CIVIL LAW MOCK BAR EXAM

JULY 17, 2021

Atty. Resci Angelli Rizada-Nolasco

I. Priscilla Zapanta is the owner of Lots 1 and 2 and

after a series of negotiations, Sarah accepted Zapanta's
offer for the sale of the subject lots for P2,705,600.00,
which at the time of sale was still mortgaged with
Metrobank. On March 13, 1999, Sarah paid the amount of
P541,120.00 or 20% of the purchase price as down
payment. On the same date, the parties executed a deed
denominated as "Downpayment Agreement." The pertinent
provisions of the said agreement provide:

1. The total purchase price for the two (2) lots

shall be TWO MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED
FIVE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED
(P2,705,600.00) xx x payable as follows:

a. TWENTY percent (20%) Downpayment

or the amount of FIVE HUNDRED FORTY
ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED
TWENTY (P541,120.00) payable upon
signing of this agreement. Receipt of this
amount is hereby acknowledged.

b. EIGHTY percent (80%) balance or the

amount of TWO MILLION ONE
HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR THOUSAND
FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY
(P2,164,480.00) is payable within forty-five
(45) days through bank loan release of Sarah
with RCBC.
 2. Zapanta hereby undertakes to execute any and
all kinds of documents necessary to execute and
facilitate the release of TCT for Lots 1 and 2
from Metro Bank and the transfer of the said
titles in the name of the Sarah upon receipt of
bank guaranty from RCBC.

3. The parties hereby agree that in case of loan

disapproval by RCBC inspite of the willingness
and cooperation of the Sarah, Zapanta will refund
the aforesaid amount upon resale of the property
to another party.

After the execution of the agreement, Sarah applied for a

loan with RCBC in order to pay the balance of the purchase
price. RCBC granted the loan, but Sarah later learned that
the mortgages on the subject lots have already been
foreclosed and they have already been sold to Metrobank in
an auction sale. Sarah filed an action for rescission against
Zapanta to cause the return of their downpayment due to
the substantial breach committed by Zapanta.

Will the action filed by Sarah prosper? Discuss fully your

legal basis. (10%)

II. Spouses Briones took out a loan from iBank to

purchase a BMW Z4 Roadster. They executed a promissory
note with chattel mortgage that required them to take out an
insurance policy on the vehicle. The promissory note also
gave iBank, as the Spouses Briones' attomey-infact,
irrevocable authority to file an insurance claim in case of
loss or damage to the vehicle. The insurance proceeds were
to be made payable to iBank. However, the mortgaged
vehicle was carnapped and Spouses Briones declared the
loss to iBank. iBank did not file a notice of claim to the
insurance company, which prompted Spouses Briones to
file the notice of claim themselves. However, their claim
was denied due to delayed reporting of the lost vehicle.
iBank demanded from Spouses Briones full payment of the
vehicle and the latter countered a suit for damages against
iBank. iBank asserts that it was the duty of Spouses
Briones to file a claim with the insurance company and it
posited that when spouses filed the claim with the
insurance company on their own was deemed as a
revocation of the agency relationship between them.
Is there an agency relationship between iBank and
Spouses Briones? Assuming for the sake of argument that
an agency exists, was the agency revoked when the
Spouses Briones filed the claim for loss themselves
instead that of iBank? (10%)

III. In light of a new business venture, Mr. A entered

into a lease contract with Mr. B involving one of the latter's
warehouses. One day, Mr. B, who was then encountering
financial difficulties, approached Mr. A and sought for a
loan, which Mr. A readily granted to him. In order to secure
the loan obligation, Mr. B mortgaged the leased warehouse
in favor of Mr. A. In addition, Mr. B executed a promissory
note in favor of A, wherein prior demand was waived by
him.
When Mr. B defaulted on his loan obligation, Mr. A simply
stopped paying rentals due to Mr. B on the ground that
legal compensation had already set in up to the concurrent
amount. Furthermore, since there was still a balance due on
the promissory note, Mr. A foreclosed the real estate
mortgage over Mr. B's property, without any prior demand
furnished to Mr. B.
Aggrieved, Mr. B opposed the foreclosure due to the lack
of prior demand, contending that the waiver of prior
demand was stipulated in the promissory note and not in
the mortgage instrument. Mr. B likewise argued that when
Mr. A invoked legal compensation between the unpaid
rentals and the loan arrearages, it amounted to a novation
that resulted in the extinguishment of the loan contract
between them. As such, the real estate mortgage, being a
mere accessory contract to the principal loan, was
necessarily extinguished.
(a) May Mr. A validly claim legal compensation?
Explain. (5%)
(b) May Mr. A validly foreclose on the real estate
mortgage even without prior demand to Mr. B?
Explain. (5%)
(c) Is Mr. B's claim of novation correct? Explain.
(5%)

IV. 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.
a. 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? (5%)

b. Can the partnership creditors hold L, 0 and Pliable

after all the assets of the partnership are
exhausted? (5%)
 V. Federation of Davao Farmer's Association,
Inc., (DFA) is a federation of farmers in Davao City. the
farm lands occupied by the members of DRA were placed
under the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP) by the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR). However, the implementation of the CARP
over the subject lands was stopped because the said lands
were unclassified forest land under Sec. 3(a) of P.D. No.
705 and thus, are inalienable and belong to the
government. Sec. 3(a) of P.D. No. 705 states:(a) Public
forest is the mass of lands of the public domain which has
not been the subject of the present system of classification
for the determination of which lands are needed for forest
purposes and which are not. According to DFA, this
provision is against the Constitution to declare that
unclassified lands should be treated as forest lands because
it deprives the actual possessors of the land to claim
ownership over it; and that under the Philippine Bill of
1902, lands of public domain are presumed to be
agricultural lands.
Are the contentions of DFA tenable? (10%)

VI. According to Bobier, he purchased the land from

Extraordinary Development Corporation (EDC) in 1995
under a lease-to-own arrangement. At that time, he was an
overseas contract worker deployed in Saudi Arabia. Under
the arrangement, Bobier was to make monthly payments
but in 2001, he started experiencing some financial
difficulty. Fearing the loss of his house and lot, Bobier
secured a loan with Eupena, the proceeds of which shall be
used to pay Bobier’s unpaid amortizations. Thereafter,
Bobier executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) which
states:
I, LUIS G. BOBIER, xxx do hereby name,
 constitute, and appoint LETICIA E. EUPENA,
xxx to be my true and lawful attorney, and in my
name, place, and stead, to do and perform the
following acts:
TO CLAIM, COLLECT AND RECEIVE FROM
EXTRAORDINARY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION XXX THE TITLE ISSUED IN
MY NAME AS REGISTERED OWNER OF
REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS PHASE 6 OF
THE GOLDEN CITY SUBDIVISION, TAYTAY,
RIZAL, UPON FULL PAYMENT OF MY
OUSTANDING OBLIGATION WITH THE
SAID DEVELOPER, TO SERVE AS
COLLATERAL FOR THE LOAN THAT I
CONTRACTED WITH SAID LETICIA
EUPENA FOR THE PAYMENT OF MY SAID
OUTSTANDING OBLIGATION.
Apart from the SPA, Eupena also compelled Bobier to sign
a lease contract over the subject property, with the
understanding that the rent payments shall be the payment
to the loan with Eupena as well as a loan agreement
regarding the execution of a deed of absolute sale if Bobier
fails to pay the loan. Bobier eventually defaulted in the
payment of the loan with Eupena and one year after
executing the said SPA, Eupena was able to secure a TCT
in her own name.

If you were the lawyer of Bobier, what action would you

file against Eupena and on what basis? (10%)

VII. Mario executed his last will and testament where he

acknowledges the child being conceived by his live-
in partner Josie as his own child; and that his house
and lot in Baguio City be given to his unborn
conceived child. Are the acknowledgment and the
donation mortis causa valid? Why? (5%)
 VIII. Jovencio operated a school bus to ferry his two
sons and five of their schoolmates from their houses to their
school, and back. The parents of the five schoolmates paid
for the service. One morning, Porfirio, the driver, took a
short cut on the way to school because he was running late,
and drove across an unmanned railway crossing. At the
time, Porfirio was wearing earphones because he loved to
hear loud music while driving. As he crossed the railway
tracks, a speeding PNR train loudly blared its horn to warn
Porfirio, but the latter did not hear the horn because of the
loud music. The train inevitably rammed into the school
bus. The strong impact of the collision between the school
bus and the train resulted in the instant death of one of the
classmates of Jovencio's younger son.
The parents of the fatality sued Jovencio for damages based
on culpa contractual alleging that Jovencio was a common
carrier; Porfirio for being negligent; and the PNR for
damages based on culpa aquiliana.
Jovencio denied being a common carrier. He insisted that
he had exercised the diligence of a good father of a family
in supervising Porfirio, claiming that the latter had had no
history of negligence or recklessness before the fatal
accident.
(a) Did his operation of the school bus service for a
limited clientele render Jovencio a common carrier?
Explain your answer. (5%)

(b) Assuming that the fatality was a minor of only 15

years of age who had no earning capacity at the
time of his death because he was still a student in
high school, and the trial court is minded to award
indemnity, what may possibly be the legal and
factual justifications for the award of loss of earning
capacity? Explain your answer. (5%)
 IX. Ryan is the child of Rene and Lucila who got
married in 1975. However, sometime in 2005, the marriage
of Rene and Lucila was declared void on the ground of
psychological capacity. In 2006, Rene contracted a second
marriage with Cherry without liquidating the properties of
the first marriage nor delivering the presumptive legitime
of Ryan. In 2015, Rene died and Cherry filed a petition for
the settlement of intestate estate of Rene.

In 2017, Lucila and Ryan filed a suit to declare the nullity

of marriage of Rene and Cherry on the ground that the said
subsequent marriage was entered into without complying
the provisions in Articles 52 and 53 of the Family Code on
the partition and distribution of the properties of the
previous marriage and the delivery of the presumptive
legitimes.

What is the status of the marriage of Rene and Cherry? Will

the action filed by Lucila and Ryan prosper? If yes, support
your argument. If your answer is no, why not? What should
then be the proper action to be filed by Ryan and/or Lucila?
(10%)

X. Eduardo and Elena first met in 1969 when they

were in high school; the former was a senior while the
latter was a sophomore. It was love at first sight for the
two. Despite the objection of Elena's parents, the couple
decided to elope. They eventually got married on October
18, 1970 in Makati City.
Eduardo and Elena lived harmoniously for the first few
months oftheir married life. However, after a year, the
newlyweds started having frequent and violent fights.
Eduardo would always go out with his friends and stay with
his grandmother instead of going home to his wife. Elena
would then confront and shout invectives at Eduardo,
insulting him and his family. This would prompt Eduardo
to leave the house and stay with his own family. He would
also leave whenever Elena's father was due to visit them.
Every time Eduardo left their home, Elena would fetch him
to bring him home and settle their issues.
This cycle in the couple's married life went on for quite
some time. When Elena did not change her nagging and
loud behavior, Eduardo started resenting her and her
condescending attitude towards him. He began spending
more time with his friends and relatives instead of with his
wife. He became more preoccupied with his mother and his
siblings. Eduardo also started to realize that he was happier
without his wife, and that was nothing good in their
marriage. At the same time, Elena started complaining that
Eduardo was a failure as a husband. She likewise accused
him of being a womanizer and an alcoholic.
On February 25, 2013, Eduardo filed before the RTC,
Branch 136 of Makati City a Petition for declaration of
absolute nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family
Code. In support of his Petition, Eduardo attached a copy of
the psychological assessment report conducted by clinical
psychologist Dr. Nedy L. Tayag (Dr. Tayag) who diagnosed
him with Passive Aggressive Personality Disorder and
Elena with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Dr. Tayag
found that Elena was domineering and had a condescending
attitude towards Eduardo, constantly berating the latter and
insulting his family every time she was angry. Likewise,
Dr. Tayag found Eduardo had a Passive Aggressive
Personality Disorder, characterized by his pervasive pattern
of negativistic attitude and passive resistance. Eduardo was
unable to effectively function emotionally, intellectually,
and socially towards Elena in relation to the duties of
mutual love, fidelity, respect, help, and support.
Should the marriage between Elena and Eduardo be
declared void on the ground that both parties are
psychologically incapacitated to fulfill their marital
obligations? (10%)