CIVIL LAW

I.

If I were the judge in this case I would not grant the present petition for
declaration for nullity of marriage.

Under the Family Code, marriages may be declared null and void if one spouse is
suffering from psychological incapacity at the time of the celebration of the marriage.

In this case, the psychological incapacity of Ariz was found to be existing, as

testified by his psychiatrist when he was still in his teens and only became prominent
again after the lapse of 19 years into their marriage. Thus, there being no finding that
Ariz was psychologically incapacitated at the time of the celebration of the marriage,
Ariz’ current psychological incapacity cannot be a valid ground to declare his marriage
with Paz void ab initio. Notwithstanding the fact that the NAMT decided to have the
marriage of Ariz and Paz declared null and void, since decision of the NAMT though
respected cannot be the sole basis of the granting of the nullity of a marriage.

Thus, if I were the judge I would not grant the petition for declaration for nullity
of marriage filed by Paz, based on the reason that the psychological incapacity of Ariz
was not existing at the time of the celebration of their marrage.

II.

No, the provision designating Alex and Rene to be the administrators of the land
in Manila for an infinite length of period is invalid.

Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, a property belonging to the estate of the
deceased person cannot be partitioned, only when such non-partition is imposed by the
deceased in his will, provided that such non-partition shall only be for a period not
exceeding twenty (20) years.

In this case, the non-partition of the property of Crispin in Manila is for an

undetermined period, which is most likely to exceed twenty (20) years, since portions of
the will read: “sampu ng aking mga apo at kaapuapuhan ko sa habang panahon”. Thus,
suggesting that the non-partition of the property shall last as long as he has a direct
descendant wishing to pursue his or her studies in Manila. Thus, running contrary to the
provision of law that such non-partition can only be up to a period of twenty (20) years.

Thus, the provision designating Alex and Rene to be the administrators of the land
in Manila is invalid, based on the reason that the property shall not be divided for an
indefinite period.

III.

The donation in this case is invalid.

Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, for a donation of a parcel of land to be
valid, the donation must be written in a public document, the acceptance of the donation
by the donee shall also be reduced in public document, and that the donee survives the
donor.
 In this case, the acceptance of the Roman Catholic Church was neither reduced
into writing nor was it placed on a public document. Thus, there being no valid
acceptance, the donation of the real property in Lipa City is not deemed consummated.

Therefore, the donation in this case is invalid.

IV.

No, the contention of Nante is untenable.

Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, a contract to sell is a contract entered
into by the seller and the buyer, wherein the ownership of the thing being sold does not
transfer to the buyer unless and until a condition imposed in the contract to sell has been
fulfilled by the buyer. While a contract of sale is a contract entered into by the seller and
the buyer, wherein the ownership of the thing being sold transfers to the buyer once the
contract of sale has been executed and perfected.

In this case, the deed of sale entered into by Nante and Monica, is one of a
contract of sale and not a contract to sell, contrary to the claim of Nante. In the provision
quoted, there was no condition that the ownership of the property will be transferred to
Monica only until the full payment of the property, subject of the deed of sale. Hence,
upon the execution of the deed of sale, the ownerhsip over the propety has already in
effect been transferred to Monica.

Thus, Nante cannot recover the possession of the property on the ground that the
contract is a contract to sell and that the contract has not been cosummated due to the
failure of Monica to fully pay the conytact price.

V.

VI.

If I were the judge I would grant the partial motion for reconsideration filed by
Dinah.

Under the Family Code, a declaration of nullity of a marriage on the ground of

psychological incapacity, may be granted notwisthstanding the provision of the law
stating that, the issuance of a decree of nullity of marriage only after the properties have
been liquidated, partitioned, and distributed.

In this case, the ground for the declaration of nullity of marriage of Miko and
Dinah is Miko’s psychological incapacity. Hence, due to the exception provided for
under the Family Code, the decree of the nullity of the marriage of Miko and Dinah may
be issued even prior to the liquidation, partition, and distribution of the properties of the
spouses.

Thus, the partial motion for reconsideration filed by Dinah should be granted.
 VII.

(A)

A contract of deposit has been perfected between Cris and the Hotel when he
surrendered his car key to the Hotel’s parking attendant.

Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, a contract of deposit is one wherein a
person entrusts another for the safe-keeping of the former’s belongings.

In this case, Cris entrusted the Hotel parking attendant of his vehicle when he
surrendered his car key to the latter. Hence, a contract of deposit was consummated and
perfected between Cris and the Hotel.

(B)

The Hotel shall be vicariously liable with the parking attendant for the loss of
Cris’ car.

Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, the hotel shall be held vicariously liable
with his employer in case of loss or damage on the thing deposited to them for safe
keeping.

In this case, Cris’ car was carnapped when it was entrusted to the hotel and the
hotel’s paking attendant. Thus, the hotel shall be held vicariously liable with the parking
attendant, since the car was carnapped within the hotel premises and when such car was
under their care.

VIII.

No, the allegation of Ruth is untenable.

Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, an option contract is a contract wherein
the seller gives the buyer an option to purchase a thing being sold. It is a contract separate
and distinct from the contract of sale. The option contract does not perfect the contract of
sale, but merely functions as an offer for the sale of the thing subject of the contract of
sale.

In this case, Ruth was given an option by Tess to purchase the lot being leased to
Ruth. Ruth, by failing to signify her acceptance of the option to purchase the property,
meant that she is not interested in purchasing the same. Thus, Tess can validly sell the
property to her niece, since Ruth did not exercise her option to purchase the property.

Thus, the allegation of Ruth that her right to buy under the principle of first
refusal was violated is untenable, since it was she who failed to exercide her option to
purchase the property in the first place.

IX.

If I were the judge I would decide against Spouses Macario and Bonifacia Dakila.

The Maceda Law applies in cases of purchase of real property in an installment

basis. The Maceda Law is clear that it does not apply to purchase of industrial lands and
commercial lands.
 In this case, the property subject of the sale in installments is an industrial land.
Thus, the provisons under the Maceda Law is inapplicable. Hence, the complaint for
specific performance filed by the Sposes Dakila should be denied.

X.

The consignation in this case is invalid.

Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, consignation is valid only when the
lessor consents to such consignation.

In this case, Dorotea was neither informed nor did she consent to the
consignation. Thus, absent Dorotea’s consent the consignation cannot be valid.

XI.

XII.

No, the obligation of J.C. Construction to MSI was not extiguished by novation.

Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, one way to rescind a contract is through
novation. Novation occurs when there is an amendment to the contract which
substantially alters the contract as a whole. However, for a novation to be valid it cannot
be done unilaterally by one party only, it should be done by both or all parties to the
contract.

In this case, J.C. Construction unilaterally novated the contract by placing

Amoroso as its substitute. Thus, absent MSI’s consent, such subsitution and novation
cannot be said to be done validly. Hence, no valid novation resulted from such
substitution.

Therefore, the obligation of J.C. Construction to MSI still stands, as there was no
valid novation that took place.

XIII.

Yes, the contention of Edith and Philip is valid.

Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, a property inherited by an heir from one
family line who dies without issues, if in case such property as a result redounds to the
benefit of an ascendant from a different family line, such ascendant shall hold such
property in reservation in favor of the heirs from the line where the property originally
came from. This principle is called reserva troncal.

In this case, the property which redounded to Peachy, the sister of Anita, Cesar’s
mother, originally came from the family line of Cesar’s father. Thus, Peachy has an
obligation under the law to hold the property in reservation in favor of the heirs from the
direct line where the property originated, who in this case in Edith and Philip.
 Thus, the contention of Edith and Philip is valid based on the principle of reserva
troncal.

XIV.

XV.

Yes, the action will prosper.

Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, a voluntary easement occurs when the
owner of a property constructs in another property an improvement that would be for the
benefit of the main property, such improvement becomes part and parcel of the main
property.

In this case, the water pumps installed in another property also belonging to Mr.
Bong, the owner of Flores de Manila, Inc. (“FMI”) redounds heavily to the benefit of
FMI. Thus, the property where the water pumps were installed constitutes a coluntary
easement in favor of FMI.

Thus, the action for declaration of the existence of an easement filed by FMI
before the RTC will necessarily prosper.

XVI.

(A)

The chest containing the pieces of jewelry and money cannot be considered as a
hidden treasure.

A hidden treasure under the Civil Code of the Philippines is considered as a

hidden treasure when the owner of such treasure in unknown.

In this case the discovery of the treasure was made in the backyard of the property
of Spouses Manuel. Thus, the owner of the treasure is known. Hence, the chest
containing the containing the pieces of jewelry and money cannot be considered as a
hidden treasure.

(B)

Spouses Manuel and the congregation has the right to claim ownership of the
discovered chest, in equal shares.

Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, a hidden treasure shall be owned by the
owner of the property himself, and the person who discovered it can own one half of the
said treasure.
In this case, Spouses Manuel as the owners of the land shall own one half of the
discovered treasure and the congregation of religious women shall own the other half.
Although it was Maria who discovered the treasure, she is an agent of the congreagation
hence her share in the ownrship shall belong to the congregation.
 Therefore, Spouses Manuel and the congregation has the right to claim ownership
of the discovered chest, in equal shares.

XVII.

No, the contention of Carlito is untenable.

Under the Family Code, the family home shall not be partitioned for a period of
ten (10) years from the death of the decedent, or until a minor beneficiary is still residing
in the family home. A minor beneficiary should actually be a resident of the family home
and he relies on the deceased for support.

In this case, Lucas, Carlito’s son is not a minor beneficiary of Mariano, since
Lucas although residing in the family home does not depend on Mariano for support.
Hence, Lucas cannot be considered as Mariano’s minor beneficiary.

Thus, Carlito’s contention that the family home continues until Lucas becomes of
age is untenable.

XVIII.

Yes, the act of Francisco and his men is unlawful.

Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, the owner of a property has the right to
construct fences around his property. However, as a limitation the Civil Code of the
Philippines likewise provides that, a person in the exercise of his rights cannot do acts
which are contrary to law, public order, public morals, or would prejudice the rights of a
third person.

In this case, Francisco put up fences, as a valid exercise of his right to ownership.
However, he did such fencing with the aid of armed men, which is contrary to law, public
order, public morals, or would prejudice the rights of a third person. Thereby, making the
exercise of Francisco’s right unlawful.

XIX.

XX.

No, there was no valid waiver of right to sue the school.

Under the Family Code, schools or similar institution exercises temporary

parental authority when students are under their care. Schools in case of any accident,
death, or injury while the students are in their custody are liable as their parents.

In this case, Joey was bitten by a snake during a school sanctioned event. Thus,
the school at that time has a temporary parental authority over Joey. Hence the school
shall be held liable for Joey’s accident, despite the waiver signed by Joey’s parents.
 XXI.

XXII.

(A)

If I were the judge I would grant the application for land registration of Cornelio.

Under the law, open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of a

property is a valid mode of acquisition of a property through prescription.

In this case, Cornelio has been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession of the property that he bough from Isaac for more than thirty (30 ) years.
Thus, he can claim owvership over the property due to prescription.

Thus, warranting the grant of Cornelio’s grant for registration.

(B)

Yes, Cornelio can acquire the said agricultural land through acquisitive
prescription.

Under the Civil Code of the Philippines a property may be acquired through
prescription, when the landowner is in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession of a property for a long period of time.

In this case, Cornelio has been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession of the property that he bough from Isaac for more than thirty (30 ) years.
Thus, he can claim owvership over the property through acquisitive prescription.

XXIII.

XXIV

No, it is not necessary for Ted to first file a petition for judicial recognition of the
decree of divorce before he can contract a second marriage in the Philippines.

Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, laws with respect to family rights, status,
and legal capacity to act shall be governed by the national law of the person.

In this case, Ted is a naturalized Canadian citizen and is no longer a Phlippine

national at the time he obtained his diorce with Annie. Thus, the national law of the
Philippines no longer applied to him. Therefore, he can validly contract a second
marriage without the need to have his divorce recognized before the Philippine courts,
since the national law of the Philippines no longer applies to him.
 XXV.

Yes, the acknowledgment and donation mortis causa are valid.

Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, acknowledgment of a child must be

donw in writing, it is not necessary that it be reduced in a public document, as long as the
acknowledgment is reduced to writing. Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, a child is
deemed born for purposes favorable to the unborn child.

In this case, the acknowledgment of the unborn child was reduced in writing as it
was placed in the last will and testament of Mario. There was also a valid acceptance of
the donation since the child at the time of the donation was deemed born for purposes
favorablr to him.

Therefore, the acknowledgment and the donatin mortis causa in this case is valid.

XXVI.

XXVII.

If I were the judge I would not grant the complaint filed by Maria for allnulment
of the sale with specific performance and damages.

Under the law on co-ownership, co-owners may validly sell, donate, alienate, or
transfer their share in the property. So long as the said transfer may only be perfected and
shall stand as a valid offer until the co-ownership has ended.

In this case what Maria purchased from Fe is Fe’s share in the co-ownership and
not the entire property co-owned by Fe, Esperanza, and Caridad. Thus, Maria cannot
have the sale annulled, since it is a perfected contract of sale.

Thus, the complaint filed by Maria for allnulment of the sale with specific
performance and damages should be denied.

XXVIII.

If I were the judge in this case, I would not grant the petition for adoption filed by
Maria.

Under the law on adoption, when spouses adopt, the adoption should be made
with the concurrence of both spouses, and both spouses should be impleaded as the
petitioners.

In this case, only Maria was impleaded in the petition, despite Daniel’s
permission, the law specifically states that the adoption shall be done by both spouses and
that both spouses should be impleaded.

Therefore, as the judge I would not grant the petition since Daniel, a proper party
was not impleaded in the petition for adoption.
 XXIX.

The contractual relationship between Timothy and Kristopher is that of a

partnerhip.

Under the law on partnership, a partnership relationship occurs when parties

contribute money, service, or industry to a common fund for purposes of distrbuting
amongst them the proceeds of the business.

In this case Timothy and Kristopher are partners, as they contribute money,
service, or industry to a common fund for purposes of distrbuting amongst them the
proceeds of the fastfood business.

XXX.

Yes, the revocation is proper.

Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, an agency relationship occurs when a
principal entrusts the conduct of things and/or acts to another person, named as an agent.
The agency relationship shall continue until the agent does the acts entrusted upon him by
the principal, or unless the authority is revoked by the principal any time.

In this case, Joe Miguel, the principal, may validly revoke the authority that he
gave John Paul, unilaterally, by the latter’s underperformance. Such revocation may be
made even without the consent of the agent, since the agent is merely acting as a conduit
of the principal.

Therefore, the recovation made by Joe Miguel in this case is proper.