I.

(a)

The marriage between Leandro and Tahiquo and that of Lily and Lorenzo are both void.

Under the Family Code, a subsequent marriage while a first marriage subsists is generally a
marriage void ab initio. An exception is when the spouse in the first marriage is declared
presumptively dead. Presumption of death occurs when the other spouse has not been heard of
for at least four (4) years and the spouse present has a well-founded belief that his or her spouse
is dead. The four-year period, in cases where the other spouse is in danger of death is shortened
to two (2) years.

In this case, Leandro and Tahiquos marriage is void because Leandro has a subsisting marriage
with Lily at the time he contracted marriage with Tahiquo. The marriage between Lily and
Lorenzo is void as well because although Leandro has not been heard of for 2 years, Lily cannot
be said to have a well-founded belief of the death of Leandro because she only presented one
witness to prove that Leandro is missing or is in danger of death at that time.

Thus, the two marriages are both void for being bigamous marriages.

(b)

The judgment declaring Leandro dead is not proper.

Under the Family Code, in a case where the missing spouse is declared dead for the purpose of
remarriage, the spouse present must have a well-founded belief that his or her missing spouse is
dead. Such well-founded belief must be coupled with a due diligence in inquiring the
whereabouts of the missing spouse.

In this case, Lily only presented a sole witness to prove that Leandro has not been
communicating with them. Such testimony is not enough as the law requires a certain diligence
in looking for the missing spouse and in proving that such spouse is presumptively dead.

Thus, the judgment declaring Leandro dead is not proper for lack of a well-founded belief.

(c)

In case Leandro caused the recording of his own reappearance, the three parcels of land acquired
by Lily and Lorenzo during their marriage would go to conjugal partnership or the community
property of the spouse Leandro and Lily.
Under the Family Code, property acquired by either party during a valid marriage belongs to the
conjugal partnership or community property of the spouses.

In this case, a valid marriage subsists between Leandro and Lily. The land acquired during the
bigamous marriage would then form part of the conjugal property or community property, as the
case may be.

II

Joses suit will not prosper.

Under the Law on Donations, a donation is a written contract that must comply with specific
formalities that must be complied with to be valid. Otherwise, such is a violation of the Statute of
Frauds and the donation is void. A deed of acceptance of such donation made by the donee must
also be in writing and must be made known to the donor during the life of the donor.

Here, Pedros text to Jose concerning the Alfa Romeo cannot be considered a valid donation
because it was not in writing as contemplated under the law. Joses acceptance, though in writing
and in the proper formalities required under the law is also not valid for it was made known after
the demise of the donor.

Thus, Joses suit will not prosper due to void donation.

III

If I were the judge, I would decide the case in favor of Pee Daf.

Under the Law on Sales, a double sale is committed when a thing or property is sold to two
different people. It is provided that in cases of double sales of real property, to ascertain the one
with a better right, one must first look who among the vendees has a) the registered title; b) in
case neither has no registered title, the one who took first possession; and c) if it cannot be
determined who among them took first possession of the property, the one who can present the
oldest title.

Here, there was a case of a double sale because a Contract to Sell, though not determinative of a
right over the land, Napu Les cannot be a buyer in good faith because such Contract to Sell was
still in force. Moreover, using the rule on double sales, Pee Daf has more right over Napu Les
due to his earlier possession of the land since both transactions were unregistered.

Thus, Pee Daf has more right of Napu Les over the land sold to them by the Spouses Limot.
 IV

(a)

The land is conjugal property.

Under the Family Code, in a Conjugal Partnership of Gains, the property acquired by spouses
during the marriage using conjugal funds shall form part of the conjugal property of the spouses.
Also included therein are the fruits and the income of each spouses separate property.

Here, the ownership of the said land was vested unto Kato during the marriage despite half of the
installments having been paid already when Kato was not married yet. The same was still
acquired using the conjugal funds and during the marriage of Kato and Kat. As such, the same
formed part of the conjugal properties of the spouses.

Thus, the land is considered conjugal property having been acquired during the marriage.

