JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTERTM

2023 JURISTS CIVIL LAW MOCK BAR EXAMINATION

08 July 2023

This mock bar examination consists of 20 essay questions in 4 pages. Please finish the
examination within four hours.

Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts presented by the question, to
select the material from the immaterial facts, and to discern the points upon which the question turns.
It should show your knowledge and understanding of the pertinent principles and theories of law
involved and their qualifications and limitations. It should demonstrate your ability to apply the law to
the given facts, and to reason logically in a lawyer-like manner to a sound conclusion from the given
premises. A mere "Yes" or "No" answer without any corresponding explanation or discussion will not
be given any credit. Thus, always briefly but fully explain your answers although the question does not
expressly ask for an explanation. At the same time, remember that a complete explanation does not
require that you volunteer information or discuss legal doctrines that are not necessary or pertinent to
the solution to the problem. You do not need to re-write or repeat the question in your answer.

On 1 January 2019, Tim sold his coconut plantation to Ricky for ₱12 million payable on monthly
installments for one year with interest of 6% per annum. Thus, Ricky's installment payment is ₱1
million per month plus interest of ₱60,000.00. Tim married Grace on 1 July 2019 and they executed
an ante-nuptial agreement choosing the regime of conjugal partnership of gains. At the time of the
marriage, Ricky still had a balance on the purchase price of ₱6 million plus interest. To whom will
Ricky's monthly payment go after the marriage? Explain.

Same facts as in the preceding problem. Will your answer be the same if Tim and Grace failed
to execute a marriage settlement?

Kate, a Filipina, married John, an Australian national who was domiciled in Canada. The union
was blessed with three sons: Joey, Jess, and Jen. In 2005, John executed a holographic will in Sydney
which was not recognized as a valid form of a will under the laws of Australia. He instituted Kate as
sole heir to his estate. Under Australian law a person may will his estate to anyone provided the
instituted heir is alive at the time of the testator’s death. The following year, John died in a plane crash.
He left an estate worth US$2 million. His will was presented for probate before the Regional Trial Court
of Makati. The three sons filed an opposition to the probate on the following grounds: (a) the laws of
Australia do not allow holographic wills; and (b) they were deprived of their legitimes under Philippine
law. Resolve the opposition.

Miguel had a legitimate son named Arturo, while Arturo had a daughter named Angela, born
out of a common law relationship between Arturo and Susan. Arturo died in 1978 while Miguel died
without a will in 1999. May Angela inherit from Miguel?

The Aegis Nursing Institution, Inc. (ANI) was lambasted by Ding in a radio broadcast as
operating a diploma mill churning out ill-trained nursing graduates who had paid their way through.

2023 Jurists Civil Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2023 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Copying, dissemination,
storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express written consent of Jurists Review
Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal prosecution and administrative charges,
including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office and IBP.
Page 1 of 4
ANI sued Ding for moral damages. Ding filed an answer where he raised the defense that a juridical
person is not entitled to moral damages because it cannot experience physical suffering or wounded
feelings. Is Ding’s defense meritorious? Explain.

The land of Oswald is bounded on the east by the Talisay River, on the west by the Bulacan
River, and on the north by Manila Bay. The Talisay River and Bulacan River flow downstream and
meet at Manila Bay. In a span of fifteen years and because of the gradual and natural action of the two
rivers, soil was deposited on the northern tip of Oswald’s land facing Manila Bay. The northern tip of
Oswald’s land thus increased by five hectares. May Oswald file an application for original registration
of the five hectares?

Demi borrowed ₱300,000 from Polly. The promissory note signed by Demi in favor of Polly
states that the loan is “payable when able.” Four years had lapsed from the grant of the loan and
Demi has yet to pay Polly despite the latter’s written and oral demands. Polly thus filed a collection
suit against Demi before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. Will the suit prosper?

Felipe is the owner of a piece of land, which has no outlet to a public highway because it is
surrounded by a vast track of land owned by Felina. Felipe has been passing through a pathway across
Felina’s land for over thirty-five years. Felina wanted to construct a commercial building on her land
and decided to close the pathway. She offered another way, which is still through her land, but is more
than 500 meters longer. Is Felina barred from closing the pathway being used by Felipe?

Lavinia married Humbert in a church ceremony. Humbert discovered that five years before,
Lavinia had married Soros in a civil ceremony. Lavinia, however, did not know at the time she married
Soros that the latter was already married. Upon learning that Soros was already married, Lavinia
immediately left Soros and since then had not seen nor heard from him. Lavinia, however, did not take
any step to have her marriage with Soros judicially declared void before she married Humbert. Could
Humbert successfully sue for a declaration of nullity of his marriage to Lavinia?

10

In the preceding question, may Lavinia be prosecuted for bigamy?

11

Liza and Enrique were lovers. Though not married, they decided to live together after Liza
became pregnant. During the time that they were together, Enrique gave Liza a signed birthday card
where he wrote, in his own handwriting, how happy he was to be the father of the baby inside Liza’s
womb. When Liza was on her seventh month of pregnancy, Enrique died in a car accident. Upon
Enriquez’s death, Coleen, Enriquez’s ex-girl friend, filed a petition for the probate of Enriquez’s will. In
the said will, which contains only one testamentary disposition, Enriquez instituted Coleen as the sole
heir to his entire estate. Liza opposed the probate of the will, on behalf of her child who was born a
week after Enriquez’s death, on the ground that the child was preterited. During the hearing on the
allowance of the will, Liza offered as evidence the signed admission of paternity made by Enrique in
the birthday card. After the hearing, the probate court nullified the will on the ground of preterition. Was
the child of Liza preterited?

2023 Jurists Civil Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2023 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Copying, dissemination,
storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express written consent of Jurists Review
Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal prosecution and administrative charges,
including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office and IBP.
Page 2 of 4
 12

In the preceding problem, did the probate court act correctly when, during the hearing for the
probate of the will, it passed upon the issue of preterition? Explain.

13

Ernesto donated in a public instrument a parcel of land to Demetrio, who accepted it in the
same instrument. The deed of donation stated that the donation shall take effect immediately, with the
donee having the right to take possession of the land and to receive its fruits. Ernesto also reserved
in the same deed his right to sell the property should he decide to dispose of it at any time – a right
which he however did not exercise. After his death, Ernesto’s heirs brought an action to recover the
land from Demetrio. May the heirs recover the land?

14

In 18 August 2019, Daimos Corporation, an oil importer, executed a contract wherein it agreed
to deliver 50,000 barrels of Brent crude oil at US$59 per barrel to Petron Corporation on 18 October
2019. On 10 September 2019, American and Israeli drones bombed Iranian nuclear facilities causing
severe damage and casualties. In retaliation, Iranian submarines torpedoed U.S. naval ships in the
Persian Gulf, sinking two battleships. Due to the crisis, the price of Brent crude oil rocketed to US$129
per barrel. On 18 October 2019, Petron demanded delivery of the crude oil from Daimos. The latter
asserted that it had been relieved of its obligation to deliver the crude oil because of caso fortuito and
under the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus. Is Daimos’ contention meritorious? Explain.

15

Danica wanted to borrow P1,000,000 from Petra. Petra knew that Ding was Danica’s former
employer, so Petra talked with Ding and asked him if it was prudent to lend to Danica. Ding told Petra
that Danica was financially well-off although Ding knew for a fact that Danica was insolvent. Because
of what Ding said, Petra lent P1,000,000 to Danica. Petra was unable to collect the loan because of
Danica’s insolvency. Petra filed a complaint against Ding for damages for misleading him. Will Petra’s
complaint prosper? Explain.

16

In 2016, Manuel filed with the RTC an application for judicial confirmation of title over a one-
hectare parcel of agricultural land. He presented sufficient and competent proof that the land had been
declared as alienable and disposable by the government in 1927, that it was not covered by an existing
certificate of title or patent, and that he had been in continuous, open, notorious, and exclusive
possession of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership since 1980. In 2020, the RTC rendered
a decision denying the application on the ground that Manuel was not able to tack his possession back
to 12 June 1945 as required by the law. Manuel appealed to the Court of Appeals which rendered a
decision in 2022 affirming the RTC judgment. Was the Court of Appeal’s decision correct?

17

Cristina, as buyer, and Natividad, as seller, allegedly entered into a contract of sale of a 771-
square-meter portion of Lot No. 512-C with a total area of 1,542 square meters. They signed a receipt
dated 22 October 1990 whereby it was stated that Natividad received the amount of ₱6,000 as “partial
payment the said land lot no. 512-C containing area 1542 Tax Declaration No. 39. This amount is
payment only for two lots.” They also signed another receipt dated 23 January 1991 also stating that
Natividad acknowledged receipt of the amount of ₱6,000 “as partial payment of the said land Lot No.
512-C containing area 1542 Tax Declaration no. 39. This amount is payment only for two lots.” In 2002,
Cristina demanded the delivery of the properties. Natividad, however, denied that there was a sale.

2023 Jurists Civil Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2023 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Copying, dissemination,
storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express written consent of Jurists Review
Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal prosecution and administrative charges,
including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office and IBP.
Page 3 of 4
 Based on the receipts dated 22 October 1990 and 23 January 1991, was there a valid and
binding contract of sale between the parties?

18

Mateo was a local agent of Star Ships, a shipping company based in the United States. For
Mateo’s services in recruiting seafarers, he regularly received commissions from his principal. In 2002,
he billed Star Ships his commissions and Star Ships sent instructions to its US bank to, in turn, wire
$1,400.00. Philippine National Bank (PNB), the depositary bank of Mateo, received the instructions
from the affiliated US bank and immediately credited $14,000.00 to Mateo’s bank account. Eight years
later, or in 2010, PNB demanded from Mateo the return of $12,600 ($14,000 less $1,400) which was
credited to his account by mistake. Is PNB entitled to recover the $12,600 paid to Mateo?

19

Sam sold and delivered a parcel of unregistered land to Brady for ₱1.5 million. Charlie filed an
action for recovery of possession of the parcel of land against Brady arguing that he (Charlie) was the
owner of the parcel of land long before the sale to Brady. Brady wrote a letter to Sam informing him of
the suit but the latter did not reply. In due course, the court rendered a judgment in favor of Charlie,
finding that the owner of the land was Charlie and not Sam and ordering Brady to deliver possession
to Charlie. The judgment became final and executory. Brady filed a suit against Sam for recovery of
the value of the land. You have been retained as lawyer by Sam. What defense, if any, can you raise
on behalf of Sam?

20

Deng executed a will instituting her sons, Fred and Bong, in equal shares to the free portion of
her estate in addition to what they will receive as their legitime. The estate of Deng at the time of her
death in 2020 is ₱4 million. Fred predeceased his mother Deng in 2019 and he left behind two
legitimate children, Foxy and Freida. Foxy and Freida claim they are entitled to ₱2 million since it is
their father’s share in Deng’s estate had he not predeceased. Are they correct?

-oOo-

2023 Jurists Civil Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2023 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Copying, dissemination,
storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express written consent of Jurists Review
Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal prosecution and administrative charges,
including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office and IBP.
Page 4 of 4