1. No. the resident’s defense is not tenable.

Under the revised penal code, criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a
felony, although the wrongful act is different from that which he intended.
Here, the resident is liable for the death of barangay tanod because the act of punching the
tanod was the proximate cause for the latter’s death.
Thus, the resident’s defense is not tenable.

2. No. The contract is not valid.

The New Civil Code governs the terms and conditions of marriage are not subject to stipulation
or agreement by the parties, except marriage settlements which fix the property regime of
marriage.
In this case, the prenuptial agreement of the couple which provides that their marriage shall be
valid for only five years and is renewable is contrary to law because only the law governs the
terms and conditions of marriage.
Hence, the contract is not valid.

No. The corporation’s position that the same cannot be sued because it was not a legal person is
not tenable.
Under the New Civil Code, employers are vicariously liable to the wrongful acts or omissions of
their employees in the performance of their duties. Moreover, a corporation as a juridical person
may be subject of suit.
Here, the corporation owned the hospital which the doctor who was sued for malpractice is
employed.
Hence, the corporation’s position is not tenable.

No. The reappearance of the absentee spouse does not automatically terminate the second
marriage of the present spouse.
Under the law, the reappearance of the absentee spouse who was judicially declared
presumptively death will not have legal effect upon the second marriage entered into by the
present spouse without first executing an affidavit or reappearance and to record the same in
the civil registry where their marriage was recorded. Such affidavit will have an effect of
termination of the second marriage of the present spouse.

No. the position that the marriage is void because it was solemnized by a Supreme Court
Justice in a Roman Catholic church is not legally tenable.
The New Civil Code provides that a solemnizing officer authorized by law may solemnize
marriage within his chamber if he is a judge, or within the chapel or church. However, the
irregularities of the venue shall not affect the validity of the marriage because it is not an
essential element of marriage.
 Here, the Supreme court justice’s act of solemnizing the marriage inside the Roman
Catholic church does not affect in anyway the essential validity or marriage.
Thus, the position is not legally tenable.

No. the motion to dismiss by the parents on the ground that they could not be held
liable for the act done by their 12-year-old should be denied.
The new Civil code provides that parents are vicariously liable for the wrongful acts or
omissions of their minor children living with them.
Here, the parents are vicariously liable and may be sued for the wrongful act done by
their minor child in shooting his classmate using his father’s gun.
Hence, the motion to dismiss by the parents should be denied.

No. The university cannot be held liable for the physical injuries suffered by the bar candidate by
reason of fortuitous event.
The New Civil Code provides that no person shall be held liable for fortuitous event.
Here, the clearly states that the tree was uprooted due to a fortuitous event which is strong
winds caused by a super typhoon despite the university’s prior efforts to maintain the strength
of the tree’s roots.
Thus, the university cannot be held liable for the physical injuries suffered by the bar candidate
by reason of fortuitous event.

Events which cannot be foreseen, but if foreseen are inevitable

YES. The court should allow the partition.

The Supreme court ruled that no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Each
co-owner is owner of their undivided portion or share which they may appropriate.
Consequently, each co-owner may demand the partition of the co-owned property anytime.
Here, the sale by the three siblings of their undivided share to the buyer is valid. The buyer
stepped into the shoes of the three siblings as co-owner and as a result may cause the partition
of the property.
Hence, the court should allow the partition.

No. The farmer does not have legal ground to demand payment before vacating the parcel of
land because he is a builder in bad faith.
The New Civil Code provides that a builder in bad faith is one who builds on a land which he
believes he does not own. Moreover, a builder in bad faith is not entitled to be indemnified by
the improvements he may have built.
Here, the farmer is considered to be a builder in bad faith when he built a two-storey concrete
house on a land which he knows he does not own since it is a public land.
Thus, the farmer does not have legal ground to demand payment before vacating the parcel of
land.

No. There is no meeting of minds between the user and the app provider.
The New Civil Code provides that a contract is a meeting of minds between parties whereby one
binds himself with respect to the other, to do something or to render service. The elements of a
contract are consent, object, and cause or consideration. Consent is the meeting of offer and
acceptance of the object and consideration. Consequently, there can be no consent if there are
no object and consideration.
Here, there can be no consent because terms and conditions upon which the app provider
sought the acceptance of the user were not shown on the screen.
Thus, by clicking on “agree”, there is no meeting of minds between the user and the app
provider.

Yes. The Filipino wife may avail Article 26 of Family Code and remarry.
Art. 26 of the Family Code provides that in a mix marriage whereby the foreign spouse was able
to obtain a foreign divorce decree capacitating him or her to remarry, the decree should also
capacitate the Filipino spouse to remarry.
Here, what is involved is a mx marriage between a Japanese and a Filipino, whereby the
Japanese was able to obtain a decree of divorce which capacitated him to remarry.
Thus, the Filipino wife may avail Article 26 of Family Code and remarry.

Yes, the suit for moral damages against the bride will prosper.
Under the New Civil Code, any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner
which is contrary to morals, good customs, and public policy shall compensate the latter for
damages.
Here, the act of bride in not appearing on her wedding day with his boyfriend of 8-years after
going through all the preparation and publicity, is clearly contrary to good customs.
Thus, the suit for moral damages against the bride will prosper.

No. a contract to sell is not the same with a conditional sale.

Under the New Civil Code, a contract to sell does not sell anything but only grants right to buy a
thing upon fulfillment of condition. Moreover, it does not automatically grant right to compel the
delivery of the thing which is the subject matter of the contract. The seller reserves ownership
even after the delivery and a subsequent deed of absolute sale should first be executed to
perfect the title of the buyer.
On the other hand, under the same provision, a conditional sale automatically transfers
ownership upon fulfillment of the condition or upon delivery. The seller does not reserve
ownership to himself and no subsequent deed of absolute is needed to perfect the title.
I would rule against Mrs. L because she is only entitled to the death benefits and not monthly
allotment.
Under the New Civil Code, in cases of disappearance were there is danger of death, the absentee
is presumed to have died at the beginning of the 4-year period for all purposes other than
succession.
Here, the issue at hand is not on succession but on the death benefits being paid out by the
insurance company to the heirs of the passengers and crews of the vessel which was lost in sea.
Since the disappearance of Captain L is with danger of death under the law, Captain L is
presumed to have died at the beginning of 4-year period for the purpose of determining
whether or not Mrs. L is entitled to receive monthly allotment until the end of 4-year period or
if she is only entitled to the death benefits of the insurance company. In this case, she is only
entitled to the death benefits paid out by the insurance company.
Hence, I would rule against Mrs. L.

No. Iya may not demand from Betty P250,000 as her share in the debt.
The New Civil Code provides that in a solidary obligation where one of the solidary debtor’s
share in the debt has been condoned by the creditor in his favor, such solidary debtor is not
entitled to reimbursement from his co-debtors.
Here, Iya is not entitled to be reimbursed by Betty of the share of her debt which was condoned
in her favor by the creditor.
Hence, Iya may not demand from Betty P250,000 as her share in the debt.

The sale is valid and Jackie can no longer recover the property because the right to institute an
action to annul the sale has already prescribed.
Under the New Civil Code, the contract entered into by a minor is a voidable contract. Such
contract may be annulled by his parents before he attains age of majority or by himself within 4
years from attainment of age of majority.
Here, there is no showing that the parents of Jackie, who is a minor, has instituted an action to
annul the sale entered into by the latter. Moreover, Jackie filed an action to annul the voidable
sale only when she was 25 years old, that is, after the lapse of 4-year prescriptive period.
Hence, the sale is valid.