(b)

The bungalow also forms part of the conjugal property of the spouses.

The Family Code provides that the fruits and income of the separate and exclusive properties of
the spouses form part of the conjugal partnership of gains.

Here, the bungalow was constructed using the income from Katos farm which is his exclusive
property.

Hence, the bungalow is conjugal property.

(c)

No, Kimpy cannot compel partition of the bungalow and the land.

The Family Code provides that upon the death of one of the spouses, the property regime must
be dissolved, liquidated, and partitioned among the spouses in the event the surviving spouse
intends to remarry. Properties forming part of the conjugal partnership must be partitioned in
favor of the surviving spouse and the children, if any.

In this case, Kimpy cannot compel partition of the bungalow and the land because both form part
of the conjugal properties of the spouses and as such, only Kat is entitled to the right over what
to do with the properties after Katos death being his compulsory heir.

Thus, Kimpy cannot compel partitions of these conjugal properties.

 V.

Bruce has a better right over the property.

Under the law, when a land is registered such registration shall serve as notice to the entire world
of its ownership. A title is also indefeasible and imprescriptible and as such, it cannot be defeated
even by possession. An innocent purchaser for value is protected by the Mirror Doctrine wherein
the contents of the title are presumed to be correct.

Here, Bruce is an innocent purchaser for value because he relied on the Original Certificate of
Title that was produced before he bought said land. He need not inspect every square meter of
the land to ascertain ownership. Meanwhile, Tanias contention that she has acquired ownership
by prescription cannot be countenanced because even if the same has not been transferred to
Bruces name, the same was still under the name of Selma. As such, Selma is still the owner of
the land.

Thus, Tania cannot be considered as having acquired ownership over the land.

VI.

(a)

As lawyer for Demi, I would counter the suit by saying that the obligation is not valid.

The Law on Obligations and Contracts provides that an obligation cannot be dependent upon the
will of the debtor alone, otherwise it is void.

Here, Demi, the debtor stipulated that she would pay the debt when she is able thus making the
fulfillment of the obligation dependent on her will.

The obligation being dependent upon the sole will of Demi, the same is void.

(b)

As lawyer for Polly, I would file a case for collection of a sum of money based on prescription
period to file an action.

Under the law, an action based on a written document must be brought within ten years.

Since only four years have lapsed, Polly can still claim on the promissory note because it is an
actionable document, and as such, Polly can file a suit for the recovery of a sum of money
against Demi based on the promissory note.
 VII

The government would have a preferential right over the P40,000,000.00 to pay for the taxes due
to the BIR.

Under the Law on Preference and Concurrence of Credits, the government has the right to
preference over the debt due to it for payment of taxes. Upon satisfaction of the debt to the
government, wages of workers has next preferential treatment, and so on and so forth.

In this case, the amount of P40 Million must first satisfy the taxes due to the BIR. If any amount
remains, it must be applied to the payment of the 6 months worth of wages to the workers, and if
any more remain, to the materials furnished for the construction of the building by Delta Builders
and materials from Altis Corporation.

Thus, the government has a right over the P40 M.

VIII

(a)

No, Nories reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship does not have an effect on the divorce decree
issued by the U.S. court. Neither should the petition for nullity be given due course.

Under the Family Code, when a Filipino and a foreigner are married, and the foreigner obtains a
divorce decree abroad, such divorce decree operates to sever the marriage ties and capacitates the
Filipino to remarry as well. However, the law also provides that such foreign divorce decree
must be presented in court for it to issue a declaration of nullity of marriage which would allow
the Filipino to then remarry.

Here, Norie was a foreigner when she obtained the divorce decree abroad and such divorce
decree takes effect on Norman as well. Nories reacquisition of Filipino citizenship does not
have any effect on the decree of divorce because it was already issued while Norie was still a
U.S. citizen.

As such, Nories reacquisition of Filipino citizenship has no effect on the divorce decree.

(b)

Norman is capacitated to remarry under Philippine Law.

