Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
(A) exclusive appellate ju sdiction ovcr ail cases decided Arlz and Paz were afficemates at Perlas ng Silangan
bjr the Labor Arbiter er,,k ipser. r n"l l.ll in love $ rd I ea'h or hF' dld hall a I rhe rvrl
(B) exclusiwe appellate jurisdictjon over all cases decided 1"J.r,"..r. \rediine \,'leanq rt!]"' Paz rapidh 'lrmlrFdVl'e'
.o,o.*," f.aa", ol pSS ana elenlrraUl bF|nme rts
bv Regional Directors or hearing officers involvilg the isor{'
Presidpnr, while Arrz remained one of irs bark suoer\
recoverv ofwages and other moDetary claims and bene-
fits arisins from employer-employee relations. wherc was short of tweive (12) units to 6nish his
"iir1""*r,'n.
Masteri of Business Administration (MBA) degree'
the aggregate money claim of each does not exceed five
thousand pesos tPs,000) Ariz became envious of the success of his wife' He
(g original jurisdictior to act as a cornpulsory arbitration staited drinking alcohol until hc becamc a drunkard
body over labor dispLrtes certi{ied to it b}' the Regional H. nreterred lo lorn his bakddas: becamc a B iJe bedl']:
Dir-ectors f,ut, his;hildrFn \\tlhort an\ rea'orr: dnd fail'd 'o
"n"fa
,-'ririrr",. to the needs of th.] familv Despite lehabilita-
{D) po(c o issu. d IaLor iniun, ,ion
iion a1.ld consultation with a psychiatrist, his ways did not
change.
--'-,q?a..
SUGCESTED ANSWERj rS years of marriage, Paz, a devolrt Catholic'
ae.ia.d to have their mal,iage an'ulled by the chulch'
(C) original jurisdiction to act as a compulsory arbitra- ihrcueh the testimony of Paz a.I]d a psychiatrist' it was \ivas
found"that Ariz was a spoiled brat in his youlh alrd
tion body ovei labor disputes c€rtified to it by the
sometimes invoived in brawls. In his teens, he iv'rs
once
Regioral Dircctors (Art. 129, Labor code). to his violent
..i*r'.a t" a psychiatrist for treatment due Matrimo-
i""a.".i.s- tn due time, the National Appellate Ariz and Paz
i'it"""r (NAMT) airnulled the union of
"i"i
J". io tlr" faiiure of Ariz to perform and
-lr""u."a fulflll his duties
iJ" ..a .. a Iathel-to their children' The NAMI
corrcfuaea tlat it is for the best interest of Paz' Adz and
-'--ll.'children to have the marriage aDnulled'
their
of the NAMT decision, Paz decided to file a
"i"*
Petiiion for Declaration of Nutlitv of Marriage oI their
civil
u.fo* u]. B"eional 1 rial cou rr (R fcl ot N4akali Cirv
".iai""
,,.r"" ii. r'te,,ilr derriion ard (he sane evrLlP'r'e addu'cd
,n t-Iie.hurch annulmenl pro'eedings as basis'(5oo)
SUGGES?ED A.II/SWENI .
No, I will ,lot grant the petittorx lor aleclaration of C spin dnrd lestate and was sunived by Ale)r and
dullity of ,,raIriage. Josine, his children lrom his first ivife; Rene and Ruby, his
r^ Republic r. .Itolina (C.R. No. 108763, Febma"y children from his second sife; arxl A1la11. Bea, al]d Cheska,
13, 19971, the Supreme Court ruleil that *hile the his children from his third lvife.
interyretatiors given by the National AppeUate Matri- One important provision in his s,ill reads as follo{'s:
monial T.ibuaal (NAJITI ol the Catholic Church ia the
Philippiaes should be givea great r€spect by our courts, "Ang lupa al bol Lall si Lungsod tlg MaAnilct
they are ,rot co[tro[tng or dectsive. Its inte?p?etation all ililipat at ilaLaftaA sa patrgaLan tlila Alex ot
is llot conclusive otr the coults. The courts are stiU Retue llindi bilanr! pamana ko sa lianlla kan.li
?equlred to make thetu own determiDatioa as to the upa g pamahalaan at pangalagaan latwq
Ine ts of the case, aEd rely solely on the fiadirg of nikl at t\arg ang sittutn.cln sa aking mgo anak.
