ST.

DOMINIC SAVIO COLLEGE

Blk.1 Lot.1 Mountain Heights Subdivision
Quirino Highway, Caloocan City
Tel. No.: 02-507-3678
E-mail Address: savian_sdsc@yahoo.com

MA. VIDIA B. LARGO

Juris Doctor
College of Law
Legal Profession

1. Echiverri filed a petition to exclude Asistio from the permanent list of voters of
Caloocan City on the ground that Asistio is not a resident of thereof as the address
stated in the latter’s Certificate of Candidacy for Mayor in 2010 elections did not exist.
In defense, Asistio alleged that he mistakenly relied on the address stated in the
contract of lease with his lessor. Should Asistio be excluded from the permanent list of
voters for failure to comply with the residency required by law?

No, Asistio should not be excluded from the permanent list of voters.
The Voters Registration Act of 1996 states the qualifications of a voter. From
these provisions, the residency requirement of a voter is at least one year residence in
the Philippines and at least six months in the place where the person proposes or
intends to vote.
2. Can a will executed by a foreigner abroad be probated in the Philippines although it
has not been previously probated and allowed in such foreign country?

Yes, the will executed by a foreigner abroad, can be probated in the

Philippines.

The rule is if the will is made with the formalities prescribed by the law of the
place in which he resides, according to the formalities observed in his country or in
conformity with those which the Civil Code prescribes.

3. Mekeni Food Corp. offered its employee Locsin a car plan. One-half of the cost of the
vehicle is to be paid by Mekeni and the other half is to be deducted from Locsin’s
salary. The car was an absolute necessity in Mekeni’s business operations. Locsin paid
for his 50% share through monthly salary deductions. Subsequently, Locsin resigned.
By then, a total of ₱112,500 had been deducted from his monthly salary and applied as
part of his share in the car plan. The vehicle remained in the ownership and possession
of Mekeni, and so Locsin sought reimbursement of his amortization payments on the
vehicle and posits that if the amount is not reimbursed, unjust enrichment would result,
as the vehicle remained in the possession and ownership of Mekeni. Should the
amortization payments be refunded in favor of Locsin?

Yes, the amortization payments must be refunded in favor of Locsin.

In the absence of specific terms and conditions governing a car plan

agreement between the employer and employee, the employer may not retain the
installment payments made by the employee on the car plan and treat them as rents
for the use of the service vehicle in the event that the employee ceases his
employment and is unable to complete the installment payments on the vehicle since
the service vehicle was precisely used in the employer's business therefore, Mekeni
may not enrich itself by charging Locsin for the use of its vehicle which is otherwise
absolutely necessary to the full and effective promotion of its business.
4. At the age of 18, Marian found out that she was pregnant. She insured her own life
and named her unborn child as her sole beneficiary. When she was already due to give
birth, she and her boyfriend Pietro, the father of her unborn child, were kidnapped in a
resort in Bataan. The military gave chase and after one week, they were found in
abandoned hut in Cavite. Marian and Pietro were hacked with bolos. Marian and the
baby she delivered were both found dead, with the baby’s umbilical cord already cut.
Pietro survived.

a. Can Marian’s baby be the beneficiary of the insurance taken on the life of the mother?

Yes, Marian’s baby can be the beneficiary of the insurance.

Under the law, an unborn child may be designated as the beneficiary in the
insurance policy of the mother. An unborn child shall be considered a person for
purposes favorable to it provided it is born later in accordance with the law.

There is no doubt that the designation of the unborn child as a beneficiary is

favorable to the child, therefore, Marian’s baby can be the beneficiary.

b. Between Marian and the baby, who is presumed to have died ahead?

If the baby was not alive when completely delivered from the mother’s womb,
it was not born as a person, then the question of whom between two persons
survived will not be an issue. The baby had an intra- uterine life of more than 7
months therefore, it would be considered born if it was alive at the time of its
complete delivery from the mother’s womb. We can gather from the facts that the
baby was completely delivered. But whether or not it was alive has to be proven by
evidence and experts.

c. Will Prieto, as surviving biological father of the baby, be entitled to claim the
proceeds of the life insurance on the life of Marian?
 No. Prieto is not entitled to claim proceeds of the life insurance of Marian.
Since the baby did not acquire any right under the insurance contract, there is
nothing for Prieto to inherit. Prieto is not married to Marian neither was he named as
the beneficiary of the insurance.