ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

s
e
l

r
a
B

b
o
R
nArnold and Belinda were marriedaonrJune 1, 2005. They have 2 children, Abigail
a1.and
Benjie. Their marriage was judicially
B declared null and void on February 14,
h
2009 due to the absence of asvalid marriage license. There was no liquidation of
C their assets acquired duringetheir marriage. Arnold subsequently married Carina on
l all the essential and formal requisites provided for by
June 1, 2012 complyingb
with
the Family Code.
o
R
a. Is the marriage
of Arnold and Carina valid, voidable
ror void? Explain well.
a
an
B
b. Whath
is the property regime governing their marriage?
Why?
s
C
e
ANSWER:
l
b
o
a. The marriage of Arnold and Carina is void. The Family Code provides that the judgment
Rof the marriage, the partition and distribution of the
of annulment or of absolute nullity
rlegitimes shall be
n
properties of the spouses , and
the delivery of the childrens presumptive
a
a
recorded in the proper h
civil registry and registries of property; otherwise,
the same shall
Bagain after
not affect third persons.
Either
of
the
former
spouses
may
marry
complying
s
C
e
with these requirements; otherwise, the subsequent marriage
shall be null and void.
l
(Articles 52 and 53 of the Family Code).
b
o
R and formal requisites of marriage,
Although Arnold and Carina complied with the essential
r
n
there was no compliance with Article 52 of the Family Code, hence, the subsequent
a
a
marriage is considered null and void.
B
h
s
b. Since the marriage of Arnold and C
Carina is null and void, the property regime
governing
e
l
their marriage is co-ownership under Article 147 of the Family Code considering that there
b
is no legal impediment to their marriage.
o
R
2. Anton was legally married to Bella and they haven
two children, Cherry and
r
Danny . During the subsistence of the marriage ofaAnton and Bella, the latter
a
B
cohabited with Fred, who himself was married to Gretchen.
From the cohabitation of
h
s
C On December 1, 2012, Fred diede
Bella and Fred, Hector was born on March 4, 2009.
in a vehicular accident. Bella, on behalf of Hector, intervened in the settlement l
of
b
Freds estate alleging that Hector is entitled to inherit from Fred as his illegitimate
o
son. To prove Hectors filiation to Fred, Bella presented Hectors baptismal
R
certificate and school report cards where Fred was indicated as Hectors father. She
also presented pictures showing Fred and Hector together on several
occasions. On
an
h
C
e
l
b
Ro
Answer briefly but completely and with legal basis:

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

r
a
B

the other hand, Gretchen contends that Hectors action is already barred by Freds
death.

s
e
l

a. May Hector prove his filiation with Fred and be entitled to share in Freds estate?

b
o
R
n
aANSWER:

b. Will your answer be the same had the first marriage of Anton and Bella had been
terminated by the death of Anton one year prior to the birth of Hector? Explain well.

Ch

s
e
l
b
o

r
a
B

a. No, Hector may not be allowed to prove his filiation with Fred and share in the latters
estate as he is considered the legitimate child of the valid marriage between Anton and
Bella. Under Article 164 of the Family Code, children conceived or born during the
marriage of his parents are legitimate. Hector was born during the valid marriage of Anton
and Bella, hence, he is a legitimate child of that valid marriage. Moreover, the legitimacy of
the child may be impugned only by the husband and only on special cases, by the heirs of
the husband, which is not applicable in the case at bar. It was not shown in the facts of this
case that Anton impugned the legitimacy of Hector within the period provided for by the
Family Code.

an

Ch

s
e
l

r
a
B

b
o
R

b. My answer will be different. Hector was born from the cohabitation of Bella and Fred
who was legally married to Gretchen, hence, he is considered the illegitimate child of Fred
and Bella. Anton was already dead one year prior to Hectors birth, hence the former
cannot be his father. Unfortunately, Hector still cannot inherit from Freds estate since he
was proving his filiation to Fred using pieces of evidence under the second paragraph of
Article 172 which include his baptismal certificate, school report cards and pictures. Under
Article 175 of the Family Code, illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation
in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children except when the action is
based on the second paragraph of Article 172, in which case the action may be brought
during the lifetime of the alleged parent. Hectors action to prove his illegitimate filiation to
Fred using pieces of evidence under the 2nd paragraph of Article 172 was already barred by
Freds death.