the NA.trIT. 'rot
sanpu 4t akitg mga apo at kaaPuaPlll.t
It has beeu beld that psychological incapacity as a ko sa lubang panahon, aa nlau tutulu!)an
ground for rullifyirg a marriage is confined to the most kutlg tngnatnis tLa tnag oraL sa Maqnikl .)
setious cases of personality disorders clearly de,non- sa k&lapit na mga tulqsod-"
strative of an utter irseusitivity or irability to give
eeantng and sigriffcarxce to ,narriage. The thr€e €sse!- ls the provjsion valid? (4%,
tlal requisites iE order for psychological lncapacity to
be appreciated are: 1) giavity, 2) juridical antecen- SUGCESTED AIVSWER..
delce, and 3) incurability. Ir the preseit case, there
was no showirg that the psychological incapacity was The prowisioa imposirg the indivisior ofthe property
€xistirg at the time of the celebration ofthe marriage. "habaDg parrahon" i3 invalid. In Santiago o. So.nti.lgo
(G.R. No. 179a59, August 9, 2O1Ol, a siro,iliar provision
appears in the will of the testator. In that case, the Court
ruled that it is clear that the testator itrteaded the house
aud lot in Manila be trausfeffed in petitioners' names fot
administratior purposes only, atrd that the property be
ovaed by the heirs in common. Eowewer, the same case
ruled that the condition set by the decedert on the proP-
erty's indivisibility iE subject to a statutory limitation
provided by Article 1083 of the Civil Code which states
that the period of ttrdtvistoa imposed by a testator shall
not exceed tweDty years. Although the Civil Code ts silent
as to the effect of the indtvistotr of a property for lnore
thalt tweaty yea$, it would bc contrary to public Policy
to sarrctior co-ownership beyoad the period expressly
mandated by the Civil Code. Thus, the provisiorr leavi[g
the admirGtratiorl of the house and lot tr Madla to Alex
atrd Rene ts vatid but the p"ovisiorl imposing the indi-
vislo[ of the plop€rty 'habar4 panahon' is inva]id as
to the excess beyoad tw€nty years, it being contrary to
S(JGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAiIINATION
66 SUGGESTED ANSWERS TOTHE 2014 BAR EXAMINATION
CIViL LAW
67
QUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW QUESTIONS
';i
SUGGES?ED E]VSIYER;
v. vI.
What is the effect of preterition? (1%) Miko and Dirrah started to live together as husband
and wife without the beneflt of mariage in 1984. Ten (10)
{Ai rr dnnuls rl-e devise anJ le8dc\ years after, they separated. ln 1996, they decided to live
(B) it annuls the institution of heir logether agaiD, and in 1998, they €:ot marjed.
(C) it reduces the devise and legacy On February 17, 2001, Dinah f,lc.l a cornplaint for
(D) it partially anruls the institution ofheir clcclaraijon of mrllit) of her marriage lvith Miko on the
ground of psJchological incapacity under Alticle 36 of the
Family Code. The court rendere.l the follo$'ing decision:
SUGGES?T' AffSWER;
1. Declaring the marrjage nuli and void;
lB) it anuuls the institutlou of heir 2. Dissolving the regime ofabsolute communily
of property; ar-rcl
3. Decl.rring thal a decree o, absolute nlrlit, of
mar:riage shalt only be issuecl aller liquidation,
partition and dislributlon of the parties' proper-
lies under Article 147 ofthe !'amily Code.'
SUGGES?ED AIVSWERI
{B) What is the liability, if any, of the Hotel for the loss of
Cris' car?
SUGGES?ED AIVSWEN..
SUCGESTED AIIISI,UEN;
tro
The allegatiod of Ruth ls unteDable' There wes
to het, the wordirg of the letter
'rrtt if
t.flr-."f
"ff.real a nere offet to s€ll ot lease
""'i.i -".t be toconsidered
"--i ar oPtton o.buy.
