IA.

Feel ko Redundant or atleast medyo mahaba

Yes. (Turo samin sa edge kahit Yes or No nalang)

The rules on Double Sale do not apply when the sale involves unregistered lands, in which case
the land belongs to the first buyer in good faith.

Since (or pwede rin Here) the sale involved an unregistered land and Abet is the first buyer in
good faith, then the land belongs to Abet.

Consequently, Abet’s Action will Prosper.

IB.

No.

The rules on Double Sale will now apply. In the sale of registered lands, the land shall belong to
the first registrant in good faith.

Since bobot was the first one who registered the deed of sale of a registered land, then the land
belongs to Bobot.

Consequently, Abet’s action for annulment will not prosper.

*Nasanay kasi ako sa syllogism na turo ni Atty. Yebra na “Since-Then-pattern”

*Remember, KISS, Keep it Short and Simple. Be concise and wag paulit ulit kasi humahaba 😉

*Turo naman sa Jurist “Under the law of ____” which I personally do not use.

II.a

Suggested Answer:

I would decide in favor of Bruce.

The defense that Bruce is not an innocent purchaser for value since he should have inspected the
land before buying it is without merit.

Under the Law on Land Titles, a purchaser of registered land is bound only by those
encumbrances noted in the certificate of title and he is not compelled to look beyond the four
corners of the title. (Use the Mirror Doctrine)

*Be careful sa facts. Although may merit yung sagot mo, if I recall nag aapply lang yung Extra
Ordinary Deligence such as going to inspect the property when the Buyer is a BANK. Pero pag
individual lang, sufficient na yung mirror doctrine or yung on the face of the title, thus buyer in
good faith sya.

II.b (Remember, registered land, and there was already registration.)

The defense of Tania that she had acquired ownership over the land by prescription
is also without merit.

Under the Law on Land Titles, ownership of registered land cannot be acquired by
prescription.
 Since the entry in the primary entry book is already deemed as registration
under the Property Registration Decree, then Tania’s defense that she had
acquired ownership over the land by prescription is without merit.

IIIa.

I will deny the opposition to the probate of the holographic will of John filed by his
three sons.

The laws on wills and succession provide that the extrinsic validity of a will
executed by an alien abroad may be governed by the Philippine laws while the
intrinsic validity of a will shall be governed by national laws of the alien.

Here, Australian laws, which is the national law of the alien, allow the institution
of a sole heir to the entire estate but prohibit the execution of a holographic will.
However, Under Philippine laws, the execution of a holographic the will of an alien
abroad will be allowed if it is executed in accordance with the Civil Code of the
Philippines. Since the holographic will of John is extrinsically valid under the
Philippine laws, then it should be allowed probate.

Thus, I will deny the opposition.

*Pwede mo iomit yung naka red para di masyado mahaba, go straight to the point.

IIIb. Di ko Makita sa photos

IV.
a. “is personal property”
b. “is real property”
c. pag interest or something intangible, first instinct mo dapat personal property
agad
d. again, leasehold right, intangible, personal uli
e. Good

Va
Perfect!

Vb
Good!

VIa
Good! “Conclusion: Since a writ of execution was already issued, it may be
enforced against Benito”

VIb
Very Good!

VIIa
“Upon of one witness” – Upon testimony of one witness that the will and signature
thereon is in the handwriting of the testator.

Here, the ground for disallowance of the will is undue influence which is not the
proper ground to contest a holographic will considering the subject of the
testimony required for its allowance. (Omit)

Thus the will should be allowed.

VIIb
“3 witnesses who testify” 3 witnesses who will testify.

Here, only two witnesses were presented. (Not one, be careful sa facts)

VIIc
Very Good!

VIIIa
Ganito rin sasagot ko, pero iba suggested answer.
Bank of the Philippine Archipelago would have the right over the P40,000,000 proceeds of
the foreclosure sale.
Under the Law on Credit Transactions, it is the mortgagee who has a right over the
proceeds of the foreclosure sale.
Here although there were other creditors, they would not have any right over the foreclosure
proceeds since the Civil Code provisions on concurrence and preference of credit do not
apply because there is no binding in rem proceeding where the claims of all creditors would
be adjudicated, such as insolvency and other liquidation proceedings. [Phil. Savings Bank v.
Lantin, 124 SCRA 476].
Hence it is only the mortgagee Bank of the Philippine Archipelago who would have
a right to the foreclosure proceeds.

IXa
Perfect

IXb
Format wise Perfect. Iba suggested answer.

X
Very good!. Mali computation

XI
Better keyword “Agency Coupled with Interest”

XIIa
Very good!

XII b
Very good!

XIII
Good! Avoid erasures

XIVa
Very Good!

XIVB
Good! Avoid using Hence, Thus na sunod sunod sentences

XV
Good! Check your computation sa wills

XVI
Good! I suggest pag hiwalayin mo yung dalwang void marriages sa first sentence
mo. Or atleast pag hiwalayin mo discussion

XVIIA
Very GOOD!
XVIIB
Very good!

XVIIC
Very good!

XVIII
PartialPoints

XIX
Perfect!