an
Ch

s
e
l
b
o

r
a
B

an

r
a
B

h
s
C
e
3. On a 500 sq.m. lot worth P1M located in Makati City with TCT # 1234
registered in
l P900,000.00.
the names of Spouses Reyes, Spouses Santos built their house worth
b
Spouses Reyes became aware of the construction when they o
their land but
Rvisited
they kept quiet as they did not want any trouble until such time
that the construction
r
is completely finished. State the rights and obligations of n
Spouses Reyes and Spouses
a
a
Santos based on the facts given.
B
h
s
C
ANSWER:
e
l
b
Spouses Reyes (landowners) and Spouses Santos (builders) were both in bad faith,
hence
o
the bad faith of one neutralizes the bad faith of the other and both of them
shall be
R
considered in good faith. Sps. Reyes were in bad faith since they were already
aware
of the
n
a thereto. Sps.
construction being done on their land by Sps. Santos but they did not object
h
C
e
l
b
Ro
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

r
a
B

Santos were also in bad faith since they constructed their house on land titled in the names
of Spouses Reyes. The rights and obligations of the parties are governed by Article 448 of
the Civil Code.

s
e
l

b
o
R 1. The right to appropriate the house constructed by Sps. Santos after payment of
r
incurred by Sps. Santos in the construction;
a
an the necessary & useful expenses
B
h
2. The right to sell the s
land encroached upon since the value of the land is not
C
e
considerably more than
the
value of the house, hence, forced lease is not applicable
l
b
o
The rights and obligations
R of Spouses Reyes as builders in good faith are:
ruseful expenses incurred in the
1. The n
right to reimbursement of the necessary &
a
a
construction of their house;
B
h
C2. The right of retention until fully paideofsthe necessary & useful expenses;
l
b
3. The right to buy the land encroached
o upon considering that the value of the land
is not considerably more R
than the value of the house, hence, forced lease is not
applicable.
r
a
an
B With the consent of
h
4. Edgar was the usufructuary
of a parcel of land owned by Fred.
s
CGreg found hidden treasure on this eland. How would the hidden
Edgar and by chance,
treasure be divided between the parties?
l
b
ANSWER:
Ro
r
n
The hidden treasure shall be equally divided
between Fred, the owner of the land where
a
a
hidden treasure was found and Greg, the
finder. Edgar was merely the usufructuary
B of the
h
land and not the owner, hence, he does
not
get
any
share.
(Article
438
NCC)
s
C
e
l
5. Corazon Reyes and Carlos Santos were married on Dec. 1, 2007.
Since that time,
b
Corazon has been using the name Corazon Santos in all her employment
records and
Roof Corazon,
other official documents. On Feb. 2, 2008, upon petition
due to
r
n
concealment of habitual alcoholism existing at the time of their marriage, a decree of
a
a
annulment was granted by the Family Court of Manila. Subsequently, Corazon filed
B
with the same court a motion to resume using herh
maiden surname of Reyes and s
C
that she be granted support by Carlos.
e
l
b
a. If you were the judge, would you grant the motion of Corazon to resume using
her
o
maiden surname?
R
n
b. Should Corazon be granted support by her husband?
a
h
C
e
l
b
Ro
The rights and obligations of Spouses Reyes as landowners in good faith are:

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ANSWER:

s
e
l

r
a
B

a. Yes. Under Article 371 of the Civil Code, in case of annulment of marriage, and the wife
is the guilty party, she shall resume her maiden name and surname. If she is the innocent
spouse, she may resume her maiden name and surname. In the case at bar, Corazon is the
innocent spouse, hence, she has the option to resume using her maiden name and surname.

b
o
R
r of marriage shall provide for the liquidation,
No more. The final judgment in annulment
a
ab.n
partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody and support of the
B
h
common children, and the delivery of their presumptive legitimes, unless such matters had
s proceedings. After such liquidation and partition of
C been adjudicated in previous ejudicial
lthere is no more obligation to support each other. (Article 50
the properties of the spouses,
b
NCC).
o
R
6. Anton and n
Belinda are husband and wife. They have
son Carlos. Belinda
r anwasonlydeclared
has a daughter,
void by the
a Donita, by a previous marriageBawhich
proper court.
Anton, a widower at the time he married Belinda, has a son, Elmer,
Ch
with his
first wife. Donita and Elmer who hads
never been introduced to each other by
e
Anton and Belinda, met at a party and eventually
fell in love with each other. Donita
land complying
b
and Elmer, both 25 years of age, eloped
with all the essential and
o
formal requisites of marriage, got married before Judge Franco of the RTC of Manila.
R
r
n of Donita & Elmer? Explainawell.
a. What is the nature of the
amarriage
B of the marriage
h
b. Suppose it was Carlos
whom
Donita
married.
What
is
the
nature
s
C
e
between Carlos and Donita. Explain fully.
l
b
ANSWER:
o
R
a. The marriage of Donita and Elmer is valid.n
It is not incestuous nor against public policy.
r
a
a
Donita and Elmer are step-sister and step-brother to each other. Under the Family Code,
B
h
they are not related to each other and there
is no prohibition to their marriage.
s
C
e
l
b. The marriage of Donita and Carlos is null and void as it is incestuous
and prohibited
b
under Article 37 of the Family Code. Donita and Carlos are half-blood sister
o and half-blood
brother to each other and their marriage is prohibited by law for R
being incestuous.
r
n
7. Peter and Raquel, both 16 years old, were so in lovea
with each other that they had
a
B
pre-marital sex resulting to Raquels pregnancy. Raquel
gave birth to Oscar when she
h
s
was only 17 years old. Peter and Raquel married
each
other
on
June
1,
2010
when
C
e
they were both 18 years old. May Oscar be legitimated due to the marriage of his
l
b
parents, Peter & Raquel?
Ro
an
h
C
e
l
b
Ro
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

r
a
B

s
e
under RA 9858. An Act Providing For The Legitimation Of
a. Oscar may
lbeTolegitimated
b
Children Born
Parents Below Marrying Age (approved Dec. 20, 2009). This law
amended
RoArticles 177 and 178 of the Family Code which now read:
r of wedlock of parents who, at the time of
n Children conceived & born outside
a
aArt.177.
conception of the former, were not disqualified
by any impediment to marry each other, or
B
h
so disqualified only because
seither or both of them were below 18 years of age, may
C were
e
be legitimated.
l
b
Art.178. Legitimation shall
take place by a subsequent valid marriage between parents. The
o
annulment of a voidable
R marriage shall not affect the legitimation.
anthat the only impediment existingBatathertime of conception of Oscar for
It must be noted
hto get married to each other was thes fact that both of them were below the
his parents
C
marrying age of 18. Considering that Peter e
and Raquel got married to each other after
l
attaining the age of 18, Oscar may be legitimated
to raise him to the level of a legitimate
b
child.
o
R
8. Jennifer was born in 1981 and was registered as female in her birth certificate.
r (CAH), a
n
She was later diagnosed to
be afflicted with congenital adrenal hyperplasia
a
a
rare condition where ah
person possesses both male and femaleB
characteristics. Tests
s
revealed that her ovarian
structures
had
minimized,
she
has
clitoral
hyperthropy,
C
e
she stopped growing and she has no breasts or menstrual
development. She has
l
practically become a male person. She filed a petition
before
the RTC of Siniloan,
b
o from Jennifer to Jeff and
Laguna that her name in her birth certificate be changed
R
her gender from female to male. If you were the judge hearing this case, will you
r
grant or deny her petition?
a
an
B
h
ANSWER:
s
C
e
l
Jennifers petition should be granted. In the case of Republic vs. Cagandahan,
the Supreme
b
Court held that considering that Jennifer was born an intersex, theo
determining factor in
his/her gender classification would be what he/she, having reached
the age of majority,
R
with good reason, thinks of his/her sex. More importantly inn
case, Jennifer did not use
r
a
a this
any drug nor underwent any sex re-assignment to change her
gender from female to male.
B
h
s
C
9. Anton, Bernie and Caloy are brothers. They purchased
from their parents specific e
portions of a parcel of land as evidenced by 3 separate deeds of sale, each deed
l
b
referring to a particular lot in metes and bounds. When the deeds were presented
for
o
registration, the Register of Deeds of Pasay City could not issue separate certificates
R
of title due to the absence of a subdivision plan, hence, only 1 title was issued in the
n the fruits
names of the three brothers. Anton, Bernie, and Caloy each receive
a
exclusively from the lot actually purchased by each of them. Later,
Anton sold his lot
h
to Dencio, with verbal notice to his brothers. To enable Dencio
Cto secure a new title
e
l
b
Ro
ANSWER:

