2014 BAR EXAMINATIONS

UNIVERSITY of the PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER

SUGGESTED ANSWERS IN CIVIL LAW
Assoc. Dean Viviana M. Paguirigan

III.
The Roman Catholic Church accepted a donation of a real property
located in Lipa City. A deed of donation was executed, signed by the
donor, Don Mariano, and the donee, the Church, as represented by Fr.
Damian. Before the deed could be notarized, Don Mariano died. Is the
donation valid? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The donation is void. The donation of an immovable property must be
in a public instrument in order for it to be valid. In this case, the donor
died even before the notarization of the deed of donation. Hence, it
does not satisfy the requirement of being in a public instrument for the
donation to be valid.

XXVII.
Fe, Esperanza, and Caridad inherited from their parents a 500 sq. m.
lot which they leased to Maria for three (3) years. One year after, Fe,
claiming to have the authority to represent her siblings Esperanza and
Caridad, offered to sell the leased property to Maria which the latter
accepted. The sale was not reduced into writing, but Maria started to
make partial payments to Fe, which the latter received and
acknowledged. After giving the full payment, Maria demanded for the
execution of a deed of absolute sale which Esperanza and Caridad
refused to do. Worst, Maria learned that the siblings sold the same
property to Manuel. This compelled Maria to file a complaint for the
annulment of the sale with specific performance and damages.
If you are the judge, how will you decide the case? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I will dismiss the case for annulment of the sale and specific
performance filed by Maria with respect to the shares pertaining to
Esperanza and Caridad. Since the object of the sale is a co-owned
property, a co-owner may sell his undivided share or interest in the
property owned in common but the sale will be subject to the result of
the partition among the co-owners. In a co-ownership there is no
mutual agency except as provided under Article 487. Thus, Fe cannot
sell the shares of Esperanza and Caridad without a special power of
attorney from them and the sale with respect to the shares of the latter
without their written authority is void under Article 1874. Hence, the
sale of the property to Manuel is not valid with respect to the shares of
Esperanza and Caridad. Maria can only assail the portion pertaining to
Fe as the same has been validly sold to her by Fe.

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

SUGGESTED ANSWERS
2015 CIVIL LAW BAR EXAMINATIONS
By: Assoc. Dean Viviana M. Paguirigan

VII.
Mr. and Mrs. X migrated to the US with all their children. As they had
no intention of coming back, they offered their house and lot for sale to
their neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. A (the buyers) who agreed to buy the
property for 128 Million. Because Mr. and Mrs. A needed to obtain a
loan from a bank first, and since the sellers were in a hurry to migrate,
the latter told the buyers that they could already occupy the house,
renovate it as it was already in a state of disrepair, and pay only when
their loan is approved and released. While waiting for the loan
approval, the buyers spent .Pl Million in repairing the house. A month
later, a person carrying an authenticated special power of attorney
from the sellers demanded that the buyers either immediately pay for
the property in full now or vacate it and pay damages for having made
improvements on the property without a sale having been perfected.
What are the buyers' options or legal rights with respect to the they

expenses incurred in improving the property under circumstances?

(3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The buyers here may be deemed possessors or builders in good faith
because they were made to believe that they were allowed to make
repairs or renovation by the sellers themselves. As builders in good
faith, they have the right to seek reimbursement for the value of the
improvements in case the owner decides to appropriate them. They
cannot be asked to remove the improvements because that is not one
of the options given by law to the landowner in case the builder is in
good faith.
VIII.
X, Y, Z are siblings who inherited a IO-storey building from their
parents. They agreed in writing to maintain it as a co-owned property
for leasing out and to divide the net profits among themselves equally
for a period of 20 years. On the gth year, X wanted to get out of the
co-ownership so he could get his 1/3 share in the property. Y and Z
refused, saying X is bound by their agreement to keep the coownership for 20 years. Are Y and Z correct? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Y and Z are partly correct. The law provides that none of the coowners shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership and it is the
right of a co-owner to ask for partition of the co-ownership anytime.
One exception to the rule is if the co-owners agree to keep the thing
undivided which period shall not exceed ten years. In this case, the
agreement to keep the thing undivided shall be valid at the most for
ten years. (Article 494, Civil Code)
IX.
Jose, single, donated a house and lot to his only niece, Maria, who was
of legal age and who accepted the donation. The donation and Maria's
acceptance thereof were evidenced by a Deed of Donation. Maria then
lived in the house and lot donated to her, religiously paying real estate
taxes thereon. Twelve years later, when Jose had already passed away,
a woman claiming to be an illegitimate daughter of Jose filed a
complaint against Maria. Claiming rights as an heir, the woman prayed
that Maria be ordered to reconvey the house and lot to Jose's estate. In
her complaint she alleged that the notary public who notarized the
3

Deed of Donation had an expired notarial commission when the Deed

of Donation was executed by Jose. Can Maria be made to reconvey the
property? What can she put up as a defense? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Maria cannot be compelled to reconvey the property. The Deed of
Donation was void because it was not considered a public document.
However, a void donation can trigger acquisitive prescription. (Solis v.
CA 176 SCRA 678; Doliendo v. Biarnesa 7 Phil. 232) The void donation
has a quality of titulo colorado enough for acquisitive prescription
especially since 12 years had lapsed from the deed of donation.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Yes, Maria can be made to reconvey the
property. The law provides that no person may give or receive by way
of donation more than what he may give or receive by will. On the
assumption that the property donated to Maria is the only property of
Jose, the legitime of his illegitimate child would be impaired if Maria
would be allowed to keep the entire property.
After taking into
account the value of the property, Maria can be made to reconvey the
property to the extent necessary to satisfy the legitime of Joses
illegitimate daughter provided that the woman claiming to be Joses
child can prove her filiation to the deceased.
Maria can set up the defense that the action has prescribed. An action
for revocation of the donation on the ground that it impaired the
legitime of a compulsory heir may only be filed within ten (10) years
from the time the cause of action accrues which is at the time of the
death of Jose. The facts are not clear as to when Jose died but on the
assumption that he died ten years prior to the filing of the action, the
same has clearly prescribed.