Persons and Family Relations, Property and Wills and Succession Questions 2016 Bar Exam (Suggested Answers)

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS, PROPERTY AND
WILLS AND SUCCESSION QUESTIONS

2016 Bar Exam (Suggested answers)
I
Section 1 of P.D. No. 75 states:
Section I. Declaration of National Policy.-- It is hereby declared
that the policy of the state is to provide readily available credit facilities
to the coconut farmers at preferential rates; that this policy can be
expeditiously and efficiently realized by the implementation of the
Agreement for the Acquisition of a commercial bank for the benefit of
the coconut farmers executed by the Philippine Coconut Authority, the
terms of which Agreement are hereby incorporated by reference; xxx
A copy of the agreement was not attached to the presidential
decree.
P.D. No. 755 was published in the Official Gazette but the text of
the Agreement described in Section I was not published. Can the
agreement in question be accorded the status of law? Explain (5 pts)
No. The publication must be of the FULL TEXT of the law since the purpose
of the publication is to inform the public of it contents. The contract shall thus be
treated as an ordinary transaction between the parties thereto, and shall be
governed by contract of law under the civil code. (Cojuanco v Republic)
III
Romeo and Juliet, both Filipinos, got married. After a few years,
Juliet got word from her mother that she can go to the United States for
naturalization. Juliet promised she will be back the moment she becomes
an American. After sometime, Romeo learned from a friend that Juliet
already became a U.S. citizen and even divorced him to marry a wealthy
American businessman. Romeo filed a petition before the Regional Trial
Court praying that an order be issued authorizing him to remarry
pursuant to Article 26 of the Family Code. Decide the petition with
reasons. (5%)
Romeo is allowed to remarry under art 26 (2) of the family code applies
where parties were Filipino citizens at the time of the marriage was celebrated,
and later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a
divorce decree. The reckoning point is the citizenship of the spouse who obtained
the divorce decree at the time of the divorce, not at the time of marriage.
Romeo must prove the divorce decree as a fact and its conformity with the
foreign law allowing it. He must also prove the foreign law before our courts. The
petitioner must also show that the divorce decree allowed his former spouse to
remarry again. (Republic vs Orbecido)
Abesamis, Catabian, Diamitas, Gammad, Lozada, Ongleo, Ravago

IV
Leo married Lina and they begot a son. After the birth of their
child, Lina exhibited unusual behavior and started to neglect her son;
she frequently went out with her friends and gambled in casinos. Lina
later had extra-marital affairs with several men and eventually
abandoned Leo and their son. Leo was able to talk to the psychiatrist of
Lina who told him that Lina suffers from dementia praecox, a form of
psychosis where the afflicted person is prone to commit homicidal
attacks. Leo was once stabbed by Lina but fortunately he only suffered
minor injuries. Will a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed
with the court prosper? Explain. (5%)
No, the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage will not prosper. In
accordance with Art. 36 of the New Civil Code Psychological incapacity is the
downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic
marital obligations. The plaintiff must (Failed to) prove that the incapacitated
party, based on his or her actions or behavior, suffers a serious psychological
disorder that completely disables him or her from understanding and discharging
the essential obligations of the marital state. The psychological problem must
be grave, must have existed at the time of marriage, and must be
incurable. (Kalaw vs Fernandez)
Linas act of inflicting bodily injury to leo, while no doubt
reprehensible, cannot automatically be equated with a psychological
disorder, especially when the evidence shows that this is an isolated
incident and not recurring acts.
(Read Republic vs Galang)

v
Bernard and Dorothy lived together as common-law spouses
although they are both capacitated to marry. After one year of
cohabitation, Dorothy went abroad to work in Dubai as a hair stylist and
regularly sent money to Bernard. With the money, Bernard bought a lot.
For a good price, Bernard sold the lot. Dorothy came to know about the
acquisition and sale of the lot and filed a suit to nullify the sale because
she did not give her consent to the sale.

[a] Will Dorothy's suit prosper? Decide with reasons. (2.5%)
Yes, the property regime ( Co- ownership) between them is governed by Art.
147, FC. This article applies to parties who are legally capacitated and not barred
by any impediment to contract marriage. It states that neither party can dispose
by acts inter vivos his or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation
and owned in common without the consent of the other, until after the termination
of the cohabitation.
[b] Suppose Dorothy was jobless and did not contribute money to
the acquisition of the lot and her efforts consisted mainly in the care and
maintenance of the family and household, is her consent to the sale a
prerequisite to its validity?
Explain. (2.5%)
Yes, there is a presumption that the contribution is equal. Even if one the
parties did not contribute materially to the common fund, but the said party took
care of the household, the other party and their common children, these acts are
considered the said partys contribution to the common fund. (Buenaventura vs
CA)
VI
Pedro bought a parcel of land described as Cadastral Lot No. 123
and the title was issued to his name. Juan also bought a lot in the same
place, which is described as Cadastral Lot No. 124. Pedro hired a
geodetic engineer to determine the actual location of Lot No. 123 but for
some reason, the engineer pointed to Lot No. 124 by mistake. Pedro
hired a contractor to construct his house and the latter put up a sign
stating the name of the owner of the project and the construction permit
number. It took more than a year before the house was constructed.
When Pedro was already residing in his house, Juan told him to remove
his house because it was built on his (Juan's) lot. Juan filed a Complaint
for Recovery of Possession and prayed that the house be removed
because Pedro is a builder in bad faith. Pedro filed his Answer with
Counterclaim that he is entitled to the payment of the value of the house
plus damages because he is a builder in good faith and that Juan is guilty
of estoppel and laches.
[a] If Pedro is a builder in good faith, what are the rights given to
Juan under the law? Explain. (2.5o/o)
Juan can choose between appropriating the building by paying the proper
indemnity or obliging the builder to pay the price of the land , unless its value is
considerably more than that of the structures, in which case the builder in good
faith shall pay reasonable rent. If the parties cannot come to terms over the

conditions of the lease, the court must fix the terms thereof ( Rosales vs
Castelltort)
( the land owner may not refuse both to pay the building and to sell the
land, and, instead seek to compel the owner of the building to remove the
building from the land. He is entitled to such removal only when, after having
chosen to sell the land, the other party fails to pay for the said land) Ignacio vs
Hilario
* if, after opting to sell land to builder and builder, after agreeing, fails to
pay, landowner may: a) remove the improvement; b) sell both land and
improvement in a public auction and apply the proceeds thereof first to the value
of land and send the rest, if any, to the builder
Note: options of the land owner under 448 are alternative and exclusive
( Filipinas Colleges, Inc vs Timbang)
[b] If Pedro is a builder in bad faith, what are the rights given to
Juan under the law? Explain. (2.5%)
Rights of Juan- three options:
To be the owner of the improvement by virtue of the "principle of

accession" without paying indemnity, PLUS damages (art. 449 and
art. 451);
To demolish/remove the improvement at the expense of the builder

PLUS damages;
compel the builder to buy land w/n the value of land is considerably
more than value of improvement PLUS damages (art. 450 and art.
451)
VII
Benjamin is the owner of a titled lot which is bounded on the north
by the Maragondon River. An alluvial deposit of two (2) hectares was
added to the registered area. Daniel took possession of the portion
formed by accretion and claims that he has been in open, continuous and
undisturbed possession of said portion since 1923 as shown by a tax
declaration. In 1958, Benjamin filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title and
contends that the alluvium belongs to him as the riparian owner and that
since the alluvium is, by law, part and parcel of the registered property,

the same may be considered as registered property. Decide the case and
explain. ( 5%)
The alluvium, by mandate of Article 457 of the Civil Code, is
automatically owned by the riparian owner from the moment the soil deposit can
be seen but is not automatically registered property, hence, subject to acquisition
through prescription by third persons. (HEIRS OF EMILIANO NAVARRO vs. IAC and
HEIRS OF SINFOROSO PASCUAL, G.R. 68166) In the present case, although
Benjamin is the riparian owner, being the owner of the land adjacent to the river,
the alluvium forming on his land is not his registered property. The ownership of
the alluvium is not automatic. The riparian owner owner must register the same in
his name because the law treats the alluvium as land separate and distinct from
the land to which it attaches. Being now like any other private land, failure to
register the alluvial deposit will make it susceptible to ownership by prescription
by a third person. In this case, Daniel has acquired the same by prescription for
more than 30 years
XIV
On February 28, 1998, Arthur filed an application for registration of
title of a lot in Temate, Cavite before the Regional Trial Court of Naic,
Cavite under Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (CA 141) for
judicial confirmation ofimperfect title. Section 48(b) of CA 141 requires
possession counted from June 12, 1945. Arthur presented testimonial
and documentary evidence that his possession and that of his
predecessors-ininterest started in 1936. The lot was declared alienable
and disposable (A and D) in 1993 based on a PENRO certification and a
certified true copy of the original classification made by the DENR
Secretary. The government opposed the application on the ground that
the lot was certified A and D only in 1993 while the application was
instituted only in 1998. Arthur's possession of five (5) years from the
date of declaration does not comply with the 30-year period required
under CA 141. Should the possession of Arthur be reckoned from the
date when the lot was declared A and D or from the date of actual
possession of the applicant? Explain. ( 5%)
Possession of Arthur should be reckoned from the date of actual
possession of his predecessors-in-interest since 1936. As held in the case of 1, the
court explained that what is important in computing the period of possession is
that the land has already been declared alienable and disposable at the time of
the application for registration. Upon satisfaction of this requirement, the
computation of the period may include the period of adverse possession prior to
the declaration that land is alienable and disposable. The cut-off date of
possession of June 12, 1945 only applies to the requirement of possession. It does
not have any bearing as to when the land became alienable and disposable. Thus,
when the property was classified as alienable and disposable on 1993, both
requirements were completed; the property now being alienable and disposable

and the 30-year period is also satisfied which is to be reckoned from june 12,
1945.
XVI
Don Ricardo had 2 legitimate children - Tomas and Tristan. Tristan
has 3 children. Meanwhile, Tomas had a relationship with Nancy, who
was also single and had the legal capacity to marry. Nancy became
pregnant and gave birth to Tomas, Jr. After the birth of Tomas, Jr., his
father, Tomas, died. Later, Don Ricardo died without a will and Tristan
opposed the motion of Tomas, Jr. to be declared an heir of the deceased
since he is an illegitimate child. Tomas, Jr. countered that Article 992 of
the Civil Code is unconstitutional for violation of the equal protection of
the laws. He explained that an illegitimate child of an illegitimate parent
is allowed to inherit under Articles 902, 982 and 990 of the Civil Code
while he - an illegitimate child of a legitimate father - cannot. Civil Law
commentator Arturo Tolentino opined that Article 992 created an
absurdity and committed an injustice because while the illegitimate
descendant of an illegitimate child can represent, the illegitimate
descendant of a legitimate child cannot. Decide the case and explain.
(5o/o)
Answer #1 : No. Article 992 does not violate the equal protection clause.
The equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated
should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. In
the case at bar, it cannot be said that Tomas, Jr., an illegitimate child is similarly
situated with the other legitimate heirs.
The iron curtain that is Article 992 was explained thus:They(the
illegitimate child on the one hand, and the legitimate children and relatives of the
father or mother of the said illegitimate child on the other) may have a natural tie
of blood, but this is not recognized by law for the purpose of Article 992.Between
the legitimate family and the illegitimate family there is presumed to be an
intervening antagonism and incompatibility. The illegitimate child is disgracefully
looked down upon by the legitimate family; and the family is in turn, hated by the
illegitimate child; the latter considers the privileged condition of the former, and
the resources of which it is thereby deprived; the former, in turn, sees in the
illegitimate child nothing but the product of sin, palpable evidence of a blemish
broken in life; the law does no more than recognize this truth, by avoiding further
ground of resentment. (Diaz vs. AC, citing 7 Manresa 110)
Hence, the illegitimate child cannot be said to be similarly situated with the
other legitimate heirs because of the presumed animosity between them that the
law recognizes.
Answer #2: In the case of Sunaty v. Suntay, the Court, citing the eminent
Justice J.B.L. Reyes, held that, "In the Spanish Civil Code of 1889 the right of
representation was admitted only within the legitimate family; so much so that
Article 943 of that Code prescribed that an illegitimate child can not inherit ab
intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father and mother. The

Civil Code of the Philippines apparently adhered to this principle since it
reproduced Article 943 of the Spanish Code in its own Art. 992, but with fine
inconsistency, in subsequent articles (990, 995 and 998) our Code allows the
hereditary portion of the illegitimate child to pass to his own descendants,
whether legitimate or illegitimate. So that while Art. 992 prevents the illegitimate
issue of a legitimate child from representing him in the intestate succession of the
grandparent, the illegitimates of an illegitimate child can now do so. This
difference being indefensible and unwarranted, in the future revision of the Civil
Code we shall have to make a choice and decide either that the illegitimate issue
enjoys in all cases the right of representation, in which case Art. 992 must be
suppressed; or contrariwise maintain said article and modify Articles 995 and 998.
The first solution would be more in accord with an enlightened attitude vis--vis
illegitimate children."
Sentiment abounds that this prohibition is unfair to the illegitimate child,
who is after all blameless for his status. Harsh as it is, however, it is still the law.
Dura lex sed lex. Until the Congress deems it just to revisit the law, the Court has
no choice but to apply it.
XVII
Macario bought a titled lot from Ramon, got the title and took
possession of the lot. Since Macario did not have the money to pay the
taxes, fees and registration expenses, he was not able to register the
Deed of Absolute Sale. Upon advice, he merely executed an Affidavit of
Adverse Claim and had it annotated at the back of the title. A few years
after, he received a Notice of Levy on Attachment and Writ of Execution
in favor of Alex. The notice, writ and certificate of sale were annotated at
the back of the title still in Ramon's name. Alex contends that since the
Affidavit of Adverse Claim is effective only for 30 days from the date of
its registration, then its validity has expired. Macario posits that the
annotation of his adverse claim is notice to the whole world of his
purchase of the lot in question.
Who has the superior right over the disputed property - Macario or
Alex? Explain. (5%)
Macario is correct. The 30 day limitation is immaterial. An adverse claim
may be cancelled only upon filing a verified petition. Absence of such petition
would not cancel the adverse claim even when the 30 day period has elapsed.
XIX
Brad and Angelina had a secret marriage before a pastor whose
office is located in Arroceros Street, City of Manila. They paid money to
the pastor who took care of all the documentation. When Angelina

wanted to go to the U.S., she found out that there was no marriage
license issued to them before their marriage. Since their marriage was
solemnized in 1995 after the effectivity of the Family Code, Angelina
filed a petition for judicial declaration of nullity on the strength of a
certification by the Civil Registrar of Manila that, after a diligent and
exhaustive search, the alleged marriage license indicated
in the marriage certificate does not appear in the records and
cannot be found.
[a] Decide the case and explain. (2.5%)
(A)The petition for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage should be
granted. The Family Code states that: Marriage solemnized without a marriage
license shall be void from the beginning. However, the question in the case at bar
is whether or not the certification by the Civil Registrar that marriage license
indicated in the marriage certificate does appear in the record is adequate to
prove its non issuance. The Supreme Court in the case of Republic of the
Philippines vs. Court of Appeals said that: The presentation of such certification in
court is sanctioned by Section 29, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, viz.: Sec. 29.
Proof of lack of record. A written statement signed by an officer having custody
of an official record or by his deputy, that after diligent search, no record or entry
of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied by a
certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that the records of his
office contain no such record or entry. The above Rule authorized the custodian of
documents to certify that despite diligent search, a particular document does not
exist in his office or that a particular entry of a specified tenor was not to be found
in a register. As custodians of public documents, civil registrars are public officers
charged with the duty, inter alia, of maintaining a register book where they are
required to enter all applications for marriage licenses, including the names of the
applicants, the date the marriage license was issued and such other relevant data.
6 The certification of "due search and inability to find" issued by the civil registrar
of Pasig enjoys probative value, he being the officer charged under the law to
keep a record of all data relative to the issuance of a marriage license.
Unaccompanied by any circumstance of suspicion and pursuant to Section 29,
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, a certificate of "due search and inability to find"
sufficiently proved that his office did not issue marriage license no. 3196182 to
the contracting parties. In the case at bar, the certification presented by Angelina
has probative value as to support her claim of nullity of her marriage with Brad.
Hence, Nullity of marriage must be upheld.
[b] In case the marriage was solemnized in 1980 before the
effectivity of the Family Code, is it required that a judicial petition be
filed to declare the marriage null and void? Explain. (2.5%)
(B) NO. It is not required that a judicial petition be filed to declare the
marriage null and void. In the case of Ty vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court
said that: As to whether a judicial declaration of nullity of a void marriage is
necessary, the Civil Code contains no express provision to that effect.

Jurisprudence on the matter, however, appears to be conflicting. In addition, the
provisions of the Family Code cannot be retroactively applied to the present case,
for to do so would prejudice the vested rights of petitioner and of her children. As
held in Jison v. Court of Appeals,[25] the Family Code has retroactive effect unless
there be impairment of vested rights. In the case at bar, since the marriage was
solemnized in 1980, before the effectivity of the Family Code, the requirement
that required that a judicial petition be filed to declare the marriage null and void
is not necessary,
xx
Princess married Roberto and bore a son, Onofre. Roberto died in a
plane crash. Princess later married Mark and they also had a son Pepito. Onofre donated to Pepito, his half-brother, a lot in Makati City
worth P3,000,000.00. Pepito succumbed to an illness and died intestate.
The lot given to Pepito by Onofre was inherited by his father, Mark. Mark
also died intestate. Lonely, Princess followed Mark to the life beyond.
The claimants to the subject lot emerged - Jojo, the father of Princess;
Victor, the father of Mark; and Jerico, the father of Roberto. Who among
the three (3) ascendants is entitled to the lot? Explain. (5%)
Answer 1:
The ascendants are not entitled to the property in dispute.
According to the principles established in the provisions in wills and succession,
ascendants exclude descendants while descendants exclude collateral relatives.
This is otherwise known as "the rule on preference between lines". Therefore, in
this case Onofre being the only descendant of his parents exclude his ascendants,
jojo, victor and jerico
Answer 2: Jojo has a better right to the lot, following the rules on Reserva
troncal and Right of Representation Requisites of reserva troncal
1. That the property was acquired by a descendant (called praepositus or
propositus) from an ascendant or from a brother or sister by gratuitous title when
the recipient does not give anything in return; THE DECEDENT PEPITO IS THE
PROPOSITUS WHO ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY BY DONATION FROM HIS BROTHER
ONOFRE
2. That said descendant (praepositus) died without an issue; PEPITO
DIED WITHOUT ISSUE
3. That the same property (called reserva) is inherited by another
ascendant (called reservista) by operation of law (either through
intestate or compulsory succession) from the praepositus; and MARK,
PEPITO'S FATHER INHERITED THE PROPERTY FROM HIM BY WAY OF
SUCCCESSION
4. That there are living relatives within the third degree counted from the
praepositus and belonging to the same line from where the property
originally came (called reservatarios).

UPON MARK'S DEATH, THE RELATIVE NEAREST TO PEPITO WITHIN THE
THIRD DEGREE AND BELONGING TO THE SAME LINE WHERE THE PROPERTY
ORIGINALLY CAME IS PRINCESS. THE PROPERTY SHOULD REVERT TO PRINCESS.
HOWEVER, UPON PRINCESS' DEATH, HER FATHER WOULD ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY
BY RIGHT OF REPRESENTATION. (In the Case of Florentino vs. Florentino, the law
allows right of representation in Reserva Troncal as long as the representative
belongs to the same line and is within 3rd degree from the propositus)
Answer 3 ( Lifted from Jurado Civil Law Reviewer) : If the Origin of the
reservable property is a brother or sister of the half blood, the common parent or
ascendant must always be considered. If the common ascendant is the father, the
property is reserved only for the relatives on the fathers side; if the common
ascendant is the mother, the property is reserved only for the relatives on the
mothers side.
Jojo is entitled to the lot. He is not only a relative of Onofre within the third
degree; he also belongs to the line from which the reservable propert came.
Therefore, he alone shall be entitled to the property.

Persons and Family Relations, Property and Wills and Succession Questions 2016 Bar Exam (Suggested Answers)

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Persons and Family Relations, Property and Wills and Succession Questions 2016 Bar Exam (Suggested Answers)

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS, PROPERTY AND

WILLS AND SUCCESSION QUESTIONS

Abesamis, Catabian, Diamitas, Gammad, Lozada, Ongleo, Ravago