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

r
a
B

in his name, the Deed of Sale was made to refer to an undivided interest in the
property of Anton, with the metes and bounds of the lot being stated. Bernie and
Caloy reacted violently to the sale executed by Anton signifying their exercise of the
right of legal redemption as co-owners of the lot. Can Bernie and Caloy still legally
redeem the lot sold by Anton to Dencio?

s
e
l

b
o
R the law, there is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or
Under
n belongs to different persons. Thereaisrno more co-ownership between the brothers as
aright
B to them even if only one title was issued to them.
h
specific portions of the land were sold
C The right of legal redemptioneissno longer available since no more co-ownership exists
l Si vs CA, GR 122047, October 12, 2000).
between the brothers. (Spouses
b
o painting worth P1.5M which was stolen from her house
10. Dina owned a valuable
R
during a robbery which was duly reported to the police authorities. A year later,
rhanging in Ericas living room.
nat Ericas house. Dina saw the painting
during a party
a
a
Upon inquiry,
Erica said she bought the painting
Bin a gallery auction sale at the Luz
h
sidentified as the one stolen from Dinas
Gallery
Cfor P1M. The painting was positivelyeErica?
house. Can Dina recover this painting from
l
b
ANSWER:
Ro
rreimburse Erica
n of her personal property but she must
Yes, Dina was unlawfully deprived
a
a
of the P1M the latter paid in the gallery auction sale.
B
h
s
C
Under Article 559 of the New Civil Code, the possession of movable
acquired in
lelost any property
good faith is equivalent to a title. Nevertheless, one whobhas
movable or has been
unlawfully deprived thereof, may recover it from the
operson in possession of the same. If
the possessor of the movable lost or of which theR
owner has been unlawfully deprived, has
acquired it in good faith at a public sale, the
ar
anowner cannot obtain its returnBwithout
reimbursing the price paid therefor.
syears was
Chwho had been married for ten
11. Elated that her sister Rosemarie
e
pregnant for the first time, Rosalie donated a ring worth P25,000.00
lto the unborn
b
child. Rosemarie was profuse in thanking her sister when they talked
while shopping
o
for baby clothes at Rustans. Rosemarie gave birth after 7 months of pregnancy but
Rthe ring she donated?
the baby died 21 hours after delivery. May Rosalie get back
r
n
Why or why not?
a
a
B
h
ANSWER:
s
C
e
l
Yes, Rosalie may recover the ring that she donated since there was no compliance withbthe
formalities required by law. Article 748 of the New Civil Code provides that the donation
of
o
Rproperty
a movable property may be made orally or in writing. If the value of the personal
n
donated exceeds five thousand pesos, the donation and the acceptance shall
be made in
a
h
C
e
l
b
Ro
ANSWER:

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

r
a
B

writing. Otherwise, the donation shall be void. In the case at bar, the donation was a ring
worth P25,000.00 and there was no showing that said donation and acceptance were in
writing, even a private instrument, hence, the donation is considered void.