wtth
Juae 14'
si^.n"" Rigos (G'R' o' L-25494'e unilateral
19;1. the Court heid that in orde' that
;.'rs" ; buv or to sell raev be bitrding upon thc
I"-ii.r. a'uJr. 1479 of the civil code requlreE that
Iiia -"ir*" be suPPorted bv a consideratlor distinct
ir"-'tn. p.... Thl-proraisot caarot be coT Peled to
-ith the prJmke , unless the eristerce of a
";;;
;;;ft:Jtr"" distinct ftoE the Pdce is established'
inin. pr"".ot casc' thet€ rr'3 ro valueble or hdePen_
dent cinstderatior, thus, lt Gainot be classlfrGd as a
SUGGESTEDANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAMINATION
76 SUCG ESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAMINATION
77
QUESTIONS IN CIVILLAW OUESTIONS IN CIVIL LA\II/
lfyou are the judge, hor.\,vi11 rou decide the case;') ('1%)
SUGGESTED AIVSTYER:
x- xr-
Dorotea leased portions ofher 2,OO0 sq.m. lot to Monet, An eascmeit that can be acquired by prescriptioti: (1%)
Kathy, Celia, and Ruth for five (5) years Two (2) years
befor€ the expimtior1 ol lhe lease contnact, Dorolea sotd the (A) risht of u.ay
prcperty to PM Realty and Development Corporation. The (B) s-aterins of an animal
folowing morlth, Dorotea and PM Realty slopped accepting (C) Iateral and subjacent support
rcntal pa),rnents from all the lessees because they wanted to (D) lisjrt and view
terminate the lease contr:acts.
Due to the relirsal of Dorotea to accept rcnlal payments, SUGGES?TD EJvSIryER:
the lessees, Ruth, et al., fi1ed a comptaint 1br consisration of
the rentals before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ot Maniia {D) lieht afld vierl/
\ ilhoLrt nolrrvinB Do, olea.
SUCGES"ED EJ\TSwER:
x[. XIII.
llsteban and Maltha had foLrr ('1) cblklren: Rolando,
J.C. Construction (J.C.) bought steel bars from Matib.ry ,lun, Mark, and Hector. Rolando had a d.ughter, Edith,
Steel lndlrstries (NISI) \ihich is ov,,ned by Buddr" Batuns uhitc Marl had a son, Plrilip. Alter the dcath of Esteban
bacal. J.C. failed to pay the purchased materials worth and Martha, iheir illree (3) parcels o1 land wert adjudl-
t'j500,00O.00 on due datc. J.C. persuaded its client Amoroso cated to Jlrr. Alter thc death of..ILrn, the properties passed
with whom it had reccivables to pay its obligalion to MSI lo his suni\.irs spousc Anjta, aD.t son Ces.r Whcn.Anita
Amotoso agreed and paid MSi thc arnount of P5O,0O0.OO. died, her share went to her son Cesar. Ten (10) Ye.us after,
After two (2) other payments, Amoroso stopped makiDla Cesar died intestate without arly issue. Peachy, Anita's
further payments. sistcr, adjudicated to hcrself the properti.s as Lhe only
tluddy filed a complaint lor collection of the balance oI surviving heir of Anita and Cesat. Edith and ]'hjLip \['ould
the obligatiolr and damages against -I.C. J.C. denied an! like to recover the properties claiming that they should
liability ctanning that its obligation was cxtinguished bv have bccn reservcd by Peachy in thcir behulf and lrtust
reason of novation xhich took place \l-hen MSI accepLM n.w r.v.rt ba.k to thenr.
partial payJnents from Amoroso o, its behall
ls the contcntion of DditLI and Philip valxl? ("1'L)
Was the obli8ation of J.C. Construction to iUSI extin
euished by novation? Why? (4%) SUCGES?ED IIVSWE-R..
Article 891of the Civil Code prcvides that the percon xrv.
obliged to resewe the property should be an ascendart.
Peachy is not Cesar's ascetdant but a aere collatersl A pedestrian, \r'ho \ras lour (4) months pregnant, \{as
lelative. hit by a bus driver while crossing the stleet. Altlrcugh
the pedestria,r sun'ived, the fetus inside her womb r.as
aborted- Can the pedestrian recover darnages oo account
of the death of the Ietus? (1%)
(A) Yes, because of Article 2206 of the Civii Codc which
allows the suNiving heirs tc demand damages Ior
mental al]guish bv reason oftbe death ofthe dcccased.
(B) Yes, for as long as the pedestlian can prove that she sas
not at fault and the bus driver was the one negligent.
(.) No LF.ausc d [FrLr\ rs nnr d nJrurr. persor.
