator affix hissignature to the presence oftwo witnesses and that the will need notbe acknowledgedbefore a notary public. May the will beprobated in thePhilippines?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. Under Articles 815 and 17 ofthe Civil Code, theformality of the execution of a will isgoverned by the law ofthe place of execution. If the will wasexecuted with theformalities prescribed by the laws ofKuwait and valid thereas such, the will is valid and may beprobated in the


18/24

Philippines.

Marriage;Annulment; JudicialDeclaration (1993)Article 36

Maria and Luis, both Filipinos, weremarried by a Catholicpriest in Lourdes Church, Quezon Cityin 1976, Luis was

drunk on the day of his wedding. In fact,he slumped at thealtar soon after the ceremony. Aftermarriage, Luis never hada steady job because he was drunkmost of the time. Finally,he could not get employed at allbecause of drunkenness.Hence, it was Maria who had to earn aliving to supportherself and her child begotten with Luis.In 1986, Maria filed apetition in the church matrimonial courtin Quezon City to

annul her marriage with Luis on theground of psychologicalincapacity to comply with his maritalobligation. Her petitionwas granted by the church matrimonialcourt. 1) Can Marianow get married legally to another manunder Philippine lawsafter her marriage to Luis was annulledby the churchmatrimonial court? Explain. 2) Whatmust Maria do toenable her to get married lawfully to

another man underPhilippine laws?

1) No, Maria cannot validly contract asubsequent marriagewithout a court declaration of nullityof the first marriage.

The law does not recognize thechurch declaration of nullityof a marriage.2) To enable Maria to get marriedlawfully to another man.she must obtain a judicial declarationof nullity of the priormarriage under Article 36 FamilyCode.

Marriage; Requisites;Void Marriage (1993)Article 35, 45, 52

A and B, both 18 years old, weresweethearts studying inManila. On August 3, 1988, while in firstyear college, theyeloped. They stayed in the house of amutual friend in townX, where they were able to obtain amarriage license. OnAugust 30, 1988, their marriage wassolemnized by the town

mayor of X in his office. Thereafter, theyreturned to Manilaand continued to live separately in theirrespective boardinghouses, concealing from their parents,who were living in theprovince what they had done. In 1992,after graduation from college, A and Bdecided to break their relation andparted ways. Both went home to their

SUGGESTED ANSWER:1) The marriage of A and B is voidbecause the solemnizingofficer had no legal authority tosolemnize the marriage. Butif either or both parties believed ingood faith that thesolemnizing officer had the legalauthority to do so, themarriage is voidable because the

marriage between theparties, both below 21 years of age,was solemnized withoutthe consent of the parents. (Art. 35,par. (2) and Art. 45 par.(1), Family Code)2) Either or both of the parties cannotcontract marriage inthe Philippines with another personwithout committing


19/24

respective towns tolive and work. 1) Was the marriage of Aand B solemnizedon August 30, 1988 by the town mayorof X in his office avalid marriage? Explain your answer. 2)Can either or bothof them contract marriage with anotherperson withoutcommitting bigamy? Explain youranswer.

bigamy, unless there is compliancewith the requirements ofArticle 52 Family Code, namely:there must be a judgment ofannulment or absolute nullity of themarriage, partition anddistribution of the properties of thespouses and the deliveryof their children's presumptivelegitimes, which shall berecorded in the appropriate CivilRegistry and Registry ofProperty, otherwise the same shallnot affect third personsand the subsequent marriage shallbe null and void. (Arts. 52and 53. Family Code)ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:2) Yes, they can. The subsequentmarriage contracted by one

of the parties will not give rise tobigamy even in the absenceof a court declaration of nullity of thefirst marriage. Thesubsistence of a prior valid marriageis an indispensableelement of the crime of bigamy. Theprior court declarationof nullity of the first marriage isrequired by the Family Codeonly for the purpose of the validity ofthe subsequentmarriage, not as an element of the

crime of bigamy.Emancipation (1993)Article 236

Julio and Lea, both 18 years old, weresweethearts. At a partyat the house of a mutual friend. Lea metJake, also 18 yearsold, who showed interest in her. Leaseemed to entertain Jakebecause she danced with him manytimes. In a fit of jealousy,Julio shot Jake with his father's 38caliber revolver which,before going to the party he was able toget from the

unlocked drawer inside his father'sbedroom. Jake died as aresult of the lone gunshot wound hesustained. His parentssued Julio's parents for damagesarising from quasi-delict. Atthe time of the incident, Julio was 18years old living with hisparents. Julio's parents moved todismiss the complaint

SUGGESTED ANSWER:1) No, the Motion to Dismiss shouldnot be granted. Article236 of the Family Code as amendedby Republic Act 6809,provides in the third paragraph that"nothing in this Codeshall be construed to derogate fromthe duty or responsibilityof parents and guardians for childrenand wards belowtwenty-one years of age mentioned

in the second and thirdparagraphs of Article 2180 of theCivil Code". 2) The liabilityof Julio's parents to Jake's parentsarises from quasi-delict(Arts. 2176 and 2180 Civil Code) andshall cover specificallythe following:a) P50,000.00 for the death of theson;


20/24

against them claiming that since Juliowas already of majorityage, they were no longer liable for hisacts. 1) Should themotion to dismiss be granted? Why? 2)What is the liability ofJulio's parents to Jake's parents?Explain your answer.

b) such amount as would correspondto lost earningcapacity; andc) moral damages.

SUCCESSION

Collation (1993)Article 176, 1440,1453

Joaquin Reyes bought from Julio Cruz aresidential lot of 300square meters in Quezon City for whichJoaquin paid Julio theamount of P300,000.00, When the deedwas about to beprepared Joaquin told Julio that it bedrawn in the name ofJoaquina Roxas, his acknowledgednatural child. Thus, thedeed was so prepared and executed byJulio. Joaquina thenbuilt a house on the lot where she, herhusband and childrenresided. Upon Joaquin's death, hislegitimate children soughtto recover possession and ownership ofthe lot, claiming thatJoaquina Roxas was but a trustee oftheir father. Will theaction against Joaquina Roxasprosper?Joaquin Reyes bought from Julio Cruz aresidential lot of 300

square meters in Quezon City for whichJoaquin paid Julio theamount of P300,000.00, When the deedwas about to beprepared Joaquin told Julio that it bedrawn in the name ofJoaquina Roxas, his acknowledgednatural child. Thus, thedeed was so prepared and executed byJulio. Joaquina thenbuilt a house on the lot where she, herhusband and childrenresided. Upon Joaquin's death, his

legitimate children soughtto recover possession and ownership ofthe lot, claiming thatJoaquina Roxas was but a trustee oftheir father. Will theaction against Joaquina Roxasprosper?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:Yes, because there is a presumeddonation in favor ofJoaquina under Art. 1448 of the CivilCode (De los Santosv. Reyes, 27 January 1992, 206SCRA 437). However, thedonation should be collated to thehereditary estate and thelegitime of the other heirs should bepreserved.ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:Yes, the action against JoaquinaRoxas will prosper, but onlyto the extent of the aliquot hereditaryrights of the legitimatechildren as heirs. Joaquina will beentitled to retain her ownshare as an illegitimate child, (Arts.1440 and 1453. CivilCode; Art. 176, F. C.)

Disinheritance vs.Preterition (1993)

Maria, to spite her husband Jorge,whom she suspected was

As Judge, I shall rule as follows:Jorge's opposition should be


21/24

Article 854, 1001 having an affair with another woman,executed a will,unknown to him, bequeathing all theproperties she inheritedfrom her parents, to her sister Miguela.Upon her death, thewill was presented for probate. Jorgeopposed probate of thewill on the ground that the will wasexecuted by his wifewithout his knowledge, much lessconsent, and that itdeprived him of his legitime. After all, hehad given her nocause for disinheritance, added Jorge inhis opposition. How will you rule onJorge's opposition to the probate ofMaria's will. If you were the Judge?

sustained in part and denied in part.Jorge's omission asspouse of Maria is not preterition of acompulsory heir in thedirect line. Hence, Art. 854 of theCivil Code does not apply,and the institution of Miguela as heiris valid, but only to theextent of the free portion of one-half.Jorge is still entitled toone-half of the estate as his legitime.(Art. 1001, Civil Code)ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:a) As Judge, I shall rule as follows:Jorge's opposition shouldbe sustained in part and denied inpart. This is a case ofineffective disinheritance under Art,918 of the Civil Code,because the omission of the

compulsory heir Jorge by Mariawas intentional. Consequently, theinstitution of Miguela asheir is void only insofar as thelegitime of Jorge is prejudiced.Accordingly, Jorge is entitled to hislegitime of one-half of theestate, and Miguela gets the otherhalf.b) As Judge, I shall rule as follows:Jorge's opposition shouldbe sustained. This is a case ofpreterition under Article 854

Civil Code, the result of the omissionof Jorge as compulsoryheir having the same right equivalentto a legitimate child "inthe direct line" is that total intestacywill arise, and Jorge willinherit the entire estate.c) As Judge, I shall rule as follows:the opposition shouldbe denied since it is predicated uponcauses not recognizedby law as grounds for disallowanceof a wll, to wit:

1 that the will was made without hisknowledge;2 that the will was made without hisconsent; and3 that it has the effect of deprivinghim of hislegitime, which is a ground that goesinto the intrinsicvalidity of the will and need not beresolved during the


22/24

probate proceedings. However, theopposition may beentertained for, the purpose ofsecuring to the husbandhis right to the legitime on the theorythat the willconstitutes an ineffectivedisinheritance under Art. 918of the Civil Code,d) As Judge, I shall rule as follows:Jorge is entitled toreceive his legitime from the estateof his wife. He was notdisinherited in the will even assumingthat he gave ground fordisinheritance, hence, he is stillentitled to his legitime. Jorge,however, cannot receive anythingfrom the free portion. Hecannot claim preterition as he is not

a compulsory heir in thedirect line. There being nopreterition, the institution of thesister was valid and the only right ofJorge is to claim hislegitime.

Barrier betweenillegitimate &legitimate relatives(1993)Article 992, 975, 1001,1005

A is the acknowledged natural child of Bwho died when Awas already 22 years old. When B's fullblood brother, C,died he (C) was survived by his widowand four children ofhis other brother D. Claiming that he is

entitled to inheritfrom his father's brother C. A broughtsuit to obtain hisshare in the estate of C. Will his actionprosper?

No, the action of A will not prosper.On the premise that B,C and D are legitimate brothers, asan illegitimate child of B,A cannot inherit in intestacy from Cwho is a legitimatebrother of B. Only the wife of C in her

own right and the legitimate relativesof C (i.e. the children of D as C'slegitimate nephews inheriting ascollateral relatives) caninherit in intestacy. (Arts. 992, 1001,1OO5 and 975, CivilCode)ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:The action of A will not prosper.Being an illegitimate, he isbarred by Article 992 of the CivilCode from inheriting abintestato from the legitimate relatives

of his father.PROPERTY

Chattel Mortgage;Possession (1993)Article 552

A, about to leave the country on aforeign assignment,entrusted to B his brand new car and itscertificate ofregistration. Falsifying A's signature. Bsold A's car to C forP200,000.00. C then registered the carin his name. To

Under the prevailing rulings of theSupreme Court, A canrecover the car from the Savings andLoan Associationprovided he pays the price at whichthe Association boughtthe car at a public auction. Underthat doctrine, there has


23/24

complete the needed amount, Cborrowed P100.000.00 fromthe savings and loan association in hisoffice, constituting achattel mortgage on the car. For failureof C to pay theamount owed, the savings and loanassociation filed in theRTC a complaint for collection withapplication for issuanceof a writ of replevin to obtain possessionof the vehicle sothat the chattel mortgage could beforeclosed. The RTCissued the writ of replevin. The car wasthen seized from Cand sold by the sheriff at public auctionat which the savingsand loan association was the lonebidder. Accordingly, the car

was sold to it. A few days later, Aarrived from his foreignassignment. Learning of what happenedto his car, A soughtto recover possession and ownership ofit from the savingsand loan association. Can A recover hiscar from the savingsand loan association? Explain youranswer.

been an unlawful deprivation by B ofA of his car and,therefore, A can recover it from anyperson in possessionthereof. But since it was bought at apublic auction in goodfaith by the Savings and LoanAssociation, he must reimbursethe Association at the price for whichthe car was bought.ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:Yes, A can recover his car from theSavings and LoanAssociation. In a Chattel Mortgage,the mortgagor must bethe absolute owner of the thingmortgaged. Furthermore, theperson constituting the mortgagemust have the free disposalof the property, and in the absence

thereof, must be legallyauthorized for the purpose. In thecase at bar, these essentialrequisites did not apply to themortgagor B, hence the ChattelMortgage was not valid

Easements; Right ofWay (1993)

Article 651

Tomas Encarnacion's 3,000 squaremeter parcel of land,

where he has a plant nursery, is locatedjust behind AnicetaMagsino's two hectare parcel land. Toenable Tomas to haveaccess to the highway, Aniceta agreedto grant him a roadright of way a meter wide through whichhe could pass.Through the years Tomas' businessflourished which enabledhim to buy another portion whichenlarged the area of hisplant nursery. But he was still

landlocked. He could not bringin and out of his plant nursery a jeep ordelivery panel muchless a truck that he needed to transporthis seedlings. He nowasked Aniceta to grant him a widerportion of her property,the price of which he was willing to pay,to enable him toconstruct a road to have access to his

SUGGESTED ANSWER:Art. 651 of the Civil Code provides

that the width of the easementmust be sufficient to meet the needsof the dominant estate, andmay accordingly change from time totime. It is the need of thedominant estate which determinesthe width of the passage. Theseneeds may vary from time to time. AsTomas' business grows, the need foruse of modern conveyances requireswidening of the easement.ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:The facts show that the need for a

wider right of way arosefrom the increased production owingto the acquisition byTomas of an additional area. UnderArt. 626 of the CivilCode, the easement can be usedonly for the immovableoriginally contemplated. Hence, theincrease in width isjustified and should have been


24/24

plant nursery. Anicetarefused claiming that she had alreadyallowed him a previousroad right of way. Is Tomas entitled tothe easement he nowdemands from Aniceta?Tomas Encarnacion's 3,000 squaremeter parcel of land,where he has a plant nursery, is locatedjust behind AnicetaMagsino's two hectare parcel land. Toenable Tomas to haveaccess to the highway, Aniceta agreedto grant him a roadright of way a meter wide through whichhe could pass.Through the years Tomas' businessflourished which enabledhim to buy another portion whichenlarged the area of his

plant nursery. But he was stilllandlocked. He could not bringin and out of his plant nursery a jeep ordelivery panel muchless a truck that he needed to transporthis seedlings. He nowasked Aniceta to grant him a widerportion of her property,the price of which he was willing to pay,to enable him toconstruct a road to have access to hisplant nursery. Anicetarefused claiming that she had already

allowed him a previousroad right of way. Is Tomas entitled tothe easement he nowdemands from Aniceta?

granted.

bar exam questions in civil law

Documents