s
e
l

Ch

b
o
R
an

12. Benigno who was terminally ill, signed the will with Bonnie, the 1st witness, at his
bedside. Benjie, the 2nd witness, was in the far side of the room fully engrossed and
concentrated in the cross word puzzle he was doing. Bobot, the 3rd witness, was in
the other side of the room near the window, playing scrabble with the grandchildren
of Benigno. Benigno died on January 2, 2013. It was contended that the will was not
signed in the presence of the witnesses, hence void. Rule on this contention.

s
e
l
b
o

ANSWER:

r
a
B

The will is valid. In Jaboneta vs Gustilo, the Supreme Court held that the real test of signing
the will in the presence of the testator and the three credible witnesses does not
necessarily require actually seeing the signing but only the possibility of seeing the signing
without any physical obstruction to impair the vision. If the testator and the three
witnesses were together in one room and one witness merely turned his back while
another witness was already in the act of signing the will, such signing is still considered
made in his presence. What is important is the opportunity to have seen the signing of the
document because there was no physical obstruction.

an

Ch

s
e
l

r
a
B

b
o
R

an
Ch

r
a
B

13. Anton had two (2) legitimate children, Basilio and Carlos. Carlos had two (2)
legitimate daughters, Donna and Erica. Carlos died in 2011 and Erica repudiated her
inheritance from her father Carlos. In the year 2012, Anton died. Can Erica inherit
from Anton?

s
e
l
b
o

ANSWER:

an

r
a
B

Yes, Erica can inherit from his grandfather Anton. Under Article 977 of the New Civil Code,
an heir who repudiates cannot be represented. However, under Article 976 of the same
Code, a person who repudiates may represent him whose inheritance he has renounced. In
the case at bar, Erica repudiated her inheritance from her father Carlos but she can validly
represent her predeceased father in the inheritance of her grandfather Anton.

Ch

s
e
l
b
o

14. Perlita executed a notarial will on Aug. 16, 2004, complying with all the
formalities required by law. On May 9, 2006 when she was already 92 years old, too
weak because of her terminal cancer even to rise from her bed, with intention to
revoke, she asked her housemaid Ponciana to get her will and burn it. Ponciana got
the will from the drawer near Perlitas bed, went to the kitchen, burned the will and
showed the ashes of the burned will to Perlita. Was there a valid revocation of the
will by burning? Explain well.

h
C

an

s
e
l

r
a
B

b
o

an

h
C

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

Ro

e
l
b

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ANSWER:

s
e
l

There was no revocation of Perlitas will by burning. The law allows the revocation by an
overt act to be done personally by the testator or by another person. However, if the overt
act was done by another person, such overt act must be done in the presence and under the
express direction of the testator. In the case at bar, the revocation of the will by burning
was done by Ponciana, Perlitas housemaid, under the latters express direction but the
burning was not done in her presence, hence, there was no valid revocation of the will by
burning. (Article 830 NCC).

b
o
R
an

Ch

r
a
B
r
a
B

s
e
l from Betsy & delivered her watch to the latter as
15. Abigail borrowed P25,000.00
b
pledge to secure the payment of her debt.
o
R
a. What is then
presumption under the law if the watch is
rlater found in the possession of
Abigail? Explain
a
a well.
B
h
s already extinguished? Why?
C obligation to pay the P25,000.00eloan
b. Is Abigails
l
b
ANSWER:
o
R
a. Under Article 1274 of the New Civil Code, it is presumed that the accessory obligation of
nthe thing pledged, after its delivery toathercreditor, is found
pledge has been remitted when
a
in the possession of the h
debtor, or of a third person who owns theB
thing. Considering that
the pledged watch is C
again in the possession of the debtor Abigail,
s after the latter delivered
e
said watch to her creditor, Betsy, the presumption is that Betsy
has condoned the pledge.
l
b
b. No. Under the law, the renunciation of the principal
debt shall extinguish the accessory
o
obligations; but the waiver of the latter shall leave
former in force. (Article 1273 NCC).
Rofthepledge
In the case at bar, only the accessory obligation
has been condoned by Betsy,
r
n
a
a
hence, the principal obligation of loan, still subsists. Abigail must pay her debt of
B
h
P25,000.00 to Betsy.
s
C
eand lot worth
l
16. Rolly and Oscar entered into a pacto de retro sale of Oscars house
b
P10M. The price agreed upon by the parties is only P100,000.00.
Is this contract
o
valid, voidable or void? Explain well.
R
r
n
ANSWER:
a
a
B
h
The contract is valid. All the requisites of a validC
contract are present: consent of the s
contracting parties, object certain which is the subject matter of the contract and cause l
ofe
b
the obligation which is established. (Article 1318 NCC). The gross inadequacy of the price
agreed upon by the parties is immaterial considering that this is a pacto de retroo
sale. In
R
this kind of sales, the price is unusually lower to allow the seller to repurchase his own
property within an agreed period of time.
an
h
C
e
l
b
Ro
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

r
a
B

17. On Sept. 1, 2007, Romy was interested to buy a specific Honda Civic 2005 model
car from a second hand car shop in Makati. Sonny, the shop manager told him that
the price of the said car was P300,000.00. Romy accepted the offer but told Sonny to
give him one (1) week to raise the amount. There and then, Romy gave an initial
amount of P10,000.00 promising to come back on Sept. 7, 2012 to complete the
payment. Romy returned to the shop on Sept. 8, 2012 but Sonny told him that the car
has already been offered and sold to Tony for P500,000. Sonny contended that even
with the money given by Romy, the offer is good only until Sept. 7, 2012 considering
that their agreement is only good for one (1) week. He further contended that after
Sept. 7, 2012, the offer can now be withdrawn and the car can be sold to another
person and the P10,000.00 option money forfeited in his favor. Do you agree with
Sonnys contention? Explain well.

s
e
l

Ch

b
o
R
an
ANSWER:

s
e
l
b
o

r
a
B

an

r
a
B

No, I do not agree with Sonnys contention. There was already a perfected contract of sale
between Sonny and Romy over this specific car. All the requisites of a valid contract are
present: consent of the contracting parties, object certain which was the Honda Civic 2005
model car, and cause or consideration which was the P300,000.00. (Article 1318 NCC). It
should not be construed as an option contract which is only an offer to buy or not to buy a
certain object within a period of time, such offer may be withdrawn by the offerer at any
time before acceptance by communicating such withdrawal, except when the option is
founded upon a consideration distinct from the price. Not being an option contract but a
perfected contract of sale between the parties, Sonny can no longer sell the car to another
person nor have the earnest money given by Romy forfeited in his favor.

Ch

s
e
l

b
o
R

an
Ch

s
e
l
b
o

r
a
B

18. Arnold, Boyet and Caloy borrowed P120,000.00 from Dennis. This debt is
evidenced by a promissory note (PN) wherein the three bound themselves to pay the
debt jointly and severally. According to the PN, Arnold can be compelled to pay on
June 15, 2012; Boyet can be compelled to pay on January 15, 2013; while Caloy can
be compelled to pay on June 15, 2014. On February 15, 2014, Dennis made a demand
upon Caloy to pay the entire indebtedness but the latter refused to pay contending
that his share is not yet due and demandable. Subsequently, because of Caloys
refusal to pay the debt, Dennis brought an action against him for the collection of the
full amount of the obligation. Will the action of Dennis prosper? Explain fully

Ch

an

s
e
l
b
o

r
a
B

R
r
n
This is a solidary obligation. As evidenced by the promissory
note, the three debtors,
a
a
Arnold, Boyet and Caloy, bound themselves to payh
their creditor Dennis, jointly and
B
severally, hence, the creditor may compel any of C
the solidary debtors to pay the entire s
e
amount of the debt even if they are not bound in the same manner and by the same periods
l
and conditions. In the case at bar, the obligations of Arnold and Boyet are already dueb
and
demandable, hence, Caloy can be compelled to pay P80,000.00. Caloys own obligation
is
o
only due and demandable on June 15, 2014 and he can be compelled to pay R
P40,000.00
n
when the period has arrived. (Article 1211 NCC).
a
h
C
e
l
b
Ro
ANSWER:

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

r
a
B

19. Arnold appointed Anton as his agent to manage his prawn business in
Dumaguete City. Anton, who is based in Manila wants to appoint Arman as his
substitute.

s
e
l

b
o
b. R
As to Anton, what is the effect of his appointment of Arman as his substitute?
r
n
Explain
well.
a
a
B
h
c. Give the modes of extinguishing agency.
s
C
e
l
ANSWER:
b
o appoint a substitute or a sub-agent. Under Article 1892, the agent
a. Yes, Anton can validly
R
may appoint a substitute
rhim from doing so.
n if the principal has not prohibited
a
a
B Anton shall be responsible for the
b. In view
of his appointment of Arman as his substitute,
h
s
acts ofC
his substitute Arman:
e
lto appoint one;
b
(1). When he was not given the power
o
R
(2). When he was given such power, but without designating the person, and the
n incompetent or insolvent. ar
person appointed was
anotoriously
Bthe withdrawal of the
h
c. Under Article 1919,
Agency
is
extinguished
by
its
revocation,
by
s
C
ethe principal or of the agent,
agent, by the death, civil interdiction, insanity or insolvency of
l
by the dissolution of the firm or corporation which entrusted
or accepted the agency or by
b
the accomplishment of the object or the purpose of the
agency.
o
R
20. Bert, Bart and Bong agreed to form an
partnership to be engaged in the saler
of
a
a
appliances and furniture. Bert agreed to contribute P1M; Bart agreed to contribute a
B Bong
h
parcel of land with a building where
the business shall be conducted and
s
agreed to contribute his industry.C
e
l
a. What formalities must be complied with by Bert, Bart and b
Bong in order to
o
constitute a legal and valid partnership?
R
r
n
b. Under the law, what are the restrictions imposed a
on Bert and Bart as capitalist
a
B
partners and on Bong as industrial partner?
h
s
C
e
ANSWER:
l
b
a. A partnership may be constituted in any form, except where immovable property
real
RoorEvery
rights are contributed thereto, in which case a public instrument shall be necessary.
nin money or
contract of partnership having a capital of three thousand pesos or more,
a
property, shall appear in a public instrument, which must be recorded in the Office of the
h
C
e
l
b
Ro
a. Can Anton validly appoint Arman as his substitute? Why or why not?

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

s
e
l

r
a
B

b
o
R & Exchange Commission. A contract of partnership is void, whenever immovable
Securities
r of said property is not made, signed by the
n is contributed thereto, if an inventory
a
aproperty
parties, and attached to the public instrument.
Bart and Bong must comply with these
B theirBert,
h
formalities
prescribed
by
law,
otherwise,
contract
of partnership shall be considered
s
C void. (Articles 1771, 1772, 1773eNCC).
l
b
b. Bert and Bart aso
capitalist partners cannot engage for their own account in any
operation which is R
of the same kind of business in which the partnership is engaged, unless
r violating this prohibition shall
n to the contrary. Any capitalist partner
there is a stipulation
a
a
bring to the common funds any profits accruing to him from his transactions, and shall
B
h
personally
bear all the losses. (Article 1808 NCC).
s
C
e
l in any business for himself, unless the
Bong, the industrial partner, cannot engage
b
partnership expressly permits him to do so; and if he should do so, the capitalist partners
o
may either exclude him from theR
firm or avail themselves of the benefits which he may
have obtained in violation of this
provision, with a right to damages in either
r case. (Article
1789 NCC).
a
an
B
h
s
C
e
l
b
o
R
r
n
a
a
B
h
s
C
e
l
b
Ro
r
a
an
B
h
s
C
e
l
b
Ro
an
h
C
e
l
b
Ro
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph