You are on page 1of 46

2009 CIVIL LAW PART I I TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false.

Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%) The doctrine of "processual presumption" allows the court of the forum to presume that the foreign law applicable to the case is the same as the local or domestic law. In reserva troncal, all reservatarios (reservees) inherit as a class and in equal shares regardless of their proximity in degree to the prepositus. An oral partnership is valid. An oral promise of guaranty is valid and binding. A dead child can be legitimated.

jor_el wrote: a. TRUE. Under the doctrine of processual presumption, where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the same as Philippine law.

b. FALSE. In reserva troncal, the reservatarios inherit in accordance with the rules of intestacy. Thus, there is a preference, first between lines, and within each line, the nearest in degree excludes the more remote.

c. TRUE. As a general rule, the form of a contract of partnership is immaterial to the validity of the partnership (Article 1771, Civil Code). The exception is where real property or rights to real property are contributed to the partnership in which case the contract of partnership must be in a public instrument.

d. TRUE. Since the law only requires that the contract of guaranty be express but does not provide that it be in writing, then an oral promise of guaranty is valid. However, under the Statute of Frauds, a promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another (which includes guaranty) must be in writing; otherwise, it is unenforceable unless ratified.

e. TRUE. The Civil Code (Article 181) speaks of legitimation of children who died before the celebration of the marriage. The legitimated dead childrens descendants are entitled to benefit from such legitimation.

It is the Family Code which so provides, not the Civil Code.

jor_el wrote: again, xerxes shows his perceptiveness. It is Article 181 of the Family Code which provides that: Quote: Art. 181. The legitimation of children who died before the celebration of the marriage shall benefit their descendants. Nonetheless, the above provision was taken from Article 274 of the Civil Code which provides: Quote: Art. 274. The legitimation of children who died before the celebration of the marriage shall benefit their descendants. Thus, both under the Civil Code and the Family Code, the answer to the question will be TRUE.

Art 274 of the New Civil Code had been amended by the FC. Hence, it is the FC which governs legitimation of children although both NCC and FC with respect to the provisions of law have the same wordings. But for purposes of citation, FC shall govern being the amendatory law. a. TRUE. Under the doctrine of processual presumption, where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the same as Philippine law.

b. FALSE. In reserva troncal, the reservatarios inherit in accordance with the rules of intestacy. Thus, there is a preference, first between lines, and within each line, the nearest in degree excludes the more remote.

c. TRUE. As a general rule, the form of a contract of partnership is immaterial to the validity of the partnership (Article 1771, Civil Code). The exception is where real property or rights to real property are contributed to the partnership in which case the contract of partnership must be in a public instrument.

d. TRUE. Since the law only requires that the contract of guaranty be express but does not provide that it be in writing, then an oral promise of guaranty is valid. However, under the Statute of Frauds, a promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another (which includes guaranty) must be in writing; otherwise, it is unenforceable unless ratified.

e. TRUE. The Civil Code (Article 181) speaks of legitimation of children who died before the celebration of the marriage. The legitimated dead childrens descendants are entitled to benefit from such legitimation. _________________ Fiat justitia ruat coelum. ++++++++++ 1. FALSE. the doctrine of processual presumption arises when the foreign law is not alleged or even if alleged but not proved, then the domestic law presumes that it is the same as that of

the foreign law. it is not the other way around. in the given question, it shows that it is the foreign law that is to apply and shall be presumed to be the same as that of the domestic law. in other words, dapat ang makikisama eh ang foreign law. lols. 3. FALSE. the word express means that it is to be in writing. the only thing is, the CONTRACT of guaranty is not subjected to any form or solemnity before it becomes valid and binding. and the mere fact that in statute of frauds, if not in writing then unenforceable gave the impression that it may be valid.. but not yet binding.. eh di moreso if the oral PROMISE of guaranty is valid AND binding. and Art. 2055 states, A guaranty is not presumed; it must be express and cannot extend to more than what is stipulated therein. ahehe jor_el wrote: d. An oral promise of guaranty is valid and binding.

It is clear that the statement is asking if an oral promise of guaranty is valid AND binding, AND NOT if an oral promise of guaranty is only valid. Hence, False. jor_el wrote: d. TRUE. Since the law only requires that the contract of guaranty be express but does not provide that it be in writing, then an oral promise of guaranty is valid. However, under the Statute of Frauds, a promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another (which includes guaranty) must be in writing; otherwise, it is unenforceable unless ratified.

As far as i understand, the concept of guaranty is like that of an assumption of obligation of another person. hence, there must be a showing of an act of express consent from the guarantor. that is, it must be in writing. The purpose of guaranty is for the creditor's right to enforce an obligation upon the guarantor in default of the primary debtor. It must not only be valid but also binding. Mere validity is lacking to effect the creditor's right to enforce against the guarantor. peace! thanks sir jor-el... ayos ang paglapat mo ng tagalog. ahehe... may nahanap na kong jurisprudence about it. thanks talaga. ang hirap talaga pag wala na sa law school.. dami na nakakalimutan. hays.. d. An oral promise of guaranty is valid and binding. here naman the question pertains to the promise of guranty done orally. nag hahanap ako ng jurisprudence about sa argument mo na parang contract of guaranty does not need to be written. kasi nga for you, yung word na express does not mean it to be written... pero kasi ang buong sentence nun eh...Art. 2055 states, A guaranty is not presumed; it must be express and cannot extend to more than what is stipulated therein. so meaning, kelangan kung ano lang ang nakasulat dun, yun lang ang masusunod... guaranty being an

ancillary to the principal contract. ang alam ko ... kahit sa pambalot lang ng pandesal nakasulat yung guarantry... pwede na. basta kelangan nakasulat yung obligation ng guarantor. pero kung meron kang jurisprudence na alam.. paki post na lang dito.. thanks.. 1. TRUE, while foreign laws must be pleaded and proved, the court may, however, assume that the foreign law of the same as the law of the forum (processual presumption) in case of failure to prove and plead the proper foreign law; provided, however, that the case falls under any of the exceptions to the application of foreign law, i.e. when application of the foreign law may work undeniable injustice to the citizens of the forum. 2. FALSE, the Civil Code did not provide for the rules on how the reservatarios would succeed to the reservista (ascendant) and one rule on inestacy provides that the reservatarios are relatives to the 3rd degree and belong to the line from which the reservable property came. 3. FALSE, the essential features of partnership provides that there must be a valid contract. Art. 1784 of the Civil Code provides a partnership begins from the moment of the execution of the contract. 4. TRUE, an oral promise of guaranty are express warranties which may be valid and binding provided it complied with the requisites therefor. One is that the buyer purchase the subject matter relying on said oral promise. 5. YES, a dead child can be legitimated by the subsequent marriage of parents provided the action for which is filed within five (5) after his or her death and the child dies before reaching the age of majority. valid kontrak ba ang oral partnership?.. impliedly, yun ang tanong.. sabe sa art.1771,civil code: partnership may be constituted in any form ang verbal or oral form ba ay form of kontrak? PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:20 pm Post subject: Re: From a Freshman of PUNP Urdaneta City Reply with quote WRE10H wrote: 1. TRUE, while foreign laws must be pleaded and proved, the court may, however, assume that the foreign law of the same as the law of the forum (processual presumption) in case of failure to prove and plead the proper foreign law; provided, however, that the case falls under any of the exceptions to the application of foreign law, i.e. when application of the foreign law may work undeniable injustice to the citizens of the forum. 2. FALSE, the Civil Code did not provide for the rules on how the reservatarios would succeed to the reservista (ascendant) and one rule on inestacy provides that the reservatarios are relatives to the 3rd degree and belong to the line from which the reservable property came. 3. FALSE, the essential features of partnership provides that there must be a valid contract. Art. 1784 of the Civil Code provides a partnership begins from the moment of the execution of the contract. 4. TRUE, an oral promise of guaranty are express warranties which may be valid and binding provided it complied with the requisites therefor. One is that the buyer purchase the subject matter relying on said oral promise. 5. YES, a dead child can be legitimated by the subsequent marriage of parents provided the

action for which is filed within five (5) after his or her death and the child dies before reaching the age of majority. valid kontrak ba ang oral partnership?.. impliedly, yun ang tanong.. sabe sa art.1771,civil code: partnership may be constituted in any form Wink ang verbal or oral form ba ay form of kontrak? Wink +++++++++ it is true that art. 1771 says partnership may be constituted in any form. pag sinabing form, it entails something written. so di ko ma gets kung dun sa tanong mo if you are going for WRE10H's answer or dun ka sa TRUE. ahehehe.. but for me, there can be a valid oral contract of partnership. although it is stated, partnership may be constituted in any form, but it does not mean that it is only limited and can only be constituted in any form. partnership arises when two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves. so therefore, there can be oral contract of partnership as long as no real property or capital of 3,000 worth is contributed without accompanying public instrument. johnwong30 wrote: it is true that art. 1771 says partnership may be constituted in any form. pag sinabing form, it entails something written. so di ko ma gets kung dun sa tanong mo if you are going for WRE10H's answer or dun ka sa TRUE. ahehehe.. but for me, there can be a valid oral contract of partnership. although it is stated, partnership may be constituted in any form, but it does not mean that it is only limited and can only be constituted in any form. partnership arises when two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves. so therefore, there can be oral contract of partnership as long as no real property or capital of 3,000 worth is contributed without accompanying public instrument. sabe mo: pag sinabing form, it entails something written? hwaw! bago yan tol pag sinabing "form" yung concept ng "form" hinde automatically n eksklusibli dapat in writing.. ang form w/ reference to kontraks pwede oral pwede written at kung written pwede private document pwede notarial document.. yun ang concept ng form w/ reference to kontraks kaya nga kinukwestyon ko sagot ni WRE10H kase may objeksyon ako sa sagot nya hinde ako agree sa anser nya.. so TRUE anser ko by d way, valid pa ren oral kontrak of partnership kahet at least P3,000 or more ang kontribusyon sa partnership.. sabe sa art.1772, kahet di in public instrument or di narehistro sa SEC yung partnership liable pa ren ang parnership n d partners to 3rd persons.. d law speaks of d liability of d "partnership" n d "partners" ibig sabihen may partnership pa ren.. aderways, y speak of "partnership" n "partners"? consciouslymad wrote: johnwong30 wrote: it is true that art. 1771 says partnership may be constituted in any form. pag sinabing form, it entails something written. so di ko ma gets kung dun sa tanong mo if you are going for

WRE10H's answer or dun ka sa TRUE.

ahehehe..

but for me, there can be a valid oral contract of partnership. although it is stated, partnership may be constituted in any form, but it does not mean that it is only limited and can only be constituted in any form. partnership arises when two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves. so therefore, there can be oral contract of partnership as long as no real property or capital of 3,000 worth is contributed without accompanying public instrument. sabe mo: pag sinabing form, it entails something written? hwaw! bago yan tol pag sinabing "form" yung concept ng "form" hinde automatically n eksklusibli dapat in writing.. ang form w/ reference to kontraks pwede oral pwede written at kung written pwede private document pwede notarial document.. yun ang concept ng form w/ reference to kontraks kaya nga kinukwestyon ko sagot ni WRE10H kase may objeksyon ako sa sagot nya hinde ako agree sa anser nya.. so TRUE anser ko by d way, valid pa ren oral kontrak of partnership kahet at least P3,000 or more ang kontribusyon sa partnership.. sabe sa art.1772, kahet di in public instrument or di narehistro sa SEC yung partnership liable pa ren ang parnership n d partners to 3rd persons.. d law speaks of d liability of d "partnership" n d "partners" ibig sabihen may partnership pa ren.. aderways, y speak of "partnership" n "partners"? ++++++ aheheehe.. for me.. when the law says form, it entails something written. unless there is a jurisprudence on that or any authority to that respect, please post it here. thanks. and yeah.. i got it wrong nung sinama ko yung 3k unregistered sa dti/sec. ++++++++

II Dr. Lopez, a 70-year old widower, and his son Roberto both died in a fire that gutted their home while they were sleeping in their air-conditioned rooms. Robertos wife, Marilyn, and their two children were spared because they were in the province at the time. Dr. Lopez left an estate worth P20M and a life insurance policy in the amount of P1M with his three children --- one of whom is Roberto --- as beneficiaries. Marilyn is now claiming for herself and her children her husbands share in the estate left by Dr. Lopez, and her husbands share in the proceeds of Dr. Lopezs life insurance policy. Rule on the validity of Marilyns claims with reasons. (4%)

ganda ng mga sagot ni jor-el. ... for me, MARILYN CANNOT claim for herself for her husband's share in the estate of Dr. Lopez. wala

namang relasyon si marilyn at si dr. lopez. yung mga anak nila ang meron by right of representation. II Dr. Lopez, a 70-year old widower, and his son Roberto both died in a fire that gutted their home while they were sleeping in their air-conditioned rooms. Robertos wife, Marilyn, and their two children were spared because they were in the province at the time. Dr. Lopez left an estate worth P20M and a life insurance policy in the amount of P1M with his three children --- one of whom is Roberto --- as beneficiaries. Marilyn is now claiming for herself and her children her husbands share in the estate left by Dr. Lopez, and her husbands share in the proceeds of Dr. Lopezs life insurance policy. Rule on the validity of Marilyns claims with reasons. (4%) YES, the claim of Marilyn, both on the estate of the late Dr. Lopez and that of the insurance proceeds, is valid following the order of intestate succession and by representation, she, being the surviving spouse of the deceased Roberto, who, in turn, is one of the three (3) legitimate children of the deceased Dr. Lopez. I used this answer.

Marilyn cannot claim. Art. 43. If there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each other, as to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall prove the same; in the absence of proof, it is presumed that they died at the same time and there shall be no transmission of rights from one to the other. Marilyn cannot claim for herself and her children her husband's share in the estate left by Dr. Lopez. The persons who are called to succeed eachother were considered to have died at the same time, in the absence of proof that one died prior to the other. Therefore, there is no transmission of rights from Dr. Lopez to Roberto. Marilyn can claim for Roberto's share in the proceeds of Dr. Lopez's life insurance policy. This is not an issue of succession, rather an issue of survivorship. The Rules of Court shall apply in determining the survivorship. Dr. Lopez, being the older person, at 70, is considered to have died first. Therefore, the share of the proceeds of Dr. Lopez's life insurance has been transfered to Roberto. Please enlighten me, this is my answer: crack wrote: Marilyn cannot claim for herself and her children her husband's share in the estate left by Dr. Lopez. The persons who are called to succeed eachother were considered to have died at the same time, in the absence of proof that one died prior to the other. Therefore, there is no transmission of rights from Dr. Lopez to Roberto. Marilyn can claim for Roberto's share in the proceeds of Dr. Lopez's life insurance policy. This is not an issue of succession, rather an issue of survivorship. The Rules of Court shall apply in

determining the survivorship. Dr. Lopez, being the older person, at 70, is considered to have died first. Therefore, the share of the proceeds of Dr. Lopez's life insurance has been transfered to Roberto.

@Crack i agree with you. ito din ang answer ko.

chrisbarber5 wrote: I used this answer. Marilyn cannot claim. Art. 43. If there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each other, as to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall prove the same; in the absence of proof, it is presumed that they died at the same time and there shall be no transmission of rights from one to the other.

I agree with this one. Further, although Marilyn cannot claim her share in the estate, she is however entitled to receive the proceeds of the life insurance policy, provided the designation of Roberto is an irrevocable one. Otherwise, she cannot. Art 43 of the CC provides that when two persons are called to succeed each other, and it cannot be determined who died first, he who alleges the death of the other prior to the other shall prove the same, if it cannot be ascertained as to who died first, it will be presumed that they died at the same time and there shall be no transmission of rights. Therefore, Marilyn cannot inherit thru intestate succession from the estate of P20M. However, Marilyn can inherit from the share of Roberto as beneficiary in the life insurance of Dr. Lopez thru right of representation being the wife of Roberto. Quote: Dr. Lopez, a 70-year old widower, and his son Roberto both died in a fire that gutted their home while they were sleeping in their air-conditioned rooms. Robertos wife, Marilyn, and their two children were spared because they were in the province at the time. Dr. Lopez left an estate worth P20M and a life insurance policy in the amount of P1M with his three children --- one of whom is Roberto --- as beneficiaries. Marilyn is now claiming for herself and her children her husbands share in the estate left by Dr. Lopez, and her husbands share in the proceeds of Dr. Lopezs life insurance policy. Rule on the validity of Marilyns claims with reasons. (4%)

"Art. 43. If there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each other xxx in the absence of proof, it is presumed that they died at the same time and there shall be no transmission of rights from one to the other."

in this case, the children of roberto are called to the succession of Dr. Lopez directly by right of representation and not through their father roberto. marilyn's claim for herself must be denied because she is not a relative by blood to Dr. Lopez, hence she has no right to represent roberto. however, her claims for her children's share should be allowed. marilyn's children will inherit from Dr. Lopez by right of representation.

III In December 2000, Michael and Anna, after obtaining a valid marriage license, went to the Office of the Mayor of Urbano, Bulacan, to get married. The Mayor was not there, but the Mayors secretary asked Michael and Anna and their witnesses to fill up and sign the required marriage contract forms. The secretary then told them to wait, and went out to look for the Mayor who was attending a wedding in a neighboring municipality. When the secretary caught up with the Mayor at the wedding reception, she showed him the marriage contract forms and told him that the couple and their witnesses were waiting in his office. The Mayor forthwith signed all the copies of the marriage contract, gave them to the secretary who returned to the Mayors office. She then gave copies of the marriage contract to the parties, and told Michael and Anna that they were already married. Thereafter, the couple lived together as husband and wife, and had three sons. Is the marriage of Michael and Anna valid, voidable, or void? Explain your answer. (3%) What is the status of the three children of Michael and Anna? Explain your answer. (2%) What property regime governs the properties acquired by the couple? Explain. (2%)

jor_el wrote: a. The marriage of Michael and Anna is void ab initio. It lacked one of the formal requisites of marriage, a marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age. The law requires the presence of the solemnizing officer during the ceremony. Michael and Anna did not appear before the mayor because the mayor was not present in his office where the marriage was supposed to have been celebrated. As such, the marriage was not solemnized by the mayor.

b. Since the marriage was void ab initio, the three children were conceived and born out of wedlock. Hence, the children are illegitimate. They will remain so unless their parents, Michael and Anna, subsequently contract a valid marriage.

c. The property regime governing the properties acquired by Michael and Anna during their cohabitation is as follows: their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or

industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares. A party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former's efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household. Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of 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 their cohabitation.

a. same answer b. same answer c. The property regime that governs the acquired properties will depend upon what is agreed upon in the marriage settlement. In default thereof, absolute community of property shall govern. Where the old rule provides that it is the conjugal partnership of gains, the Family Code mandates that in the absence of any agreement as regards the property regime that is to govern the properties of the spouses during their marriage, absolute community of property shall govern. oo nga ano... susmaryosep... iba answer ko sa bar a. The marriage is valid. Under the Family Code, marriages solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages shall be void or voidable unless such marriages were contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so. From the facts presented it can be clearly seen that the contracting parties where both in good faith. It is also clear that the one who actually acted as solemnizing officer was the Mayor's Secretary which under the law is not authorized to do so. b. They are all Legitimate....................... c. absolute community of property................. true the contracting parties were in good faith but there had been no solemnizing of marriage.

In December 2000, Michael and Anna, after obtaining a valid marriage license, went to the Office of the Mayor of Urbano, Bulacan, to get married. The Mayor was not there, but the Mayors secretary asked Michael and Anna and their witnesses to fill up and sign the required marriage contract forms. The secretary then told them to wait, and went out to look for the Mayor who was attending a wedding in a neighboring municipality. When the secretary caught up with the Mayor at the wedding reception, she showed him the marriage contract forms and told him that the couple and their witnesses were waiting in his office. The Mayor forthwith signed all the copies of the marriage contract, gave them to the secretary who returned to the Mayors office. She then gave copies of the marriage contract to the parties, and told Michael and Anna that they were already married. Thereafter, the couple lived together as husband and wife, and had three sons. Is the marriage of Michael and Anna valid, voidable, or void? Explain your answer. (3%)

What is the status of the three children of Michael and Anna? Explain your answer. (2%) What property regime governs the properties acquired by the couple? Explain. (2%) +++++++ it is void. consent was not given in the presence of solemnizing officer. the three children are illegitimate. the propty. regime is co-ownership. ahm. asan naman ang good faith dun.. eh in the first place.. alam nilang secretary yung kausap nila. alam nilang mayor ang dapat na mag solemnize. + void ang marriage. illegitimate ang mga anak. CO-ownership ang mag go govern sa kanila. parang same as jor-el's answer @ jor-el's answer letter c: I think when the question asks what property governs, what it wants to elicit are any of the property regimes provided for in the Family Code: conjugal partnership, absolute community, complete separation of property.

jor_el wrote: The property regimes mentioned (absolute community of property, conjugal partnership of gains and complete separation of property) apply only to valid marriages. Here, the "marriage" of Michael and Anna is void ab initio. Besides, the property relationship of special coownership in case of unions without marriage is a property regime provided under the Family Code, particularly in Article 147.*

Woah...dko yata alam to...salamat, salamat! 1. It is VOID AB INITIO for lack of the essential requisite of marriage that consent freely given before the solemnizing officer and the formal requisite that there must be a marriage ceremony where the contracting parties appear before the solemnizing officer with their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age. 2. They are ILLEGITIMATE for having been born outside a valid marriage. It is only in cases when marriage is void as provided in Art. 36 and Art. 53 that the children may be considered legitimate. When Michael and Anna contracts a valid marriage, however, the children may be legitimated. 3. Art. 147 of the Family Code or co-ownership governs the property regime of Michael and Anna, both having no legal impediment to contract a valid marriage. OzqC wrote:

oo nga ano... susmaryosep... iba answer ko sa bar a. The marriage is valid. Under the Family Code, marriages solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages shall be void or voidable unless such marriages were contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so. From the facts presented it can be clearly seen that the contracting parties where both in good faith. It is also clear that the one who actually acted as solemnizing officer was the Mayor's Secretary which under the law is not authorized to do so. b. They are all Legitimate....................... c. absolute community of property.................

Ito rin ang answer ko. Based on logic, I was thinking, in real life situations, not everyone knows the strict formalities required in a marriage. There are some people who would assume and will just agree to anything that the secretary will tell them.

Anyway, just to give legal basis: a. Valid.The lack of marriage ceremony is only an irregularity, and those who are parties to the irregularity are administratively liable (the mayor should know the proper procedure). b. Children born out of a valid marriage are legitimate. c. In the absence of an agreement, absolute community. chrisbarber5 wrote: ...Based on logic, I was thinking, in real life situations, not everyone knows the strict formalities required in a marriage. There are some people who would assume and will just agree to anything that the secretary will tell them... pero ignorance of d law isn't a valid excuse di ba? sabe nga sa art.3,civil code: ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.. tapos under art.5,civil code: Art. 5. acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity... at art.4, family code: the absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio, except as stated in Article 35 (2).. iron_eagle wrote: pls refer 2 Orbecido Case para sa kwestyon na eto? di nga? pls refer agen to d kwestyon.. n to orbecido

hahaha...oo nga.. mali pala yung number na nilagyan ko ng orbecido case..hehehe..dapat #4 pala..churi..tanx

The issue is the essential requisite of a valid marriage, which in this case is the presence of a solemnizing officer. Art. 35(2) and mistake of fact are irrelevant.

hello crack and iron eagle! please do introduce yourselves muna sa GTKY section. thanks! a. The marriage is void for want of marriage ceremony as a formal requisite of marriage under A3 of the FC in relation to A4 of the FC and the absence of consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer as an essential requisite of marriage under A2 of the FC in relation to A4 of the FC. b. Children conceived and born of void marriages are illegitimate under A165 of the FC. c. Co-ownership under A147 of the FC of property regimes of union w/o marriages shall govern the property relations of the spouses due to a void marriage. In the instant case, there is cohabitation between spouses who have no legal impediment to marry each other. qualify first, don't assume. c. the property regime will either be 147, if the cohabitation has no legal impediment, 148 if there is a legal impediment. nowhere in the problem did the examiner stated that there is or there is no legal impediment in the cohabitation. bluet0ps wrote: qualify first, don't assume. c. the property regime will either be 147, if the cohabitation has no legal impediment, 148 if there is a legal impediment. nowhere in the problem did the examiner stated that there is or there is no legal impediment in the cohabitation.

so what is your answer? would you assume that there is legal impediment when there is no express mention as you said so? Quote: so what is your answer? would you assume that there is legal impediment when there is no express mention as you said so?

tama. i stand corrected. legal impediment, like bad faith, is NEVER presumed. nadala lang sa init ng discussion. haha! thanks!

IV Harry married Wilma, a very wealthy woman. Barely five (5) years into the marriage, Wilma fell in love with Joseph. Thus, Wilma went to a small country in Europe, became a naturalized citizen of that country, divorced Harry, and married Joseph. A year thereafter, Wilma and Joseph returned and established permanent residence in the Philippines. Is the divorce obtained by Wilma from Harry recognized in the Philippines? Explain your answer. (3%) If Harry hires you as his lawyer, what legal recourse would you advise him to take? Why? (2%) Harry tells you that he has fallen in love with another woman, Elizabeth, and wants to marry her because, after all, Wilma is already married to Joseph. Can Harry legally marry Elizabeth? Explain. (2%)

Hi.......my answers here are quite long...the gist of which are the following: 1) No, there is no divorce law in the Philippines 2) Since the crime of Bigamy can not be charged upon the wife; Adultery may be instead charged upon the two if husband desires so... 3)yes, I harped on the Orbecido case; Art. 26 of FC

jor_el wrote: IV Harry married Wilma, a very wealthy woman. Barely five (5) years into the marriage, Wilma fell in love with Joseph. Thus, Wilma went to a small country in Europe, became a naturalized citizen of that country, divorced Harry, and married Joseph. A year thereafter, Wilma and Joseph returned and established permanent residence in the Philippines. a. Is the divorce obtained by Wilma from Harry recognized in the Philippines? Explain your answer. (3%) b. If Harry hires you as his lawyer, what legal recourse would you advise him to take? Why? (2%) c. Harry tells you that he has fallen in love with another woman, Elizabeth, and wants to marry her because, after all, Wilma is already married to Joseph. Can Harry legally marry Elizabeth? Explain. (2%)

a. No. Divorce is not recognized in the Philippines. Foreign declaration or judgments involving

the status of Filipino citizens which are against public policy cannot be given a valid effect. b. Although Wilma cannot be held guilty of bigamy, she may be held guilty of adultery. So too, there was abandonment oh her part when she left Harry for five (5) years. With this, I would advise Harry that he can file an action for legal separation on the ground of adultery and abandonment on the part of Wilma. c. No. Since the divorce decree obtained by Wilma cannot be validated under our laws, the marriage between Harry and Wilma still subsists. Therefore, he cannot as yet marry Elizabeth until and unless the marital bond between him and Wilma is severed.

jor_el wrote: IV Harry married Wilma, a very wealthy woman. Barely five (5) years into the marriage, Wilma fell in love with Joseph. Thus, Wilma went to a small country in Europe, became a naturalized citizen of that country, divorced Harry, and married Joseph. A year thereafter, Wilma and Joseph returned and established permanent residence in the Philippines. a. Is the divorce obtained by Wilma from Harry recognized in the Philippines? Explain your answer. (3%) b. If Harry hires you as his lawyer, what legal recourse would you advise him to take? Why? (2%) c. Harry tells you that he has fallen in love with another woman, Elizabeth, and wants to marry her because, after all, Wilma is already married to Joseph. Can Harry legally marry Elizabeth? Explain. (2%)

a. No. Philippine courts do no take judicial notice of foreign judgments. To be valid in this jurisdiction, it must be proved as a fact before Philippine judicial tribunals. b. Legal Separation c. Yes. But Harry has to prove the fact of the validity of divorce obtained by his spouse abroad capacitating her to remarry. Harry married Wilma, a very wealthy woman. Barely five (5) years into the marriage, Wilma fell in love with Joseph. Thus, Wilma went to a small country in Europe, became a naturalized citizen of that country, divorced Harry, and married Joseph. A year thereafter, Wilma and Joseph returned and established permanent residence in the Philippines. a. Is the divorce obtained by Wilma from Harry recognized in the Philippines? Explain your answer. (3%) b. If Harry hires you as his lawyer, what legal recourse would you advise him to take? Why? (2%) c. Harry tells you that he has fallen in love with another woman, Elizabeth, and wants to marry her because, after all, Wilma is already married to Joseph. Can Harry legally marry Elizabeth?

Explain. (2%) _________________ ++++++ a. yes, decree of divorce is recognized in the philippines if the one who filed for divorce is the foreigner spouse. in order for former filipinos to effectively enforce in the philippines the divorce decree they obtained in the foreign court, they must show first that they are already citizen of that country prior to the divorce decree or else, such has no effect in the Philippines. +++ b. i will advise harry to question the validity of the divorce decree obtained by his wife, that the foreign law must be proved as a fact since our courts do not take judicial notice of such. +++ c. yes, but he has to show to the court that the divorce decree obtained by his former spouse capacitates her to remarry.. if not, then harry cannot remarry also.

++++ observation lang ... sa republic vs. orbecido, declaratory relief yung dapat na i file kasi sabi ng supreme court, first time na nangyari yung ganung sitwasyon. to ascertain yung rights chorba.. but since nagkaron na ng jurisprudence, hindi na petition for declaratory relief yung i fa file.. kasi may precedence na.. feeling ko ang dapat i file ... enforcement of foreign judgment and/or petition to remarry.. The rule laid down in the Obrecido case sets a dangerous precedent to unscrupulous individuals. What cannot be done directly, should not be allowed to be done indirectly. 1. YES, the divorced decree obtained by Wilma following her naturalization in said small country in Europe is recognized in the Philippines This is in line with the ruling of the Supreme Court in Republic vs. Orbecido III (472 SCRA 114). 2. I will advise Harry to question the validity of the divorce decree, if not to let go of Wilma, she being not worthy of her love and affection. 3. YES, as equally ruled upon in the case of Republic vs. Orbecido III (472 SCRA 114), Harry can legally marry Elizabeth, Wilma having acquired a valid divorce decree. a. Yes, Wilma is already a foreign citizen when she obtained divorce.

b. Judicial declaration of nullity of previous marriage for purposes of remarriage.

c. Yes, local laws cannot dicriminate against its own citizens because Wilma as a foreigner has already obtained a divorce.

As to letter B. husband can file an action for damages based on Article 19, abuse of right.

b. If I were the counsel of Harry, I would advise him to file a legal separation case on the ground of abandonment coupled with a petition of judicial separation of property. Wilma being the guilty spouse would not be entitled to any share in the conjugal properties.

A. Yes, the divorced obtained by Wilma can be recognized in the Philippines. The recognition of divorce in the Philippines is embodied upon the specific provision of the Family Code which provides in essence that if the foreigner spouse obtained a divorce in his country capacitating him to remarry, the Filipino spouse may likewise be allowed to remarry. B. If I were the lawyer of Harry, I would advise him to file a petition for the confirmation of a foreign judgment of divorce obtained by Wilma. C. Yes Harry can legally marry Elizabeth provided that the foreign decree of divorce obtained by Wilma was duly confirmed by the Philippine Court. popoy wrote: B. If I were the lawyer of Harry, I would advise him to file a petition for the confirmation of a foreign judgment of divorce obtained by Wilma.

question po...can harry legally ask the court to confirm the foreign judgment e hindi naman sya party dun sa case na yun? IV a. Yes. Since Wilma is already a citizen of Europe at the time the divorce decree was obtained following the nationality theory (A15 under CC) where a divorce validly obtained by the alien spouse under his own national law shall be recognized here in the Philippines. b. Harry should file a petition for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage under A40 of the FC which provides that the absolute nullity of a previous marriage shall for the purpose of remarriage be invoked on the basis solely of declaring such previous marriage void. c. Yes. A26 par. 2 of the FC provides that in mix marriages where a filipino spouse married to an alien spouse and the alien spouse has obtained a decree of absolute divorce, valid under his own national law, capacitating such alien spouse to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise regain his capacity to remarry. Provided that, prior to such subsequent marriage, a petition for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage as provided under A40 of the FC, shall be obtained by Harry. This case was ruled by the SC in Republic vs Orbecido III. joey_jrc wrote: Hi.......my answers here are quite long...the gist of which are the following: 1) No, there is no divorce law in the Philippines

2) Since the crime of Bigamy can not be charged upon the wife; Adultery may be instead charged upon the two if husband desires so... 3)yes, I harped on the Orbecido case; Art. 26 of FC

1) Wrong. Divorce is recognized here if both spouses are foreigner or if one spouse is Filipino while the other is a foreigner and it was the foreigner-spouse who obtained the divorce decree. Here, it was Wilma (who became a foreigner) who obtained the divorce. Hence, the same will be recognized in the Philippines. This used to be a jurisprudence only but later adopted as a provision in the Family Code. 2) I will advise Harry to charge Wilma and Joseph of Adultery since the sexual act happened in the Philippines before Wilma left for Europe and while her marriage to Harry was still subsisting. 3) Harry will first have to file "Declaratory Relief" in order to establish the divorce decree as a valid foreign judgment and thereafter, marry Elizabeth.

V Four children, namely: Alberto, Baldomero, Caridad, and Dioscoro, were born to the spouses Conrado and Clarita de la Costa. The childrens birth certificates were duly signed by Conrado, showing them to be the couples legitimate children. Later, one Edilberto de la Cruz executed a notarial document acknowledging Alberto and Baldomero as his illegitimate children >with Clarita. Edilberto died leaving substantial properties. In the settlement of his estate, Alberto and Baldomero intervened claiming shares as the deceaseds illegitimate children. The legitimate family of Edilberto opposed the claim. Are Alberto and Baldomero entitled to share in the estate of Edilberto? Explain. (4%)

NO, they are not entitled. The birth certificates of Alberto and Baldomero, having been duly signed by Conrado and unquestioned by their mother Clarita, must be upheld in line with Legaspi v. CA (142 SCRA 82) where the Supreme Court ruled that "the evidentiary nature of public documents must be sustained in the absence of strong, complete and conclusive proof of its falsity and nullity." The notarial document of acknowledgment executed by Edilberto is deemed not a strong, complete and conclusive proof of the falsity and nullity of the birth certificates. they are not entitled. to begin with, they are not illegitimates. they are legitimates of conrado and clarita. first, the law favors legitimacy over illegitimacy. they were born during the valid wedlock. therefore, they are legitimate children of spouses conrado. secondly, it is only conrado who can question the filiation of the two boys within a specified time. Conrado not disputing the filiation, and in fact, he signed as the father in both birth certs, thus, they are both legitimates.

XXX wrote: V Four children, namely: Alberto, Baldomero, Caridad, and Dioscoro, were born to the spouses Conrado and Clarita de la Costa. The childrens birth certificates were duly signed by Conrado, showing them to be the couples legitimate children. Later, one Edilberto de la Cruz executed a notarial document acknowledging Alberto and Baldomero as his illegitimate children with Clarita. Edilberto died leaving substantial properties. In the settlement of his estate, Alberto and Baldomero intervened claiming shares as the deceaseds illegitimate children. The legitimate family of Edilberto opposed the claim. Are Alberto and Baldomero entitled to share in the estate of Edilberto? Explain. (4%)

No. Baldomero and Alberto are not entitled to the estate of Edilberto. The notarial acknowledgment of Edilberto as to the illegitimacy status of Alberto and Baldomero cannot be given any legal effect because it constitutes a collateral attack as to the legitimacy status of Alberto and Baldomero which is proscribed by law. As a rule, legitimate status can only be impugned by the putative father, which is in this case, Dioscoro. alberto and baldomero are not entitled to any share in the estate because, being illegitimate, they can only claim their illegitimacy during the lifetime of edilberto. it would be unfair to edilberto who can no longer offer his side as regards the claim of filiation by alberto and baldomero. since edilberto is already dead, alberto and baldomero's claim have already prescribed. No. They are not entitled to the estate of Edilberto. Under A164 of the FC, children conceived or born inside a valid marriage are legitimate. Therefore, Alberto and Baldomero are legitimate the children of Conrado and Clarita. Further, under A172 of the FC provides that the acknowledgment of Conrado as father in the birth certificates of the children is a proof of filiation. Only Conrado can impugn the legitimacy of the children on the grounds in A166 of the FC being a right personal to him subject to the prescriptive period under A170 of the FC. Legitimacy is not subject to collateral attack, to allow the children a right to succeed in the estate of Edilberto is to indirectly assail the legitimate status of the children, which can only be question in a direct proceeding for the purpose.

VI On December 1, 2000, Dr. Juanito Fuentes executed a holographic will, wherein he gave nothing to his recognized illegitimate son, Jay. Dr. Fuentes left for the United States, passed the New York medical licensure examinations, resided therein, and became a naturalized American citizen. He died in New York in 2007. The laws of New York do not recognize holographic wills or compulsory heirs.

Can the holographic will of Dr. Fuentes be admitted to probate in the Philippines? Why or why not? (3%) Assuming that the will is probated in the Philippines, can Jay validly insist that he be given his legitime? Why or why not? (3%)

a.) Yes. The holographic will can be probated in the Philippines because said will was executed in the Philippines and he was a Filipino citizen at the time of the execution of the will.

a. Yes, the will can be probated here in the Philippines inasmuch as it was executed here by Dr. Fuentes who was then a Filipino citizen. The subsequent acquisition of Dr. Fuentes of american citizenship is immaterial. In fact, probate can be made of any will, whether executed here or abroad by a Filipino citizen or a foreigner.

b. Yes. There is preterition in this case, Jay being a recognized illegitimate child, hence a compulsory heir. The institution of the heirs is rendered null and void without Jay having been instituted. As such, he can validly claim that he be given his legitime. In fact, no judicial order is required. The will is ipso facto annulled. a. yes. formal validity lang ang tinitingnan sa probate n governed ang form of wills by law of d place of their execution n d will was executed in d Phils. b. no. coz order of succession n amount of successional rights are regulated by national law of d person whose succession is under consideration.. since NY law, d national law of Dr. Fuentes, doesnt recognize compulsory heirs, Jay cant be recognized as legal heir of Dr. Fuentes.. derfor there can be no preterition kase nga di naman kinikilala si Jay na compulsory heir.. of cors, NY law on the matter must be alleged n proved para walang processual presumption na tanong naman sa part I-a

consciouslymad wrote: b. no. coz order of succession n amount of successional rights are regulated by national law of d person whose succession is under consideration.. since NY law, d national law of Dr. Fuentes, doesnt recognize compulsory heirs, Jay cant be recognized as legal heir of Dr. Fuentes.. derfor there can be no preterition kase nga di naman kinikilala si Jay na compulsory heir.. of cors, NY law on the matter must be alleged n proved para walang processual presumption na tanong naman sa part I-a

------------Right, intrinsic validity of a will is governed by the national law of the decedent. But in the viewpoint of time, what will govern? law in force at the time the will was made or the law in force at the time of the decedent's death? en toto wrote:

Right, intrinsic validity of a will is governed by the national law of the decedent. But in the viewpoint of time, what will govern? law in force at the time the will was made or the law in force at the time of the decedent's death? sabe sa art.17,civil code: intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration.. sabe naman sa art.777: rights to succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent.. so since sa moment ng decedents death natatransmit ang rights to succession sa moment din ng decedents death dapat ikonsider ang intrinsic validity ng will.. besyds, kelan ba dinedetermine ang successional right di ba pag namatay na yung decedent? What's the legal basis po? any specific civil code provision? 'di ba napaka-unfair naman if a person is deemed a compulsory heir under the old law at the time the will was made, but considered not a compulsory heir under the new law existing at the time of the testator's death? Are we supposed to give expression to the testator's wishes at the time it was made? en toto wrote: What's the legal basis po? any specific civil code provision? 'di ba napaka-unfair naman if a person is deemed a compulsory heir under the old law at the time the will was made, but considered not a compulsory heir under the new law existing at the time of the testator's death? Are we supposed to give expression to the testator's wishes at the time it was made? legal basis? civil code provisions? ano tawag mo sa art.17, civil code n art.777,civil code? illegal basis?.. di pa ba specific civil code provisions ang art.17 n art.777? d law may be unfair onli coz ur luking at it n d point of view of Phil. law on preterition pero under Phil. law itself, art.17 civil code, d law governing succession to d estate of d decedent is his national law.. national law pa ren ba nya ang Phil. law kung US citizen na sya?.. walang "compulsory heir" under d "old law" kase so long as buhay pa yung tao, in this case si dr. fuentes, wala pa syang compulsory heir hinde pa "compulsory heir" si jay.. wala ding "compulsory heir" sa new law kase nga hinde nirerecognize ng NY law ang compulsory heirs.. so never naging compulsory heir si jay kung unfair pa ren, sori, d law may be unfair but it's d law.. dura lex sed lex 1. YES, the Civil Code of the Philippines governs on the formal validity of the holographic will, the same having been executed before Dr. Fuentes left for the US, resided therein and became a naturalized American citizen. 2. NO, in the absence of any ground to revoke the will or question its validity, the holographic will controls the disposition of the estate of the late Dr. Fuentes and on which it is clearly and validly stated that he gave nothing to Jay. WRE10H wrote:

1. YES, the Civil Code of the Philippines governs on the formal validity of the holographic will, the same having been executed before Dr. Fuentes left for the US, resided therein and became a naturalized American citizen. 2. NO, in the absence of any ground to revoke the will or question its validity, the holographic will controls the disposition of the estate of the late Dr. Fuentes and on which it is clearly and validly stated that he gave nothing to Jay. 3 kwestyons lang.. wan, revoke the will or question its validity on wat aspek, intrinsic validity or formal validity?.. tu, ang preterition ba ay hinde ground for annulling d will?.. tri, pano magiging kontrolling ang dispositions ng holographic will kung hinde kinikilala ang disposition by holographic will sa national law ni dr. Fuentes? VI On December 1, 2000, Dr. Juanito Fuentes executed a holographic will, wherein he gave nothing to his recognized illegitimate son, Jay. Dr. Fuentes left for the United States, passed the New York medical licensure examinations, resided therein, and became a naturalized American citizen. He died in New York in 2007. The laws of New York do not recognize holographic wills or compulsory heirs. a. Can the holographic will of Dr. Fuentes be admitted to probate in the Philippines? Why or why not? (3%) b. Assuming that the will is probated in the Philippines, can Jay validly insist that he be given his legitime? Why or why not? (3%) ++++++++++ a. yes. because there is none of the grounds for the disallowance of the said will. b. no. because the decedent's national law prohibits holographic will and compulsory heirs. jay being a compulsory heir, he cannot validly insist that he be given his legitime. ++++++ actually, parang sa letter a, ang sarap sagutin yung no.. kasi bawal din naman sa new york yung holographic will... so walang mangyayari pa rin. kaso mo.. the question is CAN.. o di .. safe ang answer na yes.. it can be probated.. wag na palawakin pa ang discussion.. nakakasira lang ng bait lolz

en toto wrote: What's the legal basis po? any specific civil code provision? 'di ba napaka-unfair naman if a person is deemed a compulsory heir under the old law at the time the will was made, but considered not a compulsory heir under the new law existing at the time of the testator's death? Are we supposed to give expression to the testator's wishes at the time it was made? +++++++

ahm.. wala naman atang old law and new law na pinag uusapan dito. basta ang sabi lang.. pilipino sha nung ginawa nya yung holographic will dito sa pinas. tas... na tsugi sha na amerikano na sha.. sa NY law, di nila tanggap ang holographic will o compulsory heir. so ang tanong.. probatable ba sa pinas yung holographic will nya.. at kung probatable, keri na ba ni jay na sumingit as compulsory heir.. dapat talaga di na probatable yung holographic will na yun eh.. kasi bale wala na talaga. kaso mo.. ang probate court natin, eh tinitignan lang yung extrinsic validity in order to prove that it was genuine and in accord to our law nung ginawa nya yung will na yun dito sa pinas.. tamang tama pa...pinoy pa sha noon... so pede talagang i probate. kaso mo. pag ka probate. hanggang dun na lang. kasi ifa follow na ng court yung national law nya na NY LAW.. di naman nire recognize yung compulsory heirs. dedma yung pag di pag recognize ng NY LAW sa holographic will kasi di naman nya ginawa yung holographic will na yun sa NY eh. that being said, jay, as a compulsory heir cannot insist on him being such. b. No because there is no valid ground for disinheritance......?

VI On December 1, 2000, Dr. Juanito Fuentes executed a holographic will, wherein he gave nothing to his recognized illegitimate son, Jay. Dr. Fuentes left for the United States, passed the New York medical licensure examinations, resided therein, and became a naturalized American citizen. He died in New York in 2007. The laws of New York do not recognize holographic wills or compulsory heirs. a. Can the holographic will of Dr. Fuentes be admitted to probate in the Philippines? Why or why not? (3%) No. The national law of the deceased at the time of death shall govern succession. In this case, decedent died as a naturalized citizen of New York and was domiciled thereat. The laws of New York shall prevail. b. Assuming that the will is probated in the Philippines, can Jay validly insist that he be given his legitime? Why or why not? (3%) No. The national law of the deceased at the time of death shall govern succession. In this case, decedent died as a naturalized citizen of New York and was domiciled thereat. The laws of New York shall prevail. a.yes.the holographic will may be admiited for probate in the philippines.under the new civil code, a will made in accordance with the law of the country where it is executed may be probated. b.no.Art.16 par.2 shall govern

Quote: a. Can the holographic will of Dr. Fuentes be admitted to probate in the Philippines? Why or why not? (3%) b. Assuming that the will is probated in the Philippines, can Jay validly insist that he be given his legitime? Why or why not? (3%)

a. yes, the holographic will of Dr. Fuentes may be admitted to probate in the Philippines. the NCC explicitly allows a foreigner to execute a will in accordance to philippine law. thus: " Art. 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed. When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular officials of the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities established by Philippine laws shall be observed in their execution." "Art. 816. The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place in which he resides, or according to the formalities observed in his country, or in conformity with those which this Code prescribes."

b. no, Jay validly cannot validly insist that he be given his legitime. Art. 16. a few notes on private international law: Philippine courts will apply Philippine laws. it does not care about foreign laws. it will only start looking at foreign laws when the Philippine law says so.

VII Ramon Mayaman died intestate, leaving a net estate of P10,000,000.00. Determine how much each heir will receive from the estate: If Ramon is survived by his wife, three full-blood brothers, two half-brothers, and one nephew (the son of a deceased full-blood brother)? Explain. (3%) If Ramon is survived by his wife, a half-sister, and three nephews (sons of a deceased fullblood brother)? Explain. (3%)

please correct me if I'm wrong...my answer to this problem is... a. the wife will get 5M; 1M each for the three full blood brothers ; .5M each for the two halfbrothers and 1M for the nephew im not sure also but my answer is.. a. the wife will get P5M, the other P5M will be given to the brothers and nephew with an equal share of 1/6 each. b. the wife will get P5M, the other P5M will be equally shared by the half-sister and three nephews.

hindi ako sure dito... ive researched high and low.. natatakot kasi ako na baka ma out yung half-bloods pag may full bloods kapag may surviving spouse na kasama.. sabi lang sa art. 1001, the brothers or sisters ek ek.. does it mean na full and half-blood? kung may jurisprudence naman kayo as this or authority na makakapagsabi na regardless to.. let me know. thanks anyways.. here is my answer..

1. 1/2 goes to the surviving spouse. the other half shall be divided by the collateral relatives, the full blood sibling shall have double the amount as that of half-blood sibling, the niece shall inherit per stirpes ( by right of representation ) therefore: 5 million - surviving spouse 3 million - 3 full blood brothers ( 1 million each ) 1 million - nephew (right of representation ) 1 million - 2 half-brothers ( 500k each ) ______ 10 million

2. 5 million - wife 3.3 million - 3 nephews ( 1.1 million each ) , since the share of full-blood is double that of the half-blood, the ratio is 2:1 1.7 million - half-sister __________ 10 million tumpak! really nice answers!

VIII Jude owned a building which he had leased to several tenants. Without informing his tenants, Jude sold the building to Ildefonso. Thereafter, the latter notified all the tenants that he is the new owner of the building. Ildefonso ordered the tenants to vacate the premises within thirty (30) days from notice because he had other plans for the building. The tenants refused to vacate, insisting that they will only do so when the term of their lease shall have expired. Is Ildefonso bound to respect the lease contracts between Jude and his tenants? Explain your answer. (3%)

yes, he is bound to respect the lease contracts entered into by jude and the tenants. since from the time he purchased the said building, he knows already that there are tenants in the building and thus, has knowledge about the existence of the lease contracts that were entered. Therefore, he cannot terminate it until after their expiration.

Yes, he is bound to respect the lease because he had actual knowledge of the existence of lease. The Civil Code provides that the purchaser of piece of land which is under lease that is not recorded in the Registry of Property may terminate the lease save in cases when there is stipulation to the contrary or when the purchaser knows of the existence of the lease. ( Article 1676 NCC) Moreover, well-settled rule that actual knowledge of the purchaser of the contract is equivalent to registration on his part. No. Basic principle under civil law that a contract of lease is a personal contract which only binds the parties who are privies thereto. Hence, unless the contract has been registered in the registry of deeds or the third person has constructive knowledge of the existence of the contract before he acquires the property, such third person may be bound by the contract. NO, he is not bound to respect the lease contract. in order for a transferee of leased property to be bound to the lease contracts constituted on the leased property it is necessary that the transferee has knowledge of the existence of the lease contracts at the time of transfer or that it was stipulated upon in the agreement. here, the facts do not show that ildefonso has knowledge thereof at the time the property was sold or that it was agreed upon between him and jude that he should respect the lease. that being the case, he cannot be compelled to respect the lease rigths and consequently he can order the tenants to vacate from the premises.

IX Before migrating to Canada in 1992, the spouses Teodoro and Anita entrusted all their legal papers and documents to their nephew, Atty. Tan. Taking advantage of the situation, Atty. Tan forged a deed of sale, making it appear that he had bought the couples property in Quezon City. In 2000, he succeeded in obtaining a TCT over the property in his name. Subsequently, Atty. Tan sold the same property to Luis, who built an auto repair shop on the property. In 2004, Luis registered the deed of conveyance, and title over the property was transferred in his name. In 2006, the spouses Teodoro and Anita came to the Philippines for a visit and discovered what had happened to their property. They immediately hire you as lawyer. What action or actions will you institute in order to vindicate their rights? Explain fully. (4%)

an action for cancellation and/or reconveyance of title with damages

unang una padisbar ko si torni tan, lokong yun pamangkin pa man den ng kliyente ko pinagkatiwalaan nila tapos gagawa ng falsified deed of sale para ipagbenta ang lupa na ipinagkatiwala sa kanya.. yung mga ganung tao di dapat maging abugado dapat madisbar! secondly sampahan ko ng criminal case na estafa thru falsification of public documents.. yung ganung tao di lang dapat madisbar dapat din makulong! pero pagsampa ko ng crim case ireserba ko civil aksyon para mas madali makabawi ng damages tapos magfile ako ng aksyon for damages vs. torni tan para mabawi yung market value ng lupa plus legal interest, moral damages, exemplary damages n attorney's fees pano pa makakansela yung titulo ni luis at mababawe yung lupa eh innocent purchaser for value hu bought d property in gud faith kase nagrely sya sa titulo ni torni tan na on its face eh wala namang any defect? pag cancellation of property n/or rekonveyans of title ang ifile magsasayang lang ang kliyente ng pera at oras kase matatalo lang sila.. kawawa naman sila naloko na nga ng pamangking abugado pinayuhan pa ng mali ng kinuhang abugado.. seguradong isusumpa na nila ang mga abugado lols.. oo nga.. kawawa naman sila. i stand to be corrected.. since nalipat na sa innocent purchaser for value yung title.. action for damages na lang ang pede isampa nung mag asawa sa abugado. thanks ha.. am relearning again.. wag naman sanang isumpa ng mag asawang yan ang munting maling payo ng isang abugado. ahehe.. thanks ulit consciouslymad. ahehe

They can also file for recovery of the sale proceeds from Atty. Tan, plus damages. Chain of Title Doctrine

The only remedy is to file a case for damages because as a rule a forged title will not ripen into ownership, unless if the title passed to a purchaser for value in good faith.

consciouslymad wrote: johnwong30 wrote: an action for cancellation and/or reconveyance of title with damages pano pa makakansela yung titulo ni luis at mababawe yung lupa eh innocent purchaser for value hu bought d property in gud faith kase nagrely sya sa titulo ni torni tan na on its face eh wala namang any defect? pag cancellation of property n/or rekonveyans of title ang ifile magsasayang lang ang kliyente ng pera at oras kase matatalo lang sila.. kawawa naman sila naloko na nga ng pamangking abugado pinayuhan pa ng mali ng kinuhang abugado.. seguradong isusumpa na nila ang mga abugado

pero wala namang sinabi ang problem na purchaser in good faith and for value siya diba. I think it would be proper if the answer would be qualified: reconveyance - not purchaser in good faith damages - purchaser in good faith lawyer wanna be wrote: pero wala namang sinabi ang problem na purchaser in good faith and for value siya diba. I think it would be proper if the answer would be qualified: reconveyance - not purchaser in good faith damages - purchaser in good faith oo nga, pero di ba presumed ang gud faith?.. if presumed ang gud faith kelangan pa ba iallege/istate sa problem yun bago ikonsider ang bagay na yun? eh yung for value?.. di ba kasama yun sa presampsyon that private transaksyones are fair n regular? kung may ganung presampsyon kelangan pa ba yun iallege/istate sa problem bago ikonsider ang bagay na yun? Action for reconveyance to recover the property and an administrative case against the lawyer. Before migrating to Canada in 1992, the spouses Teodoro and Anita entrusted all their legal papers and documents to their nephew, Atty. Tan. Taking advantage of the situation, Atty. Tan forged a deed of sale, making it appear that he had bought the couples property in Quezon City. In 2000, he succeeded in obtaining a TCT over the property in his name. Subsequently, Atty. Tan sold the same property to Luis, who built an auto repair shop on the property. In 2004, Luis registered the deed of conveyance, and title over the property was transferred in his name. In 2006, the spouses Teodoro and Anita came to the Philippines for a visit and discovered what had happened to their property. They immediately hire you as lawyer. What action or actions will you institute in order to vindicate their rights? Explain fully. (4%) 1. File an action for restitution equal to the FMV of the property plus indemnification for damages against Atty. Tan, the buyer presumed acting in good faith when the sale was consummated making rescission impossible. 2. File a criminal case against Atty. Tan for estafa since there is juridical possession of the property, forgery and falsification of public documents. 3. File a disbarment case against Atty. Tan. the action will be reconveyance of property based on implied trust which will prescribe in 10 years from the time the trustee asserts a claim adverse to that of the owner. the rule is that when a person acquires a property by fraud he becomes a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property came. the period to file the action shall commence from the time of the registration of the property.

a disbarment case against the lawyer nephew may also be had. (pero mukhang nalalayo na sya sa civil law eh...peace )

X Rommels private car, while being driven by the regular family driver, Amado, hits a pedestrian causing the latters death. Rommel is not in the car when the incident happened. Is Rommel liable for damages to the heirs of the deceased? Explain. (2%) Would your answer be the same if Rommel was in the car at the time of the accident? Explain. (2%)

yes. by virtue of vicarious liability or the master-servant rule. But here, Rommel can seek for reimbursement. yes, by virtue of solidary liability. johnwong30 wrote: X Rommels private car, while being driven by the regular family driver, Amado, hits a pedestrian causing the latters death. Rommel is not in the car when the incident happened. a. Is Rommel liable for damages to the heirs of the deceased? Explain. (2%) b. Would your answer be the same if Rommel was in the car at the time of the accident? Explain. (2%) a. yes, vicariously liable si rommel as employer for d damage caused by amado, his employee, who was acting w/in d scope of his assigned task.. b. yes, if by the use of due diligence, pwede nya naprevent yung insidente.. vicarious liability den..

johnwong30 wrote: yes. by virtue of vicarious liability or the master-servant rule. But here, Rommel can seek for reimbursement. yes, by virtue of solidary liability. sa vicarious liability ba hinde solidary liability ni rommel n amado? a. the answer is Article 2180 and 2181 NCC. b. the answer is Article 2184 NCC consciouslymad wrote: johnwong30 wrote:

yes. by virtue of vicarious liability or the master-servant rule. But here, Rommel can seek for reimbursement. yes, by virtue of solidary liability. sa vicarious liability ba hinde solidary liability ni rommel n amado? +++++

talagang may underline pa. kaya ganun ang sagot ko kasi iba defenses

PART II XI TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%) 1. A clause in an arbitration contract granting one of the parties the power to choose more arbitrators than the other renders the arbitration contract void. 2. If there is no marriage settlement, the salary of a "spouse" in an adulterous marriage belongs to the conjugal partnership of gains. 3. Acquisitive prescription of a negative easement runs from the time the owner of the dominant estate forbids, in a notarized document, the owner of the servient estate from executing an act which would be lawful without the easement. 4. The renunciation by a co-owner of his undivided share in the co-owned property in lieu of the performance of his obligation to contribute to taxes and expenses for the preservation of the property constitutes dacion en pago. 5. A person can dispose of his corpse through an act intervivos.

1. false. it is only the clause and not the whole arbitration contract that is rendered void and no effect 2. false. it will belong to the absolute community property. in case there is no marriage settlement, acp shall automatically govern their marriage settlement. 3.true. 4. false. pano mo naman idi dispose ang bangkay mo kung buhay ka pa? ahehe. ano ba mas magandang sagot dito

4.false. there is no creditor-debtor to speak of among co-owners in terms of their mutual obligation to pay taxes and expenses for the preservation of property. False. The salary of the "spouse" in an adulterous marriage belongs exclusively to that spouse. Tama ba? a. True. Art. 2045. Any clause giving one of the parties power to choose more arbitrators than the other is void and of no effect. b. True. Art. 142. By means of the conjugal partnership of gains the husband and wife place in a common fund the fruits of their separate property and the income from their work or industry... c. True. Art. 621. In order to acquire by prescription the easements.... in negative easements, from the day on which the owner of the dominant estate forbade, by an instrument acknowledged before a notary public, the owner of the servient estate, from executing an act which would be lawful without the easement. d. True. Art. 1245. Dation in payment, whereby property is alienated to the creditor in satisfaction of a debt in money. e. maybe true. pls correct me about my understanding of the word "adulterous marriage"... ...is that there exists a valid marriage...however the wife is nanglalalaki...kahit tatlo pa ang lalake nya...still her salary shall go to the conjugal partnership; ewan ko ba...tama kaya to... Art. 119. In the absence of marriage settlements, or when the same are void, the system of relative community or conjugal partnership of gains shall govern the property relations between husband and wife. Sa number 4, False. A act intervivos is an agreement that takes effect during the lifetime of the person who executed the same. It cannot take effect when he is already dead. False, the salary of the spouse in an adulterous marriage shall belong to the community property, in the absence of a marriage settlement providing for other kind of matrimonial property regime. No. 4. FALSE. a corpse is outside the commerce of man and therefore it cannot be a subject of an act inter vivos, the same not considered as a property. but if parts of the body are given inter vivos then the same constitute a valid subject of an act inter vivos. johnwong30 wrote: PART II

A clause in an arbitration contract granting one of the parties the power to choose more arbitrators than the other renders the arbitration contract void.

TRUE. by express provision of law. 1. FALSE. Any clause giving one of the parties power to choose more arbitrators than the other is void and of no effect (Art. 2045 Civil Code), but it does not render the entire arbitration contract void. NOTE: Art. 2045 refers only to the clause as being void and of no effect and not the entire arbitration contract.

biomicsoldier wrote: NOTE: Art. 2045 refers only to the clause as being void and of no effect and not the entire arbitration contract.

oo nga pala...right, thanks for the head's up!

XII Emmanuel and Margarita, American citizens and employees of the U.S. State Department, got married in the African state of Kenya where sterility is a ground for annulment of marriage. Thereafter, the spouses were assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Manila. On the first year of the spouses tour of duty in the Philippines, Margarita filed an annulment case against Emmanuel before a Philippine court on the ground of her husbands sterility at the time of the celebration of the marriage. Will the suit prosper? Explain your answer. (3%) Assume Emmanuel and Margarita are both Filipinos. After their wedding in Kenya, they come back and take up residence in the Philippines. Can their marriage be annulled on the ground of Emmanuels sterility? Explain. (3%)

1. the suit will not prosper. they are not filipino citizens and they did not get married here in the philippines. thus, the Family Code will not govern. The court has no jurisdiction as to the annulment case that was filed.

2. no. even assuming they are both filipinos, sterility is not one of the grounds for annulment of marriage.

No. The case will not prosper because the Philippine court is not the convenient forum. The local court when confronted with an issue involving foreign element may refuse to try and decide a case on the ground of FORUM NON CONVENIENS. In this case, both the spouses are foreigners. Hence, the doctrine of forum non convenience shall apply.

I argued using the State of the Most Significant Relations Doctrine, the place where the subtantial occurence of the facts took place. i have a question.. can our courts entertain actions which the law used by both parties are subject to a particular foreign law?

parang ganito.. parehong amerikano. nag punta lang dito sa pilipinas dahil gustong idemanda ni amerikano A si Amerikano B dahil di sha nag bayad ng utang nya na ginawa sa kanila.

1) Granting that the Kenyans may and will be entertained in our courts, the suit will not still prosper as Sterility is not among the grounds for annulment in our courts 2) Same answer; ..No.

johnwong30 wrote: XII Emmanuel and Margarita, American citizens and employees of the U.S. State Department, got married in the African state of Kenya where sterility is a ground for annulment of marriage. Thereafter, the spouses were assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Manila. On the first year of the spouses tour of duty in the Philippines, Margarita filed an annulment case against Emmanuel before a Philippine court on the ground of her husbands sterility at the time of the celebration of the marriage. Will the suit prosper? Explain your answer. (3%) Assume Emmanuel and Margarita are both Filipinos. After their wedding in Kenya, they come back and take up residence in the Philippines. Can their marriage be annulled on the ground of Emmanuels sterility? Explain. (3%)

A. Yes, the suit will prosper. The grounds for the annulment of marriage is governed by the laws of the state alleged to have been violated or the laws of the place where the marriage was celebrated. Since the marriage is voidable in Kenya, it shall also be voidable here. This is particularly true even if sterility is not a ground for the annulment of marriage under our own laws. B. Yes, the marriage can still be annulled. Since the marriage is voidable according to the laws of Kenya where the marriage is celebrated, it shall also be voidable here. The grounds for the

annulment of marriage is not governed by national laws of the parties but by the laws of the place alleged to have been violated. Their being both Filipinos is immaterial in the case. No. The suit will not prosper for neither are Filipino citizens and our courts cannot acquire jurisdiction. No. Impotency is the ground for annulment under A45(5) of the FC not sterility. Impotency refers to the incapacity to perform the sexual act at the time of celebration of marriage which is an essential marital obligation under A68 of the FC. Sterility is the impossibility of procreation despite the ability to have an erection and perform the sexual act. a.no,the suit will not prosper.annulment in the case is not within the coffers of our court. b.no, sterility is not one of the ground mentioned under the fc .

XIII Rafael, a wealthy bachelor, filed a petition for the adoption of Dolly, a one-year old foundling who had a severe heart ailment. During the pendency of the adoption proceedings, Rafael died of natural causes. The Office of the Solicitor General files a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the case can no longer proceed because of the petitioners death. Should the case be dismissed? Explain. (2%) Will your answer be the same if it was Dolly who died during the pendency of the adoption proceedings? Explain. (2%)

1. no. to protect the best interest of the adoptee and it is provided for in RA 8552.

1. no, my answer will be different. there is no more best interest of the adoptee to protect since dolly died already. the case should then be dismissed.

XIV Rodolfo, married to Sharon, had an illicit affair with his secretary, Nanette, a 19-year old girl, and begot a baby girl, Rona. Nanette sued Rodolfo for damages: actual, for hospital and other medical expenses in delivering the child by caesarean section; moral, claiming that Rodolfo promised to marry her, representing that he was single when, in fact, he was not; and exemplary, to teach a lesson to like-minded Lotharios. If you were the judge, would you award all the claims of Nanette? Explain. (3%)

Suppose Rodolfo later on acknowledges Rona and gives her regular support, can he compel her to use his surname? Why or why not? (2%) When Rona reaches seven (7) years old, she tells Rodolfo that she prefers to live with him, because he is better off financially than Nanette. If Rodolfo files an action for the custody of Rona, alleging that he is Ronas choice as custodial parent, will the court grant Rodolfos petition? Why or why not? (2%)

Here's my gist:

Art. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

No. Although it is the obligation of the father to giver support, an illegitimate child shall use the surname of the mother. However, under the Revilla law, upon reaching the age of majority, the child has the OPTION of using the surname of the father.

No, as a rule, the Tender Age Presumption will automatically give custody to a child below 7 year old to a mother, unless the mother is incapable do so. Financial standing alone is not a ground to grant custody to one and deprive another. The child in question being illegitimate, she is under the sole parental authority of the mother who, in the exercise of that authority, is entitled to keep the child in her company. Recognition of the child by the father could be a ground for ordering him to give support to, BUT NOT TO THE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD. He is, however, entitled to visitorial rights over the child.

chrisbarber5 wrote: Here's my gist:

Art. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

No. Although it is the obligation of the father to giver support, an illegitimate child shall use the surname of the mother. However, under the Revilla law, upon reaching the age of majority, the child has the OPTION of using the surname of the father.

No, as a rule, the Tender Age Presumption will automatically give custody to a child below 7 year old to a mother, unless the mother is incapable do so. Financial standing alone is not a ground to grant custody to one and deprive another.

2nd and 3rd answer the same. Apir!! 1st answer- the question provided that the claim is against the breach or violation of the promise to marry. In our jurisdiction breach of a promise to marry is not actionable. However, if there are actual damages as a result of the said breach. The plaintiff shall be entitled thereof.

Is Revilla Law RA 9255? The law which amended Art. 176 of the FC? I guess Revilla Law refers to RA 8294. Rodolfo, married to Sharon, had an illicit affair with his secretary, Nanette, a 19-year old girl, and begot a baby girl, Rona. Nanette sued Rodolfo for damages: actual, for hospital and other medical expenses in delivering the child by caesarean section; moral, claiming that Rodolfo promised to marry her, representing that he was single when, in fact, he was not; and exemplary, to teach a lesson to like-minded Lotharios. If you were the judge, would you award all the claims of Nanette? Explain. (3%) Suppose Rodolfo later on acknowledges Rona and gives her regular support, can he compel her to use his surname? Why or why not? (2%) When Rona reaches seven (7) years old, she tells Rodolfo that she prefers to live with him, because he is better off financially than Nanette. If Rodolfo files an action for the custody of Rona, alleging that he is Ronas choice as custodial parent, will the court grant Rodolfos petition? Why or why not? (2%) ++++++++++ as to first question. would you award ALL the claims. i have a gut feeling.. no ang sagot dito. actual.. no. eh di naman injury ata ang tawag sa panganganak di ba. moral. yes. there can be award for damages for promise to marry only if there were expenses made already. gen rule di ba there can be no damages to be sought for breach of promise to marry. anong rule sa exemplary damages...

+++++++ no. no one can be compelled to use someone else's surname even if that person is already acknowledged and is given regular financial support. Ewan ko .. ano ba ruling dito ng supreme court. ++++ No. just because it was rona's choice does not make the argument heavier in favor of the father. The father must show that Nannete lives a life not fit of moral standards as a mother. Also, that she is financially not capable to support her child.

1. actual damages may be awarded for the hospital and medical expenses incurred moral damages cannot, as a rule, be awarded in a breach of promise to marry unless there be moral or criminal seduction. exemplary damages can be awarded as long as the act was committed in wanton, oppressive, dishonest and fraudulent manner. 2. no. under the present rule, an illegitimate child may use the surname of the father provided the father acknowledges the child. however, the decision to adopt the surname is with the child alone. the law uses the word "may" and not "shall." the regular support given is immaterial. 3. yes, the court must grant the petition. rona is already 7 years old and so the rule that no child below 7 years old shall be separated from the mother no longer applies. upon reaching the age of 7, the child's choice of whom to go must be followed unless the court finds that the parent chosen is unfit, which is not obtaining in the case. in all case however, the welfare of the child shall be taken as the paramount consideration. Quote: When Rona reaches seven (7) years old, she tells Rodolfo that she prefers to live with him, because he is better off financially than Nanette. If Rodolfo files an action for the custody of Rona, alleging that he is Ronas choice as custodial parent, will the court grant Rodolfos petition? Why or why not? (2%)

no. FC vest parental authority over an illegitimate child to the mother alone.

XV Sarah had a deposit in a savings account with Filipino Universal Bank in the amount of five million pesos (P5,000,000.00). To buy a new car, she obtained a loan from the same bank in the amount of P1,200,000.00, payable in twelve monthly installments. Sarah issued in favor of the bank post-dated checks, each in the amount of P100,000.00, to cover the twelve monthly installment payments. On the third, fourth and fifth months, the corresponding checks bounced. The bank then declared the whole obligation due, and proceeded to deduct the amount of one million pesos (P1,000,000.00) from Sarahs deposit after notice to her that this is a form of compensation allowed by law. Is the bank correct? Explain. (4%)

yes. the bank is correct. Under the law, when a person deposited money from the bank, creditor/debtor relationship was created.Since the bank and Sarah in the given case was

creditor and debtor with each other and considering that the debt was already due and demandable, compensation takes place. hence, the bank is correct. The question is asking for a true or false, bakit yes or no ang mga sagot dito sa thread... eto ba ang dahilan kaya marami ang bumagsak sa 2009 bar exam... simple instruction lang ang hinihingi... Huwag kang epal. Hindi ito ang Part na True or False. Part Essay ba? Ikaw ang hindi nagbabasa ng simple instruction. AT bago ka magsalita ng tapos, hindi pa lumalabas ang results ng 2009 Bar Exams. Stop me Hi.........Should not the bank have sent a "demand letter" first stating that his loan is then made demandable due to non-payment of amortizations 3 straight months?...and only then they can deduct /exact full payment from the account.... While some banks indicate in "fine print" that they can demand payment from the balance of the account any and all types of obligation, I think there is a legal color that they cannot just do that ....

No. The bank should have first send the notices of bounced check to the issuer asking her to settle the installment amount due within a certain number of days. If no payment was made then a demand letter should have been sent to her. If there is till no payment proceed against the chattel mortgage. Or the last resort is to seek consent first from the depositor prior to offset of the unpaid amounts. However, should this not be in violation of bank secrecy law? Suggested Answer: True, This is a valid legal compensation. A bank has a right of set-off of the deposits in its hands for the payment of of any indebtedness to it on the part of a depositor. (Gullas V. PNB, 62 PHIL 519) Alternative Answer: False, Under the louisiana doctrine, the bank has no right without an ordering from or a special assent of the depositor to retain out of his deposit an amount sufficient to meet his indebtedness, the basis is the theory of confidential contracts arising from irregular deposits.e.g. the deposit of money with a banker.. (1 Morse on Banks and Banking, 5th ed., sec. 324; Garrison vs. Union Trust Company [1905], 111 A.S.R., 407; Louisiana Civil Code Annotated, arts. 2207 et seq.; Gordon & Gomila vs. Muchler [1882], 34 L. Ann., 604; 8 Manresa, Comentarios al Codigo Civil Espaol, 4th ed., 359 et seq., 11 Manresa pp. 694 et seq.)

Kuya carl share mo naman yun pamatay na answer mo dito... share your blessing..sharing is good karma...

The bank is incorrect in declaring the whole obligation due since legal compensation applies every time each payable installment becomes due and demandable. Fixed, savings and current deposits of money in banks and similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions concerning simple loan (Art. 1980 Civil Code), which makes Sarah and the bank, in their own right, creditors and debtors of each other, hence, compensation shall take place (Art. 1278 Civil Code). All the requisites under Article 1279 of the Civil Code being present, compensation takes effect by operation of law, and extinguishes both debts to the concurrent amount, even though the creditors and debtors are not aware of the compensation (1290 Civil Code). Therefore, the bank cannot declare the whole obligation due and only thereafter apply compensation to the prejudice of Sarah since she cannot be declared in default for the 3 payments as legal compensation operates at the time each payable installment becomes due and demandable.

The question is asking for a true or false, bakit yes or no ang mga sagot dito sa thread... eto ba ang dahilan kaya marami ang bumagsak sa 2009 bar exam... simple instruction lang ang hinihingi...

Ikaw ang di nakakaintindi ng simple instruction. Hindi yan true or false. Kaya nga may nakasulat na explain sa dulo ng tanong. Kung mapapansin mo sa 2009 Bar exams ang true or false ay ang Question I lang. Itong Question na 'to ay No. XV. Kasabot ka dong? Pag sure diha oi! Epal mo! I think the bank is incorrect. True enough, the question does not require the answer yes or no. Loan in Philippines

XVI Marciano is the owner of a parcel of land through which a river runs out into the sea. The land had been brought under the Torrens System, and is cultivated by Ulpiano and his family as farmworkers therein. Over the years, the river has brought silt and sediment from its sources up in the mountains and forests so that gradually the land owned by Marciano increased in area by three hectares. Ulpiano built three huts on this additional area, where he and his two married children live. On this same area, Ulpiano and his family planted peanuts, monggo beans and vegetables. Ulpiano also regularly paid taxes on the land, as shown by tax declarations, for over thirty years. When Marciano learned of the increase in the size of the land, he ordered Ulpiano to demolish the huts, and demanded that he be paid his share in the proceeds of the harvest. Marciano claims that under the Civil Code, the alluvium belongs to him as a registered riparian owner to whose land the accretion attaches, and that his right is enforceable against the whole world.

Is Marciano correct? Explain. (3%) What rights, if any, does Ulpiano have against Marciano? Explain. (3%)

Yes. For accessory follows the principal. Ulpiano has the right of usufruct to be reimbursed of the fruits of property. A. No. Marciano is not correct. Ulpiano is the owner of the increase caused by alluvium on the parcel of land he bought from Marciano following the principle accessories follows the principal. B. Being the owner of the increase area in his land, Ulpiano has the right to exclude Marciano from the land and register the same in his name. Additionally, Ulpiano can exercise all the rights of an owner over the increase area.

a. marciano is wrong. although it is settled that the accretion belongs to the owner of the land to which it attaches, ownership is not automatic. just because the accretion had attached to a parcel of land brought under the torrens system does not mean that the accretion has also been included therein. the additional increase of the land in this case has to be brought within the torrens system in order that the riparian owner of the registered land may acquire ownership thereof. the registration of the land to which the accretion had attached does not, and cannot, extend to the accretion. registration of the increase land must be had. b. ulpiano in this case has already acquired ownership of the increased land by acquisitive prescription. being in bad faith, the lapse of 30 yrs of an open, continuous, exclusive, adverse and notorious possession is necessary for him to acquire by prescription the subject land. since here ulpiano has been in the possession of the land for more than 30 yrs already, regularly paying even the taxes due thereon, it is clear that he acquires ownership of the land. consequently, then, as against marciano, he has the full ownership rights of the land, w/c include the rights to use, to the fruits, to dispose and even to exclude others from enjoyment and possession thereof. he may even place a fence surrounding the area. thus, he cannot be made to demolish the huts and pay for the fruits he received.

XVII Rosario obtained a loan of P100,000.00 from Jennifer, and pledged her diamond ring. The contract signed by the parties stipulated that if Rosario is unable to redeem the ring on due date, she will execute a document in favor of Jennifer providing that the ring shall automatically be considered full payment of the loan. Is the contract valid? Explain. (3%) Will your answer to [a] be the same if the contract stipulates that upon failure of Rosario to redeem the ring on due date, Jennifer may immediately sell the ring and appropriate the entire proceeds thereof for herself as full payment of the loan? Reasons. (3%)

a. yes. same as above... b. no. it is already a pactum commissorium. feeling ko. di naman tinatanong yung validity of the obligation which is pledge. the contract is void for reason of pactum commissorium, Jennifer MAY NOT SELL the ring and appropriate the ENTIRE proceeds for herself as full payment of the loan. a. yes, contract's valid n no pactum commissarium b. no, new stipulation's void coz it's pactum commissarium. however, contract of pledge is still valid. tanong sa a. valid ba contract ibig sabihen valid ba yung pledge considering d stipulation tapos follow up question sa b. pareho pa ren ba sagot mo sa validity ng pledge kung ibahen naten ang stipulation? so tinatanong ang validity ng contract both sa questions a. n b. tinitingnan den kung understand ba ni examinee concept ng pactum commissarium n epek nito sa pledge my 2 centavos lang

note art. 2112 civil code off tangent Art.2088,civil code ang applicable: The creditor cannot appropriate the things given by way of pledge or mortgage, or dispose of them. Any stipulation to the contrary is null and void.

hehe...read page 1019 Civil Law Reviewer Jurado Hi..........My answer is like that of ConsciouslyMad....an antichresis-like transaction as indicated in the Oblicon Book .....but there seems to be many possible answers?......hope we can help each other find the right one....thanks.............Joey yes of course, kaya nga there are two sides of the coin..depende sa argument at tamang legal basis... God bless sa lahat.. ano na nga ba sabe sa p.1019,Civil Law Reviewer ni Jurado? 2. Define pactum commissorium. What is the rule with regard to pactum commissorium? Is there any exception to this rule? ANS. Pactum commissorium is a pact or agreement in a contract of pledge, mortgage, or antichresis by virtue of which if the debtor cannot fulfill his obligation, the creditor can appropriate or dispose of the thing given by way of pledge, mortgage, or antichresis. Such an agreement is prohibited by law.(Art. 2088,CC.) The only exception is in the case of contract of pledge, but even then, certain conditions should be complied with. In pledge, if the debtor is unable to pay his obligation, the creditor has a right to have the thing pledged sold at public auction for the payment of his credit. If the thing is not sold, a second public auction should be held. If it is still not sold, then he may appropriate the thing.(Art. 2112,CC.)

yan ang sabe ni Jurado sa 19th edition (1999) Civil Law Reviewer p.1019 di ko lang alam kung may sinabe syang iba sa ibang edition relevant ba sa problem yung chuvaekek nya on exception kuno? ano bang facts? may contract of pledge na may stipulation na in case of default in payment a. debtor will execute doc in favor of creditor providing that ring shall automatically be considered full payment of loan n b. creditor may immediately sell ring n appropriate d entire proceeds thereof for herself as full payment of loan anong isyu? valid ba ang kontrak of pledge in light of d stipulation? materyal ba sa resolusyon of d isyu ang right ni creditor to extrajudicially foreclose d pledge in case of default? yung right na yun nakabase kung valid ang kontrak pero ang tanong nga eh kung valid ba daw yung kontrak so baket ipapasok agad ang right to extrajudicially foreclose d pledge inaalam pa lang kung valid ang kontrata ang isyu kung may pactum commissorium ba coz of d stipulation hinde kung ano ang exception sa pactum commissorium my 2 centavoses lang by d way, it's pactum commissorium nga pala hinde pactum commissarium i was referring to subquestion b as an exception to the general rule..Article 2112 of the Civil Code wasn't put there for nothing. I said.."note of Article 2112 CC", that is for everyone who is open enough for all possible answers... if you can't accept it, oh well... by the way,i didn't mention anything about the validity of the contract. I graciously thought that maybe some of us would want to take a look at Article 2112 which is sometimes bypassed by some who are blinded by the general rule.. God bless everyone.

lexangel wrote: i was referring to subquestion b as an exception to the general rule..Article 2112 of the Civil Code wasn't put there for nothing. I said.."note of Article 2112 CC", that is for everyone who is open enough for all possible answers... if you can't accept it, oh well... di naman sa di matanggap, kinaklaro lang.. para mas maunawaan naten ang konsepto ng pactum commissorium ang kwestyon sa subkwestyon b. is d same as d kwestyon in subkwestyon a. --- whether valid ang kontrak in view of d stipulation.. tapos ang fact sa subkwestyon b. ay may stipulation na pwedeng ibenta ni creditor yung ring tapos i-appropriate ang entire proceeds for herself as full payment of d loan.. kaiba at contrary sa art.2112, yung stipulation general authority to sell ang ibinigay sa creditor walang kondisyon na dapat pumunta sa notary public tapos magpublic auction muna dapat ng at least 2 times at kung parehong unsuccessful yung public auctions saka pa lang pwede i-appropriate ang thing pledged.. ang art.2112 hinde stipulation sa kontrak but its read into d kontrak since d law is deemed written in every kontrak lexangel wrote: by the way,i didn't mention anything about the validity of the contract. I graciously thought that maybe some of us would want to take a look at Article 2112 which is sometimes bypassed by some who are blinded by the general rule.. God bless everyone. yun na nga seguro ang problema, walang namention tungkol sa validity ng kontrak.. problema

yun kase ang tanong eh kung valid ba yung kontrak tapos di naman sinagot kaya nga off tangent.. kung baga pwede objekan kase not responsive n derpor irrelevant.. sa bar kahet sa klasrum o sa courtrum dapat responsive sa tanong ang sagot God bless everyone. wow...it amazes me how we can be too stagnant on things?..just pointed at one provision of law that is in relation to a doctrine for our perusal, and it gets attacked on all wrong directions..speaking of irrelevance. whew..

lexangel wrote: wow...it amazes me how we can be too stagnant on things?..just pointed at one provision of law that is in relation to a doctrine for our perusal, and it gets attacked on all wrong directions..speaking of irrelevance. whew.. oo nga, it's amazing how we can be so stubborn at times.. it's also amazing how we can't take comments on n clarifications to our statements, how we consider criticisms as negative sabe nga ni lexangel na ren mismo, ang posibleng sagot ay "depende sa argument at tamang legal basis".. kung related ang provision B sa provision A, ibig sabihen ba eh relevant na at tamang sagot na ang provision B sa tanong na ang hanap ay provision A?.. ang pagkomento ba sa isang statement ay pagatake sa statement na yun? irrelevant na ang komentong ito sa question 17 ng civil law exam for d 2009 bar.. pasensya na.. para sa ikatatapos ng irrelevance, relevant na ang art.2112. Peace! consciouslymad wrote: johnwong30 wrote: XVII Rosario obtained a loan of P100,000.00 from Jennifer, and pledged her diamond ring. The contract signed by the parties stipulated that if Rosario is unable to redeem the ring on due date, she will execute a document in favor of Jennifer providing that the ring shall automatically be considered full payment of the loan. a. Is the contract valid? Explain. (3%) b. Will your answer to [a] be the same if the contract stipulates that upon failure of Rosario to redeem the ring on due date, Jennifer may immediately sell the ring and appropriate the entire proceeds thereof for herself as full payment of the loan? Reasons. (3%) ++++++++++ a. yes. same as above... b. no. it is already a pactum commissorium. feeling ko. di naman tinatanong yung validity of the obligation which is pledge. the contract is void for reason of pactum commissorium, Jennifer MAY NOT SELL the ring and appropriate the ENTIRE proceeds for herself as full payment of the loan. a. yes, contract's valid n no pactum commissarium b. no, new stipulation's void coz it's pactum commissarium. however, contract of pledge is still

valid. tanong sa a. valid ba contract ibig sabihen valid ba yung pledge considering d stipulation tapos follow up question sa b. pareho pa ren ba sagot mo sa validity ng pledge kung ibahen naten ang stipulation? so tinatanong ang validity ng contract both sa questions a. n b. tinitingnan den kung understand ba ni examinee concept ng pactum commissarium n epek nito sa pledge my 2 centavos lang

++++++++ oo nga.. for me.. not valid yung sagot ko. i dont know with you guys.. pero for me.. not valid... di naman na siguro kelangang tagalugin sakin para maintindihan ko yung tanong. dun lang sa may processual presumption mejo nalito ako at kinakailangang tagalugin kasi nakalimutan ko na yun.. lolz.. masyado ko ino ver analyze yung tanong na wala naman talaga na akong alam kaya ganun ang sagot ko that time lolz.. but here.. my answer is not valid. lolz for me kasi... ayoko sabihin na the contract is pledge.. kasi di naman tinatanong yun eh.. kaya i went for a safer answer ... and besides, feeling ko... yung mga stipulations na yun lang ang nilalaman ng contract... so i said it was not valid.. But although the contract is not valid due to the stipulation, does not mean the obligor is scott free. pay pa rin sha ng kautangan okies. so parang ganun din sa sagot ni jor-el.

peace Question A: Valid, a valid dacion en pago; one thing given in full consideration for the indebtedness. Question B. The contract of loan remains valid. The contract of loan is a principal contract, the pledge is only an accessory contract. Hence it can stand on its own notwithstanding the invalidity of the pledge on account of its being a prohibited pactum commissorium. When I answered this question, tinira ko ito sa key words na: "automatic appropriation". So in a, since there is the presence of the element of "automatic appropriation": then it is pactum commissorium. Hence, void by reason of public policy. In b, since there is no element of "automatic appropriation", Ergo, the contract is valid already. Logic at key words lang ng Law ang ginamit ko plus Language. That's it. Luckily, I pass the 2009 Bar. Tenchu Lord! _________________ i had promises to keep;

and miles to go before i sleep... and miles to go before i sleep.

Wow. Your answers are awesome. My answer is the contract is valid because as long as it is written in the contract, they have to follow the rules they have agreed. Loan in Philippines

XVIII The Ifugao Arms is a condominium project in Baguio City. A strong earthquake occurred which left huge cracks in the outer walls of the building. As a result, a number of condominium units were rendered unfit for use. May Edwin, owner of one of the condominium units affected, legally sue for partition by sale of the whole project? Explain. (4%)

rosheil wrote: Yes. Under Section 8 of the Condominium Law; When several persons own condominiums in a condominium project, an action maybe brought by one or more such persons for partition by sale of the entire project as if the owners af all the condominiums in such project were coowners of the entire project in the same proportion as their interests in the common areas.

... and provided that the damage to the project has rendered 1/2 or more of the units untenantable and that the condo owners holding in aggregate more than 50% interest in the common areas are opposed to the repair or restoration of the project.

XIX In 1972, Luciano de la Cruz sold to Chua Chung Chun, a Chinese citizen, a parcel of land in Binondo. Chua died in 1990, leaving behind his wife and three children, one of whom, Julian, is a naturalized Filipino citizen. Six years after Chuas death, the heirs executed an extrajudicial settlement of estate, and the parcel of land was allocated to Julian. In 2007, Luciano filed suit to recover the land he sold to Chua, alleging that the sale was void because it contravened the Constitution which prohibits the sale of private lands to aliens. Julian moved to dismiss the suit on grounds of pari delicto, laches and acquisitive prescription. Decide the case with reasons. (4%)

The prohibition on the sale of private lands to aliens is no longer a valid contention since the land was already extra-judicially partitioned and transferred to Julian who at the time of transfer was a already a naturalized Filipino citizen. As such the defect is already cured.

The petition of Luciano must be dismissed. Independently of the doctrine of pari delicto, the petitioner cannot have the sale annulled and recover the lot Luciano himself has sold. While the vendee was an alien at the time of the sale, the land has since become the property, of respondent Julian, a naturalized Philippine citizen, who is constitutionally qualified to own. Laches also militates against petitioner's cause. Luciano sold the disputed lot in 1972 and instituted the action to annul the sale only in the year 2007. By his long inaction of inexcusable neglect, he should be held barred from asserting his claim to the litigated property. Respondent, therefore, must be declared to be the rightful owner of the property. (De Castro vs. Teng Queen Tan, G.R. No. L-31956, April 30, 1984) NOTE: The problem is exactly the case of De Castro vs. Teng Queen Tan, but in the decision it was never explained by the court why the ground of acquisitive prescription by the respondent was not sustained.

XX If Ligaya, a Filipino citizen residing in the United States, files a petition for change of name before the District Court of New York, what law shall apply? Explain. (2%) If Henry, an American citizen residing in the Philippines, files a petition for change of name before a Philippine court, what law shall apply? Explain. (2%)

Would anyone care to answer this one? My best guess: I'd like to assume that the petition involves procedural matters and so New York laws would apply on this one since matters of procedures are governed by lex fori (law of the forum). Any other ideas would be appreciated. Hmm.. Art. 15 Laws relating to family rights ad duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad. Since the name of a person forms part of his status, Philippine law should apply.

-NOTHING FOLLOWS-

You might also like