MY PRACTICE ANSWER

Civil Law Bar Exam 2022

1.
(9:00-9:05)

No, the contract is not valid.

Under Article 1 of the Family Code, the nature, consequences and incidents of marriage are
governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the
property relations during the marriage.

Here, the subject prenuptial agreement involves stipulations not relating to property relations but
the period of validity of the marriage.

Hence, the contract is not valid.

2.
1:40-1:44

No, the position of the hospital is not legally tenable.

Under the law, natural and juridical persons may sue and be sued. Juridical persons include,
among others, corporations for private interest or purpose.

In this case, the corporation which owns the hospital may be sued.

Hence, the hospital position is untenable.

3.
1:50-2:00

No, the first husband’s reappearance, without need of any further act, does not automatically
terminate the second marriage.

Under the Family Code, upon the reappearance of the absent spouse, the subsequent marriage
contracted by the present spouse shall be automatically terminated by the recording of the
Affidavit of Reappearance of the absent spouse.

4.
1:45-1:50
No, the position is not legally tenable.

Under the law, a Supreme Court justice may solemnize a marriage anywhere in the Philippines.
Further, the Family Code provides that an irregularity in the formal requisite of marriage does
not affect the validity of marriage.

In this case, the marriage was solemnized by a Supreme Court justice, who is authorized to
solemnize marriages anywhere in the Philippines. The marriage, therefore, is valid.

Hence, the position is not legally tenable.

5.
2:00-2:07

No, the motion to dismiss cannot be granted.

Under the Civil Code, parents are vicariously liable for damages caused by their minor children
who live in their company, unless the parents observed all the diligence of a good father of a
family to prevent the damage.

In the present case, the accused is a minor who live in the company of his parents. Although the
parents themselves had no hand in the crime, they are nevertheless liable for the damage caused
by their son who shot a classmate since the parents failed to keep the gun beyond the reach of
their minor child.

Hence, the motion to dismiss cannot be granted.

6.
2:14-

No, the university cannot be held liable for the injuries suffered by the bar candidate.

Under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, whoever, by act or omission, causes damage to another,
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.

In this case, the tree that injured the bar candidate was uprooted because of a super typhoon,
despite the university’s prior effort to maintain the strength of tree’s roots.

Hence, there being no fault or negligence on the part of the university, it cannot be held liable for
the injuries suffered by the bar candidate.

7.
2:07-2:13
Yes, the Court should allow the partition.

Under the Civil Code, a co-owner may alienate a property he co-owns. In addition, a co-owner
may demand at any time the partition of this things owned in common insofar as his share is
concerned.

In this case, the conglomerate became a co-owner of the two-hectare land when it bought the
shares therein of the three siblings. As a co-owner, it may demand the partition of the property.

Hence, the Court should allow the partition.

8.
2:13-

Yes, the farmer has a legal ground to demand payment for the house before vacating the parcel
of land.

Under the law, a builder in good faith has the right to demand payment or reimbursement with
right of retention.

In this case, the farmer believed in good faith that the subject land is not registered to another
person.

Hence, he may demand payment for the house before vacating.

9.

No, there is no meeting of the mind between the user and the app provider.

Under the Civil Code, a contract is a meeting of the minds between two persons whereby one
binds himself, with respect to the other, to give something or to render some service. There is no
contract unless the following requisites concur: (1) consent of the contracting parties; (2) object
certain which is the subject matter or the contract; and (3) consideration of the obligation.

Consent is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the
cause which are to constitute the contract.

Here, the app provider failed to provide the users with the terms and conditions upon clicking
“agree.” There is an imperfect consent since the offer and the thing and the cause constituting the
contract are not communicated to the user.

Hence, there is no meeting of the mind between the user and the app provider despite the
clicking of the “agree” button.
10.

Yes, the Filipino wife can remarry.

Under Article 26 of the Family Code, where a divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien
spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity
remarry.

Here, a divorce was obtained abroad by the Japanese national, capacitating him to remarry.

Hence, the Filipino wife can also remarry.

11.

No, the suit will not prosper.

According to jurisprudence, a breach of contract to marry is not actionable. However, where the
other party cancelled the wedding in bad faith and the claimant already acquired expenses, that
latter is entitled to damages.

In this case, the prospective bride cancelled the wedding in good faith. Also, it was the
prospective bride who covered the wedding expenses.

Hence, the prospective groom’s suit will not proper.

12.