I.

Jackie, 16, inherited a townhouse. Because she wanted to study in an exclusive school, she sold
her townhouse by signing a Deed of Sale and turning over possession of the same to the buyer.
When the buyer discovered she was still a minor, she promised to execute another Deed of Sale
when she turns 18. When Jackie turned 25 and was already working, she wanted to annul the sale
and return the buyer's money to recover her townhouse. Was the sale contract void, voidable or
valid? Can Jackie still recover the property? Explain. (2015 BAR)

II.

Z, a gambler, wagered and lost P2 Million in baccarat, a card game. He was pressured into
signing a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the winner covering a parcel of land with
improvements worth P20 Million. One month later, the supposed vendee of the property
demanded that he and his family vacate the property subject of the deed of sale. Was the deed of
sale valid? What can Z do? (2015 BAR)

III.

Nante, a registered owner of a parcel of land in Quezon City, sold the property to Monica under a
deed of sale which reads as follows:

"That for and in consideration of the sum of P500,000.00, value to be paid and delivered to me,
and receipt of which shall be acknowledged by me to the full satisfaction of Monica, referred to
as Vendee, I hereby sell, transfer, cede, convey, and assign, as by these presents, I do have sold,
transferred, ceded, conveyed and assigned a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 2468 in favor of
the Vendee."

After delivery of the initial payment of P100,000.00, Monica immediately took possession of the
property. Five (5) months after, Monica failed to pay the remaining balance of the purchase price.
Nante filed an action for the recovery of possession of the property. Nante alleged that the
agreement was one to sell, which was not consummated as the full contract price was not paid.

Is the contention of Nante tenable? (2014 BAR)

IV.

JV, owner of a parcel of land, sold it to PP. But the deed of sale was not registered. One year later,
JV sold the parcel again to RR, who succeeded to register the deed and to obtain a transfer
certificate of title over the property in his own name.

Who has a better right over the parcel of land, RR or PP? Why? Explain the legal basis for your
answer. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)

V.

On June 15, 1995, Jesus sold a parcel of registered land to Jaime. On June 30. 1995, he sold the
same land to Jose. Who has a better right if:

a) The first sale is registered ahead of the second sale, with knowledge of the latter. Why? (3%)

b) The second sale is registered ahead of the first sale, with knowledge of the latter? Why? (5%)
(2001 Bar Question)
VI.

Sergio is the registered owner of a 500-square meter land. His friend, Marcelo, who has long been
interested in the property, succeeded in persuading Sergio to sell it to him. On June 2, 2012, they
agreed on the purchase price of P600,000 and that Sergio would give Marcelo up to June 30, 2012
within which to raise the amount. Marcelo, in a light tone usual between them, said that they
should seal their agreement through a case of Jack Daniels Black and P5,000 "pulutan" money
which he immediately handed to Sergio and which the latter accepted. The friends then sat down
and drank the first bottle from the case of bourbon. On June 15, 2013, Sergio learned of another
buyer, Roberto, who was offering P800,000 in ready cash for the land. When Roberto confirmed
that he could pay in cash as soon as Sergio could get the documentation ready, Sergio decided to
withdraw his offer to Marcelo, hoping to just explain matters to his friend. Marcelo, however,
objected when the withdrawal was communicated to him, taking the position that they have a
firm and binding agreement that Sergio cannot simply walk away from because he has an option
to buy that is duly supported by a duly accepted valuable consideration. (2013 BAR)

a. Does Marcelo have a cause of action against Sergio?

b. Can Sergio claim that whatever they might have agreed upon cannot be enforced because any
agreement relating to the sale of real property must be supported by evidence in writing and they
never reduced their agreement to writing?

VII.

In 2005, L, M, N, 0 and P formed a partnership. L, M and N were capitalist partners who

contributed P500,000 each, while 0, a limited partner, contributed P1 ,000,000. P joined as an
industrial partner, contributing only his services. The Articles of Partnership, registered with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, designated L and 0 as managing partners; L was liable
only to the extent of his capital contribution; and P was not liable for losses.

In 2006, the partnership earned a net profit of P800,000. In the same year, P engaged in a different
business with the consent of all the partners. However, in 2007, the partnership incurred a net
loss of P500,000. In 2008,the partners dissolved the partnership. The proceeds of the sale of
partnership assets were insufficient to settle its obligation. After liquidation, the partnership had
an unpaid liability ofP300,000. (2013 BAR)

1) Assuming that the just and equitable share of the industrial partner, P, in the profit in 2006
amounted to P1 00,000, how much is the share of 0, a limited partner, in the P800,000 net profit?
(1%) (2012 BAR)

2) In 2007, how much is the share of 0, a limited partner, in the net loss of P500,000? (1%) (2012
BAR)

3) Can the partnership creditors hold L, 0 and Pliable after all the assets of the partnership are
exhausted? (1%) (2012 BAR)

VIII.

Richard sold a large parcel of land in Cebu to Leo for P100 million payable in annual installments
over a period of ten years, but title will remain with Richard until the purchase price is fully paid.
To enable Leo to pay the price, Richard gave him a power-of-attorney authorizing him to
subdivide the land, sell the individual lots, and deliver the proceeds to Richard, to be applied to
the purchase price. Five years later, Richard revoked the power of attorney and took over the sale
of the subdivision lots himself. Is the revocation valid or not? Why? (5%) (2001 Bar Question)

IX.