The Family Code allows the Filipino spouse to remarry when a divorce decree is obtained abroad
by a foreigner spouse. However, for the divorce decree to take effect here, such foreign divorce
decree must be presented in court for it to issue a declaration of nullity of marriage which would
allow the Filipino to then remarry.
Here, Norman was not the one who obtained the divorce decree and Norie was already a
foreigner when she obtained the divorce decree. Such would allow Norman to remarry under
Philippine Laws.

Therefore, Norman is allowed to remarry under Philippine Laws.

IX

The Contract of Sale is not valid.

Under the law on Contracts, for a contract of sale of real property to be considered valid, the
same must comply with the Statute of Frauds. Meaning, the contract must be in writing
otherwise, the same would be unenforceable.

Here, the contract between Portia and Dina concerning a real property for a P2 Million
consideration is unenforceable because it was only an oral contract and it was not put into
writing as required by law.

Thus, the contract of sale between Portia and Dina is not valid for it not made in writing.

(a)

The Doctrine of Rebus Sic Stantibus pertains to a situation wherein both parties are returned to
their former status before the change in circumstance happened.

(b)

The contention of Daimos is meritorious.

Under the law, when a fortuitous event occurs, the parties are relieved of their obligations to each
other subject to the following conditions: a) that the debtor was not in delay in the fulfillment of
the obligation; b) that such fortuitous event was not due to the debtor nor its effects aggravated
by him; and c) that the fortuitous event was unforeseeable or if it was foreseen, it was
unavoidable.

Here, the present crisis between the US and North Korea is considered as a fortuitous event that
would warrant the non-fulfillment of the obligation as such crisis was unforeseen by both parties.

Thus, the contention of Daimos is meritorious.

 XI.

(a)

No, Felina is not barred from closing the pathway used by Felipe.

The law on Property with regard to easements provides that the owner of the servient estate may
close the right of way if he or she must use the land for improvements on the said property.

Felina can close the pathway and Felipe cannot compel Felina from doing otherwise. Also,
Felina offered to open another pathway that although longer, would still be considered as the
most accessible means to the highway without prejudice to they enjoyment of Felina over her
property.

Thus, Felina is not barred from closing the pathway used by Felipe.

(b)

No, Felipe cannot insist Felina from opening a new pathway that is shorter.

The law on Property requires that for a right of way to be valid, it must be the path that is most
accessible and most convenient for the owner of both the dominant and servient estates.
Jurisprudence qualified such to mean that it may not necessarily be the shortest route, but the
most convenient for the owners of both estates.

Here, Felipe cannot demand a shorter pathway if the same would be prejudicial to Felina and the
use of her property. If Felina opts to open a longer pathway that would be beneficial to both,
Felipe must follow the same.

Thus, Felipe cannot compel Felina to open a shorter pathway.

XII

(a)

No, the will should not be allowed.

Under the law on Wills and Succession, when a holographic will is presented for probated, if
uncontested, only one witness to prove the handwriting of the testatrix can be presented. If the
will is contested, the proponent must present three (3) witnesses to prove that the will was not
made while under the vices of consent and that the will is genuine and duly executed.
Here, the proponents only presented 2 witnesses even despite the will being contested. The law
requires 3 to prove that the same was not made during a period of undue influence by anyone and
to prove that the same was duly executed and genuinely made by the testatrix.

Thus, the will shall be disallowed for lack of witnesses to the probate of a holographic will.

(b)

My answer would be the same.

Under the law, if what is in issue is the genuineness of the testatrixs signature, the same number
of witnesses is required by law to be presented and if not, an expert witness to ascertain the
genuineness of such signature must be presented.

Here, it does not state that either of the witnesses are handwriting experts and even if they are
not, they are still lacking one more witness to prove that the will was made without undue
influence.

Thus, the will must be disallowed.

(c)

The requisites for the validity of a holographic will are the following:

1. It must be entirely written in the hand of the testator;

2. It must be dated;
3. It must be signed at the end by the testator; and
4. It must be in a language known to the testator.

XIII.

(a)

A real contract is a contract where the delivery of the object of the same perfects the contract
whereas a consensual contract is a contract wherein the consent of the parties perfects the
contract.

Tte types of real contracts are pledge, deposit, and commodatum where the delivery of the thing
itself perfects the contract. Meanwhile, consensual contracts are those contracts where consent of
the parties are required to perfect the contract. As such, all contracts are consensual contracts.

(b)

No, Dencio cannot sue Celso for specific performance

Under the law, a promise cannot be a proper object of a contract. An action cannot be made
against a failed promise more so if it is not in writing. A mere hope or expectancy cannot be
made the subject of a contract.

Here, Celso had every right to use the money other than to lend it to Dencio. Dencios hope that
Celso would fulfill his oral promise cannot be a basis for an action for specific performance.

Thus, Dencio cannot sue Celso for specific performance.

XIV

The will is valid.

The law provides that when a will is made by a foreigner and presented for probate here in the
Philippines, our Philippine courts would recognize those will made under the nationality law of
the foreigner or the law of domicile of the foreigner.

Here, the will was made using the law of Canada which is the domicile of John. As such, the will
is valid under Philippine laws and under the Doctrine of Processual Presumption.

Thus, the will having been made under Johns domiciliary laws, the same is valid here in the
Philippines.

XV

I would decide in favor of Tirso.

Under our land registration laws, when a land is registered such registration shall serve as notice
to the entire world of its ownership. A title is also indefeasible and as such it cannot be annulled
easily.

In this case, despite the simulated agreement between Tirso and Tacio, Tirso is the holder of a
valid title and he cannot be compelled to reconvey the land to Tacio by virtue of such simulated
agreement between them.

Thus, Tirso is the owner of the land.

XVI

(a)
The will should not be allowed by the Philippine court.

The Law on Wills and Succession provides that the national law of the decedent or the law
where the will was executed will be followed by our Philippine Courts to determine the validity
of the will for probate. However, where the intrinsic validity of the will is concerned, the
national law of the decedent follows.

Here, the laws of Thailand require four (4) witnesses; however, Torcuato was only able to
produce three. It is not valid in Thailand. In the Philippines, the law requires three (3)
witnessesm, however, none of them should be heirs, legatees or devisees of the decedent. Here,
one of the witnesses, Ted is a legatee and as such, he is disqualified from being a witness to the
will.

Thus, the will is not valid for not complying with the laws of neither Thailand nor the
Philippines.

(b)

Ted should inherit in view of his institution as an heir in the will of Torcuato.

Under the Law on Succession, when heirs are instituted, they are called to the succession only
after the satisfaction of the legitimes of the compulsory heirs. If after the satisfaction of the
legitimes of the compulsory heirs there is a remaining balance, the same shall be given to the
legatees instituted in the will.

Here, Ted is a legatee, with personal property given to him as inheritance. As such, he can inherit
but subject to the balance that would remain in the estate of Torcuato.

Thus, Ted shall be allowed to inherit.

XVII.

I would tell Cocoy to use the right of excussion.

The right of excussion exists as a remedy wherein the unpaid surety can exhaust the properties of
the debtor to satisfy the debt.

Here, Cocoy can point out the properties of Dencio since the latter has already absconded. The
benefit of excussion can be used by Cocoy to satisfy the debt of Dencio.

XVIII
Clay has a better right over the land.

Under our land registration laws, when a land is registered such registration shall serve as notice
to the entire world of its ownership. A title is also indefeasible and as such, it cannot be defeated
even by possession. Moreover, the law on sales provides that in cases of double sales of real
property, to ascertain the one with a better right, one must first look who among the vendees has
a) the registered title; b) in case neither has no registered title, the one who took first possession;
and c) if it cannot be determined who among them took first possession of the property, the one
who can present the oldest title.

Here, Clay satisfies the requirements of registration even if the lot was subsequently sold to him
after being sold to Braxton. Clay has the benefit of the indefeasibility of the Torrens title he
acquired upon his registration of the land.

Thus, Clay has a better right over the land.