(D) No, if the fetus did not comply Eith the .eqLrirenrents
under Article .11 of the Civil Code-
SUGGES?ED /NSIYER;
xv. SCRA 3a2)- ID this case, neithet any showing that the
apparert sigD ofthe easetnent was temoved before the
Mr. Bong owns several properties in Pasig City. He sale on pubtic auction, ,lot that there was an agreem€nt
decided to build a condominium ramed Flores de Manila that the easement will no loage, continue; hence, the
in onc of his lots. To fund the proiect, he obtained a loan entitlelreat ol FMI to the easel ent subsists.
from the National Bark (NB) secured by a.eal estate rnort
gage over the adjoining property which he also owred.
During construction, he built three (3) pumps on the
mortgaged property to supply water to the condominium.
After one (r) year, the projcct $as completed and the
condominium was tumed over to the buyers. Hor,vever,
Mr. Bong failed to pay his loan obligation to NB. Thus, NB
foreclosed the Eortgaged propertl where the pumps were
installed. During the sale on public auction of the mort-
gaged propeity, Mr. Simon won in thc biddins. Whcn Mr.
Sjm.,fl attempted lo take possessio. of tne prope.ty, the
condominiurn owners, irho in the meantime constituted
themselves into Flores de Manila Inc. (FMI), claimed that
thcy have earlicr Eled a case for the declamtion olthe exis
tencc ofan easement before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Pasig City and prayed that the easement be annotatc.l
in the title oI the property toreclosed by NB. FMI further
clainled that lvhen Mr. Bor1g installed thc punps in his
adiorning pr.t,.Il\. a volur)rary pds.men, !\ns con\rr,u,ed
in favor of l'ML
SUGGE,S?ED -4]VSWERI
xvl. (Bl Since it does not conre withia the Pureiew ofhidde'l
A congregation for religious women, by way of commo, treasure, the spouses Maruel have the right to claim
dlrlum. rs Lsing rhe,edl properrv ownclt and i"gi","*a in ownerchip over the chest as well as its coatents'
the name of Spouses Manucl as a rer.cat house.
Maria, a helper of the congregation discovcrecl a chest
in the backvard. Wtren she opcned the chest, it contained
several pieces ofjewelry and money. (49l")
SUCGETSIZD IcTVSWEX..
ALTERNATIVE A}{SWER:
XVII. xvlu.
On March 30, 2OOO, Mariano died ifltestate and \ras Spouscs N,lagtanggc'l managed and operaied a gaso
survived by his wife, Leonora, and child.eu, Danilo and tine station on a 1,000 sq.m. loi which thel leased Irom
Carlito. One of the properties he teft was a piece of 1an.t in Francisco Bigla a{ra. Thc cort.act was for a period ofthree
Alabang (,here he built his residenLial house. (3) years. When the coniract explred, Francisco asked the
After his bu aI, Leonora alrd Mariano's children extra spouses to peacefully vacate the premises. The sponses
judicially settlcd his estate. Therealter, Leonora and Danilo iHDored the denrand aDd continucd with the operatior of
advised Carlito of their intention to partitiorr the propefl.y. the gasolirre station.
Carlito opposed i voking Article 159 of the Family Code. One month after. Francisco, lvith the aid of a group of
Carlito alleged that since lis minor child Lucas srilt residcs armed c . caused tlre closure ol the gasoline statioD by
in the premises, the familt'home continues untilthat minor constructing fences around it.
beneficiary becomes of age. w.rs the act ofFrancisco and his men la\,|'ful? whv? (4%)
SUGG6STED AIVSTEN; No, the act of FBtrcisco and his men were not
la-ful. Even whetr one has a ?ight, such as the tight to
No, the cortention of Carlito is not tetrable. In the enjoy his property atrd to exclude anyone else from the
case of Potr,cio ,. Dario (G.R. No. l7oa29, Novemb€r enjoyment of such' a petson can,rot take thc law unto
20,2006l, it was provided that to be a beneEciary of hia own hands and must still ffle the Proper actioir in
a family hose three requisites ,uust concur: (l) they court. Dveu though trraricisco had the dght to fence
rbust be elllong the relatiouships enumerated ir Articte hls property as part of his dght to e Jov it' Spouses
154 of the Family Code; (21 th€y live in the faBily Magtanggol ere covered by Art.539 which provides
hode, alrd 13) they a?e dependent for legal support that every possessol has a ,ight to be respected irr his
uporr the head ofthe family. Irx the salal case, the parti- possessior despite the laPse of theit lease. Although
tion ol a family home is allowed desplte the objection there is no apParent force or intirnidatio! emPloyed,
on the ground that a tnirlo" graldchild stlU reslales feDciag ofi the Property nrould Prevent sPouses
itr the prel ises. Although the first two requisites are Magtaaggol from elterirg aad possessing the property'
ptesent iD this case, the third is lacking because Lucas, The proper tecourse of Francisco is to lnvoke the aid
the grardchild, is ,rot dependent for legal support upor of a competeat court arld nb an actio[ for unlawful
Lis grandparents vhich ts the head of the famlly who
cotstituted the family home in tbis case. Lucas still has
pa.ents who are legaUy obliged to support him. Thus,
he cannot be deem€d as dependeot foi legal support
upor the head ofth€ family, trho is Mariano.
GGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAMINATION
90 SU
OUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW
SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAMINATIO,{
OI]ESTIONS IH CIVIL LAW
9l
. xrx. xx.
who enjovs the Righl. ot Retentiont' (l'l.)
Mabulr.ry ttlcrn{)rlar\'- School organizecl a lleld ir+ tbr
(A) depositarv until full payirent of $.hat nav be due hinr its Crade Vl strLdeDls irl Irort S rtiaco. MalJla Zoo. ar.l
Star Citv- To be alre r(, joln, the parents oi th(: sludcnts
(B) lessee if he advanc{)s lhc cxpenscs for the r-epai( oI the hLrd io srgn a piece olpaper that re:r.ls as {ollows:
leased premises
(C) l)ailee if bailor owes him something 'l .rllow nrl child {Darnc o{ siudent).
(D) builde. in bad faith for lhe recovery of reccssart and Gr.L.lc S.(tior, lo toi1l the school's fiel(t
uselul erpenscs 1ip ofl Fcbmal.| l.+, 2Ol.+. I lvill not file l1 r}
clajm asainst the school, adminislr.ll.n o1
SUGCESTEI) ENSWj9R.' teacher in case s.,mething happens io y
child during the irip.'
(A) depositary until full payment of what ,tlay be due
him in deposit .r .). , / \,,,r ot,t ctLrd.lr o \4d , rnd. 1.,, r,r'Irdr.
School wzrs bitlerl by.r snakc $hi1c the g.oup !'.Ls touring
lNote: Letter C witl <ttso be correct if "o1oes hlr,r Manila Zoo. The parents o, Joey sued (lte school lor
sonething" reJers to ddddges (Attiele 7944 itu reld" damagcs. The school, as a defense, preseut.d llte $aiver
tiol to Art. 19s7)-l signcd l)y Joq's par ents.
SUGGESTED AATSWER..
xxl' xxII.
On March 27, 1980, Cornelio EIed an applicalio iar
A delaycd accessiorl is: (1%) land regislralion invotving a parcel of ,gricultural tand
that he had bolrsht from lsaac jdentifled as t/)t No. 271a1
(4 lbrmation ol an island with an area olone (1) hectarc. During the trial, Corl clic'
{B) avulsion claimed that he and his predecessors in interest had been
{C) alluvium in open, continrnnrs, uninternrplcd, publi. and adverse
(D) change jn the course of the riverLred possession and occupaln)u of tbe land ior more tharl thirly
(3O) years He likewise introduccil in evidence a certil'lca
suGcEsTED etvswln.. tion dated l-ebrLrarv 12, 1981 cithg a presidential declara
tion to the effect that on June 14, 1980, agdcullxral lands
(B) avulsion of lhe pubiic domain, including the subject maller o{ thc
appli.ation, were declared alienable .rnd disposable zrsri
cultural land. (4%)
(A) Il you arc the iudge, will you grant the application for
Ian.l registration of Comelio?
iB) Can Comelio acquire said agricull.ural land throuqh
acquisilivc p.escription, r'hether ordjDarv or
SUGGESTE,,JVSWER;
SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO T HE 2014 BAR EXAMINAIION SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAMINATION 95
94 QUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW QUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW
xxrv. xxv.
Ted, married to Arrnie, went to Canada to work. Irive Ma o exccuted his IaSt $ill and testarncnt where he
{5) vears latel, Ted became a naturalized Canadian citizen. acknowledges the child being conceived by his li\'e in
He returned to the Philippines to convince Anrie to settle partner Josie as his o!!n child; and that his house and lot
iD Canada. Unfortunately, led discovered that Annie and in Daguio City be given to his unbom concelved child. Are
his friend Louie were haying an aflair. Deeply hurt, Ted the acknowledgment and the donation mortis causa valid?
rcturned to Canada and filed a petition for divorce which why? (4%)
was granted- In Decernber 2013, Ted deci.led to marry his
childhood ftiend Corazon i1 the Phiiippines. In prepara SUGG&S?ED AJVSIYER..
tion for the rveddinB, Ted went to the lrcal Civil Resistry
of Quezon City where his marriage contract with Annie The acktrowledgmert ofthe urborrx child is effective
was legistered. He asked the Civil Register to annotate because a wlll laay still constltute a document which
the dccree of divorce o.r his mardagc contract s.ith Annie. contairis 3n admission of ilegitimate filiatior- The
However, he was advised by the National Statistics OIfice donation to tbe coaceived child is also valid provided
(NSO) to file a petition Io.judicial recognition of the decree that the child is born later on and that it coEply with
of dil orce in lhe Philipphes. the formalities required of a wiU (Articre 728, Clt'il
Code). A fetus has a presumptive Personality for al
Is it Decessary for Ted to flle a petition forjudicial recog- purposes favonble to it Provided lt be born under the
nition ofthc dccree ofdivorce he obtained in Canada before con.lttiors sPeciffed in Article 41. Howewer, thete has
he can contract a second mariage in the Philippines? l4%) to be compliance with the formal requisites for a valid
last lrill and testament.
SUCGESTED EIVSWER..
XXVIII. xxrx.
Spouses Esteban and Maria decided to raise their rwd
minors, as thef own chil
(2) nieces, Faith and Hope, both 'l'jmothy executed a Memorandunr oI Agreemcnt (MOA)
dren after the parents of rhe minors rlied in a vehicular $.ith I'/\ristopher setting up a business verture covering
ihree (3) ,astfood stores known as "llungry Toppings'that
Ten (10) years after, Esteban died. Maria later on \\,ill be established at Mail tJn.J, Mall Dos, and Mall'lres.
married her boss Daniet, a British national who had been The pertinent provisions of the MOA provide:
living ilr the Philippi.es lor r\(rc (2) years.
With dre permission ofDaniet, Maria fited a petition for l Timothy shal1 bc considered a partnel lvith Lhidy
the adoption oI Faith and Hope. She did not j clude Daniel perccnl (3o%) share jn all of the stores io be set Ip by
as her co-petitionei' beriause fo. Maria, it was her former Kristophcr;
husband Esteban who raised rhe kids. 1,1%) 2. The proceeds of the business, after deductjDg
cxpenses, shall be used to pay the principal amount
Ifyou are the judge, how will you resotve the perition? of tr500,000.OO and tlxr interest therein whiclt is to bc
computed based on thc bank rale, represerting ihe
SUGGESTED E,NiSWER.. bank loan secured by Timothv;
3- The net profits, ifany, after deilucting the expenses and
I wiU deny the petition for adoption. Accoflting paymcnis of tbe principal and interest sha1l be div ed
to R.A. a552 or the DoEestic Adoption Act of 199A, as rollows: scvcntv pcrccnt (7o%) lor ltristophcr ard
a husband and wife must jotntly adopt except ln the thjrty percent (30%) Ior Timoth],;
followitrg cases: 1l tf oae spouse seeks to adopt the .1. Kristopher sha1l have a iiee hand in rurnnE 1he busi
legitidate child of the other; 2) tf ode spouse seeks to ness withoutanv i11telfelence lrotu TiEothy, lris .1geilts,
a.lopt his/her ow,r iuegitiBate child, providcd that th€ represeDlalives, or assiens, and should such interfer-
other spouse sigtrified theft consert thereto; or O) lf cnce happen, Kristopher has the right to buy back ihe
the spouses arc legally sepatated frotn each other, share ofTimothy less the amounts alreadl paid on thc
In this case, sirce Da[iel and lllada do not faU principal and to dissol\.e the MOA; and
under aay of the exceptions enurnerated above, they 5. Kristopher shall submit his monthly sales rcport in
rlrust joirxtly adopt as required by law. coinection with the business to limo1hv.
SUGCES?ED AIVSIT'ER..
SUGGESTED AI\ISWER..
SUGGESTED ATVSTVER: