ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ar
B
e s
b l
R o
Answer briefly but completely and with legal basis:

nArnold and Belinda were marriedaonrJune 1, 2005. They have 2 children, Abigail
a1.and
h B declared null and void on February 14,
Benjie. Their marriage was judicially
2009 due to the absence of asvalid marriage license. There was no liquidation of
C their assets acquired duringetheir marriage. Arnold subsequently married Carina on
June 1, 2012 complyingb l all the essential and formal requisites provided for by
with
the Family Code.
R o
an a ror void? Explain well.
a. Is the marriage of Arnold and Carina valid, voidable

b. Whath B
C s
is the property regime governing their marriage?
e
Why?

ANSWER:
b l
o
Rof the marriage, the partition and distribution of the
a. The marriage of Arnold and Carina is void. The Family Code provides that the judgment

a
properties of the spouses , and n
of annulment or of absolute nullity
a
the delivery of the childrens presumptive rlegitimes shall be
recorded in the proper h Bagain after
civil registry and registries of property; otherwise, the same shall
C
not affect third persons. Either of the former spouses may
e s
marry complying
with these requirements; otherwise, the subsequent marriage
(Articles 52 and 53 of the Family Code). b l shall be null and void.

o
R and formal requisites of marriage,
a n
Although Arnold and Carina complied with the essential
there was no compliance with Article 52 of the Family Code, hence, the subsequent
a r
marriage is considered null and void.
h B
b. Since the marriage of Arnold and C e s
b l
Carina is null and void, the property regime governing
their marriage is co-ownership under Article 147 of the Family Code considering that there
is no legal impediment to their marriage.
R o
2. Anton was legally married to Bella and they haven r
Danny . During the subsistence of the marriage ofaAnton and Bella, the latter a
two children, Cherry and

h B
C On December 1, 2012, Fred diede
cohabited with Fred, who himself was married to Gretchen.
Bella and Fred, Hector was born on March 4, 2009.
From the cohabitation of
s
in a vehicular accident. Bella, on behalf of Hector, intervened in the settlement l
Freds estate alleging that Hector is entitled to inherit from Fred as his illegitimate
o b of

son. To prove Hectors filiation to Fred, Bella presented Hectors baptismal

R
an
certificate and school report cards where Fred was indicated as Hectors father. She
also presented pictures showing Fred and Hector together on several occasions. On

C h
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ar
the other hand, Gretchen contends that Hectors action is already barred by Freds
death.
B
e s
l
a. May Hector prove his filiation with Fred and be entitled to share in Freds estate?
b
R o
b. Will your answer be the same had the first marriage of Anton and Bella had been
terminated by the death of Anton one year prior to the birth of Hector? Explain well.
n
aANSWER: a r
B
Ch e s
a. No, Hector may not be allowed to prove his filiation with Fred and share in the latters

b l
estate as he is considered the legitimate child of the valid marriage between Anton and

o
Bella. Under Article 164 of the Family Code, children conceived or born during the

R
marriage of his parents are legitimate. Hector was born during the valid marriage of Anton

an r
and Bella, hence, he is a legitimate child of that valid marriage. Moreover, the legitimacy of
a
the child may be impugned only by the husband and only on special cases, by the heirs of
B
Ch
the husband, which is not applicable in the case at bar. It was not shown in the facts of this

e s
case that Anton impugned the legitimacy of Hector within the period provided for by the

bl
Family Code.

Ro
b. My answer will be different. Hector was born from the cohabitation of Bella and Fred
who was legally married to Gretchen, hence, he is considered the illegitimate child of Fred

an ar
and Bella. Anton was already dead one year prior to Hectors birth, hence the former

B
Ch
cannot be his father. Unfortunately, Hector still cannot inherit from Freds estate since he
s
was proving his filiation to Fred using pieces of evidence under the second paragraph of
e
l
Article 172 which include his baptismal certificate, school report cards and pictures. Under

o b
Article 175 of the Family Code, illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation
in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children except when the action is
R
based on the second paragraph of Article 172, in which case the action may be brought

an r
during the lifetime of the alleged parent. Hectors action to prove his illegitimate filiation to

Ba
Fred using pieces of evidence under the 2nd paragraph of Article 172 was already barred by
Freds death.
C h s
3. On a 500 sq.m. lot worth P1M located in Makati City with TCT # 1234 e
l P900,000.00.
registered in

Spouses Reyes became aware of the construction when they o

the names of Spouses Reyes, Spouses Santos built their house worth b
Rvisited their land but

is completely finished. State the rights and obligations of n r

they kept quiet as they did not want any trouble until such time that the construction
a Spouses Reyes and Spouses
B a
Santos based on the facts given.
C h s
ANSWER:
l e
Spouses Reyes (landowners) and Spouses Santos (builders) were both in bad faith, o b
hence
the bad faith of one neutralizes the bad faith of the other and both of them R shall be
n
a thereto. Sps.
considered in good faith. Sps. Reyes were in bad faith since they were already aware of the

h
construction being done on their land by Sps. Santos but they did not object

C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ar
B
Santos were also in bad faith since they constructed their house on land titled in the names
s
of Spouses Reyes. The rights and obligations of the parties are governed by Article 448 of
e
l
the Civil Code.
b
o
The rights and obligations of Spouses Reyes as landowners in good faith are:
R 1. The right to appropriate the house constructed by Sps. Santos after payment of
an the necessary & useful expenses B a r
incurred by Sps. Santos in the construction;

C h 2. The right to sell the s

l e land encroached upon since the value of the land is not

b
considerably more than the value of the house, hence, forced lease is not applicable

o
R of Spouses Reyes as builders in good faith are:
The rights and obligations

1. The n ruseful expenses incurred in the

a right to reimbursement of the necessary &
B a
h
construction of their house;
C2. The right of retention until fully paideofsthe necessary & useful expenses;
b l
is not considerably more R
o upon considering that the value of the land
3. The right to buy the land encroached
than the value of the house, hence, forced lease is not
applicable.
an a r
B With the consent of
h s
CGreg found hidden treasure on this eland. How would the hidden
4. Edgar was the usufructuary of a parcel of land owned by Fred.

l
Edgar and by chance,
treasure be divided between the parties?
b
ANSWER:
Ro
The hidden treasure shall be equally divided a n a
between Fred, the owner of the land where
r
h B of the
s
hidden treasure was found and Greg, the finder. Edgar was merely the usufructuary
land and not the owner, hence, he doesC not get any share. (Article 438 NCC)
e
b l
Roof Corazon,
5. Corazon Reyes and Carlos Santos were married on Dec. 1, 2007. Since that time,
Corazon has been using the name Corazon Santos in all her employment records and
other official documents. On Feb. 2, 2008, upon petition
a n
concealment of habitual alcoholism existing at the time of their marriage, a decree of
due to
a r
with the same court a motion to resume using herh
annulment was granted by the Family Court of Manila. Subsequently, Corazon filed
maiden surname of Reyes and s
B
C e
that she be granted support by Carlos.
b l
a. If you were the judge, would you grant the motion of Corazon to resume using
maiden surname? R o her

a n
h
b. Should Corazon be granted support by her husband?

C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ANSWER: ar
B
e s
a. Yes. Under Article 371 of the Civil Code, in case of annulment of marriage, and the wife

b l
is the guilty party, she shall resume her maiden name and surname. If she is the innocent
spouse, she may resume her maiden name and surname. In the case at bar, Corazon is the

R o
innocent spouse, hence, she has the option to resume using her maiden name and surname.

ab.n a r of marriage shall provide for the liquidation,

No more. The final judgment in annulment
B
h partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody and support of the
s proceedings. After such liquidation and partition of
C been adjudicated in previous ejudicial
common children, and the delivery of their presumptive legitimes, unless such matters had

b lthere is no more obligation to support each other. (Article 50

the properties of the spouses,
NCC).
R o
6. Anton and n r anwasonlydeclared
a Donita, by a previous marriageBawhich
Belinda are husband and wife. They have son Carlos. Belinda

Ch
has a daughter, void by the

first wife. Donita and Elmer who hads

proper court. Anton, a widower at the time he married Belinda, has a son, Elmer,
with his
e never been introduced to each other by
land complying
o
and Elmer, both 25 years of age, eloped b
Anton and Belinda, met at a party and eventually fell in love with each other. Donita
with all the essential and
R
formal requisites of marriage, got married before Judge Franco of the RTC of Manila.

a. What is the nature of the n of Donita & Elmer? Explainawell.

amarriage r
h B of the marriage
C
b. Suppose it was Carlos whom Donita married. What is
e s
the nature
between Carlos and Donita. Explain fully.
b l
ANSWER:
R o
a. The marriage of Donita and Elmer is valid.n r
a a
It is not incestuous nor against public policy.
B
C h
Donita and Elmer are step-sister and step-brother to each other. Under the Family Code,
they are not related to each other and there is no prohibition to their marriage.
s
l e
b. The marriage of Donita and Carlos is null and void as it is incestuous
b and prohibited
o and half-blood
under Article 37 of the Family Code. Donita and Carlos are half-blood sister
brother to each other and their marriage is prohibited by law for R being incestuous.

7. Peter and Raquel, both 16 years old, were so in lovea

n a r
h
with each other that they had
B
was only 17 years old. Peter and Raquel married C
pre-marital sex resulting to Raquels pregnancy. Raquel
each
gave birth to Oscar when she
other on June 1, 2010 when
e s
they were both 18 years old. May Oscar be legitimated due to the marriage of his
b l
Ro
parents, Peter & Raquel?

an
C h
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ar
B
ANSWER:
e s
a. Oscar may
b lbeTolegitimated under RA 9858. An Act Providing For The Legitimation Of

RoArticles 177 and 178 of the Family Code which now read:
Children Born Parents Below Marrying Age (approved Dec. 20, 2009). This law
amended

n Children conceived & born outside

aArt.177. a r of wedlock of parents who, at the time of
h B
conception of the former, were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other, or
C were e
so disqualified only becauseseither or both of them were below 18 years of age, may
be legitimated.
b l
o
Art.178. Legitimation shall take place by a subsequent valid marriage between parents. The
R marriage shall not affect the legitimation.
annulment of a voidable

anthat the only impediment existingBatathertime of conception of Oscar for

C hto get married to each other was thes fact that both of them were below the
It must be noted
his parents
marrying age of 18. Considering that Peter e
b l and Raquel got married to each other after
attaining the age of 18, Oscar may be legitimated to raise him to the level of a legitimate
child.
R o
n r (CAH), a
8. Jennifer was born in 1981 and was registered as female in her birth certificate.
a a
person possesses both male and femaleB
She was later diagnosed to be afflicted with congenital adrenal hyperplasia
rare condition where ah
s
characteristics. Tests
C
revealed that her ovarian structures had minimized,
e
she has clitoral hyperthropy,
she stopped growing and she has no breasts or menstrual
b l development. She has

o from Jennifer to Jeff and

practically become a male person. She filed a petition before the RTC of Siniloan,

R
Laguna that her name in her birth certificate be changed

an r
her gender from female to male. If you were the judge hearing this case, will you
grant or deny her petition?
B a
C h s
e
ANSWER:

b l
Jennifers petition should be granted. In the case of Republic vs. Cagandahan, the Supreme
Court held that considering that Jennifer was born an intersex, theo determining factor in
his/her gender classification would be what he/she, having reached
with good reason, thinks of his/her sex. More importantly inn
R the age of majority,

a this case, Jennifer did not use

a r
h
any drug nor underwent any sex re-assignment to change her gender from female to male.
B
C from their parents specific e s
l
9. Anton, Bernie and Caloy are brothers. They purchased
portions of a parcel of land as evidenced by 3 separate deeds of sale, each deed
referring to a particular lot in metes and bounds. When the deeds were presented
o bfor
R
registration, the Register of Deeds of Pasay City could not issue separate certificates

names of the three brothers. Anton, Bernie, and Caloy each receive a n the fruits
of title due to the absence of a subdivision plan, hence, only 1 title was issued in the

exclusively from the lot actually purchased by each of them. Later,

to Dencio, with verbal notice to his brothers. To enable Dencio
h Anton sold his lot
Cto secure a new title
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ar
in his name, the Deed of Sale was made to refer to an undivided interest in the
property of Anton, with the metes and bounds of the lot being stated. Bernie and
B
Caloy reacted violently to the sale executed by Anton signifying their exercise of the

e s
right of legal redemption as co-owners of the lot. Can Bernie and Caloy still legally
l
redeem the lot sold by Anton to Dencio?
b
o
ANSWER:
R the law, there is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or
n belongs to different persons. Thereaisrno more co-ownership between the brothers as
aright
Under

h B to them even if only one title was issued to them.

C The right of legal redemptioneissno longer available since no more co-ownership exists
specific portions of the land were sold

b
between the brothers. (Spousesl Si vs CA, GR 122047, October 12, 2000).
R o painting worth P1.5M which was stolen from her house
10. Dina owned a valuable
nat Ericas house. Dina saw the painting rhanging in Ericas living room.
during a robbery which was duly reported to the police authorities. A year later,
a a
Bin a gallery auction sale at the Luz
during a party
h
Upon inquiry, Erica said she bought the painting
Cfor P1M. The painting was positivelyeErica?
Gallery sidentified as the one stolen from Dinas
house. Can Dina recover this painting from
b l
ANSWER:
Ro
a n of her personal property but she must
Yes, Dina was unlawfully deprived
a rreimburse Erica
h
of the P1M the latter paid in the gallery auction sale. B
C s
good faith is equivalent to a title. Nevertheless, one whobhaslelost any property
Under Article 559 of the New Civil Code, the possession of movable acquired in
movable or has been
unlawfully deprived thereof, may recover it from the
the possessor of the movable lost or of which theR
operson in possession of the same. If
owner has been unlawfully deprived, has

anowner cannot obtain its returnBwithout

acquired it in good faith at a public sale, the
ar
Chwho had been married for ten
reimbursing the price paid therefor.

e syears was
lto the unborn
11. Elated that her sister Rosemarie
pregnant for the first time, Rosalie donated a ring worth P25,000.00
child. Rosemarie was profuse in thanking her sister when they talked
o b while shopping
Rthe ring she donated?
for baby clothes at Rustans. Rosemarie gave birth after 7 months of pregnancy but
the baby died 21 hours after delivery. May Rosalie get back
Why or why not? a n a r
h B
ANSWER: C e s
Yes, Rosalie may recover the ring that she donated since there was no compliance withbthe
l
o
Rproperty
formalities required by law. Article 748 of the New Civil Code provides that the donation of

donated exceeds five thousand pesos, the donation and the acceptance shall
a n
a movable property may be made orally or in writing. If the value of the personal
be made in

C h
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ar
writing. Otherwise, the donation shall be void. In the case at bar, the donation was a ring
B
worth P25,000.00 and there was no showing that said donation and acceptance were in

e s
writing, even a private instrument, hence, the donation is considered void.

b l
12. Benigno who was terminally ill, signed the will with Bonnie, the 1st witness, at his

R o
bedside. Benjie, the 2nd witness, was in the far side of the room fully engrossed and

an r
concentrated in the cross word puzzle he was doing. Bobot, the 3rd witness, was in
a
the other side of the room near the window, playing scrabble with the grandchildren
B
Ch
of Benigno. Benigno died on January 2, 2013. It was contended that the will was not
s
signed in the presence of the witnesses, hence void. Rule on this contention.
e
ANSWER:
bl
The will is valid. InR
o
Jaboneta vs Gustilo, the Supreme Court held that the real test of signing

an actually seeing the signing but only a r credible witnesses does not
the will in the presence of the testator and the three

without h any physical obstruction to impair the B

necessarily require the possibility of seeing the signing

C were together in one room and eones witness merely turned his back while
vision. If the testator and the three
witnesses

made in his presence. What is importantb

l the will, such signing is still considered
another witness was already in the act of signing

Ro obstruction.
is the opportunity to have seen the signing of the
document because there was no physical

a n children, Basilio and Carlos. aCarlos

13. Anton had two (2) legitimate r had two (2)
h
legitimate daughters, Donna and Erica. Carlos died in 2011 and B Erica repudiated her
inheritance from her Cfather Carlos. In the year 2012, Anton e s died. Can Erica inherit
from Anton?
b l
ANSWER:
R o
a n Under Article 977 of the New CivilaCode,
Yes, Erica can inherit from his grandfather Anton. r
h
an heir who repudiates cannot be represented. However, under Article 976 of the same
B In
the case at bar, Erica repudiated herC
Code, a person who repudiates may represent
s
him whose inheritance he has renounced.
inheritance from her father Carlos but e
b
represent her predeceased father in the inheritance of her grandfather Anton. l she can validly

14. Perlita executed a notarial will on Aug. 16, 2004, R

o
complying with all the
formalities required by law. On May 9, 2006 when she was
a n already 92 years old, too
a r
weak because of her terminal cancer even to rise from
revoke, she asked her housemaid Ponciana to get h
her bed, with intention to
B
the will from the drawer near Perlitas bed, went C to
her will and burn it. Ponciana got
the kitchen, burned the will and
e s
showed the ashes of the burned will to Perlita. Was there a valid revocation of the
b l
Ro
will by burning? Explain well.

an
C h
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ar
ANSWER: B
e s
b l
There was no revocation of Perlitas will by burning. The law allows the revocation by an
overt act to be done personally by the testator or by another person. However, if the overt