Sarah had a deposit in a savings account with Filipino Universal Bank in the amount of five
Million pesos (P5,000,000.00). To buy a new car, she obtained a loan from the same bank in the
amount of P1,200,000.00, payable in twelve monthly installments. Sarah issued in favor of the
bank in post-dated checks, each in the amount of P100,000.00 to cover the twelve monthly
installment payments. On the third, fourth and fifth months, the corresponding checks bounced.

The bank then declared the whole obligation due, and proceed to deduct the amount of one
million pesos (P1,000,000.00) from Sarah's deposit after notice to her that this is a form of
compensation allowed by law. Is the bank correct? Explain. (4%) (2009 Bar Question)

X.

Felipe borrowed $100 from Gustavo in 1998, when the Phil P - US$ exchange rate was P56 - US$1.
On March 1, 2008, Felipe tendered to Gustavo a cashier’s check in the amount of P4,135 in
payment of his US$100 debt, based on the Phil P - US$ exchange rate at that time. Gustavo
accepted the check, but forgot to deposit it until Sept. 12, 2008. His bank refused to accept the
check because it had become stale. Gustavo now wants Felipe to pay him in cash the amount of
P5,600. Claiming that the previous payment was not in legal tender, and that there has been
extraordinary deflation since 1998, and therefore, Felipe should pay him the value of the debt at
the time it was incurred. Felipe refused to pay him again, claiming that Gustavo is estopped from
raising the issue of legal tender, having accepted the check in March, and that it was Gustavo’s
negligence in not depositing the check immediately that caused the check to become stale.

a) Can Gustavo now raise the issue that the cashier’s check is not legal tender? (2%) (2008 Bar
Question)

b) Can Felipe validly refuse to pay Gustavo again? (2%) (2008 Bar Question)

c) Can Felipe compel Gustavo to receive US$100 instead? (1%) (2008 Bar Question)

XI.

To secure a loan obtained from a rural bank, Purita assigned her leasehold rights over a stall in
the public market in favor of the bank. The deed of assignment provides that in case of default in
the payment of the loan, the bank shall have the right to sell Purita's rights over the market stall
as her attorney-in-fact, and to apply the proceeds to the payment of the loan.

a) Was the assignment of leasehold rights a mortgage or a cession? Why? (3%)

b) Assuming the assignment to be a mortgage, does the provision giving the bank the power to
sell Purita’s rights constitute pactum commissorium or not? Why? (2%) (2001 Bar Question)

XII.

Cesar bought a residential condominium unit from High Rise Co. and paid the price in full. He
moved into the unit, but somehow he was not given the Condominium Certificate of Title
covering the property. Unknown to him. High Rise Co. subsequently mortgaged the entire
condominium building to Metrobank as security for a loan of P500 million. High Rise Co. failed
to pay the loan and the bank foreclosed the mortgage. At the foreclosure sale, the bank acquired
the building, being the highest bidder. When Cesar learned about this, he filed an action to annul
the foreclosure sale insofar as his unit was concerned. The bank put up the defense that it relied
on the condominium certificates of title presented by High Rise Co., which were clean. Hence, it
was a mortgagee and buyer in good faith. Is this defense tenable or not? Why? (5%) (2001 Bar
Question)

XIII.

Anselmo is the registered owner of a land and a house that his friend Boboy occupied for a
nominal rental and on the condition that Boboy would vacate the property on demand. With
Anselmo's knowledge, Boboy introduced renovations consisting of an additional bedroom, a
covered veranda, and a concrete block fence, at his own expense. Subsequently, Anselmo needed
the property as his residence and thus asked Boboy to vacate and turn it over to him. Boboy,
despite an extension, failed to vacate the property, forcing Anselmo to send him a written
demand to vacate. In his own written reply, Boboy signified that he was ready to leave but
Anselmo must first reimburse him the value of the improvements he introduced on the property
as he is a builder in good faith. Anselmo refused, insisting that Boboy cannot ask for
reimbursement as he is a mere lessee. Boboy responded by removing the improvements and
leaving the building in its original state. (2013 BAR)

a. Resolve Boboy's claim that as a builder in good faith, he should be reimbursed the value of the
improvements he introduced.

b. Can Boboy be held liable for damages for removing the improvements over Anselmo's
objection?

XIV.

A collision occurred at an intersection involving a bicycle and a taxicab. Both the bicycle rider (a
businessman then doing his morning exercise) and the taxi driver claimed that the other was at
fault. Based on the police report, the bicycle crossed the intersection first but the taxicab, crossing
at a fast clip from the bicycle's left, could not brake in time and hit the bicycle's rear wheel,
toppling it and throwing the bicycle rider into the sidewalk 5 meters away.

The bicycle rider suffered a fractured right knee, sustained when he fell on his right side on the
concrete side walk. He was hospitalized and was subsequently operated on, rendering him
immobile for 3 weeks and requiring physical rehabilitation for another 3 months. In his complaint
for damages, the rider prayed for the award of P1,000,000 actual damages, P200,000 moral
damages, P200,000 exemplary damages, P100,000 nominal damages and P50,000 attorney's fees.

Assuming the police report to be correct and as the lawyer for the bicycle rider, what evidence
(documentary and testimonial) and legal arguments will you present in court to justify the
damages that your client claims? (1994, 2002, 2013)

XV.

As a result of a collision between a taxicab owned by A and another taxicab owned by B, X, a

passenger of the first taxicab, was seriously injured. X later filed a criminal action against both
drivers.

a) Is it necessary for X to reserve his right to institute a civil action for damages against both
taxicab owners before he can file a civil action for damages against them? Why?
b) May both taxicab owners raise the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of
their drivers to be absolved from liability for damages to X? Reason. (2003 Bar Question)