R o
act was done by another person, such overt act must be done in the presence and under the

an r
express direction of the testator. In the case at bar, the revocation of the will by burning
a
was done by Ponciana, Perlitas housemaid, under the latters express direction but the
B
Ch
burning was not done in her presence, hence, there was no valid revocation of the will by
burning. (Article 830 NCC).
e s
b l from Betsy & delivered her watch to the latter as
15. Abigail borrowed P25,000.00
o
pledge to secure the payment of her debt.
R
a. What is then rlater found in the possession of
a well. a
presumption under the law if the watch is

h
Abigail? Explain
B
C obligation to pay the P25,000.00eloan
b. Is Abigails s already extinguished? Why?
b l
ANSWER:
R o
pledge has been remitted whena nthe thing pledged, after its delivery toathercreditor, is found
a. Under Article 1274 of the New Civil Code, it is presumed that the accessory obligation of

debtor, or of a third person who owns theB

in the possession of the h thing. Considering that
the pledged watch is C
e
again in the possession of the debtor Abigail,s after the latter delivered
b l
said watch to her creditor, Betsy, the presumption is that Betsy has condoned the pledge.

b. No. Under the law, the renunciation of the principal o

Rofthepledge
debt shall extinguish the accessory

n r
obligations; but the waiver of the latter shall leave former in force. (Article 1273 NCC).

a
In the case at bar, only the accessory obligation
a
has been condoned by Betsy,
B
P25,000.00 to Betsy.
C h
hence, the principal obligation of loan, still subsists. Abigail must pay her debt of
s
l eand lot worth
16. Rolly and Oscar entered into a pacto de retro sale of Oscars house
P10M. The price agreed upon by the parties is only P100,000.00.
o b Is this contract
valid, voidable or void? Explain well.
R
a n a r
ANSWER:
h B
The contract is valid. All the requisites of a validC contract are present: consent of the s
contracting parties, object certain which is the subject matter of the contract and cause l ofe
b
agreed upon by the parties is immaterial considering that this is a pacto de retroo
the obligation which is established. (Article 1318 NCC). The gross inadequacy of the price

R sale. In

an
this kind of sales, the price is unusually lower to allow the seller to repurchase his own
property within an agreed period of time.

C h
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ar
17. On Sept. 1, 2007, Romy was interested to buy a specific Honda Civic 2005 model
car from a second hand car shop in Makati. Sonny, the shop manager told him that
B
the price of the said car was P300,000.00. Romy accepted the offer but told Sonny to

e s
give him one (1) week to raise the amount. There and then, Romy gave an initial

b l
amount of P10,000.00 promising to come back on Sept. 7, 2012 to complete the
payment. Romy returned to the shop on Sept. 8, 2012 but Sonny told him that the car

R o
has already been offered and sold to Tony for P500,000. Sonny contended that even
with the money given by Romy, the offer is good only until Sept. 7, 2012 considering

an a r
that their agreement is only good for one (1) week. He further contended that after
B
Ch
Sept. 7, 2012, the offer can now be withdrawn and the car can be sold to another
s
person and the P10,000.00 option money forfeited in his favor. Do you agree with
e
l
Sonnys contention? Explain well.
b
ANSWER:
R o
an r
No, I do not agree with Sonnys contention. There was already a perfected contract of sale

B a
between Sonny and Romy over this specific car. All the requisites of a valid contract are

Ch s
present: consent of the contracting parties, object certain which was the Honda Civic 2005
e
model car, and cause or consideration which was the P300,000.00. (Article 1318 NCC). It

bl
should not be construed as an option contract which is only an offer to buy or not to buy a

Ro
certain object within a period of time, such offer may be withdrawn by the offerer at any
time before acceptance by communicating such withdrawal, except when the option is

an r
founded upon a consideration distinct from the price. Not being an option contract but a
a
perfected contract of sale between the parties, Sonny can no longer sell the car to another
B
C h
person nor have the earnest money given by Romy forfeited in his favor.
s
18. Arnold, Boyet and Caloy borrowed P120,000.00 e
evidenced by a promissory note (PN) wherein the three b lbound themselves to pay the
from Dennis. This debt is

debt jointly and severally. According to the PN, o Arnold can be compelled to pay on
June 15, 2012; Boyet can be compelled to payR on January 15, 2013; while Caloy can

anbut the 15,

be compelled to pay on June 15, 2014. On February
a
2014, Dennis made a demand r
that his share is not yet due and h demandable. Subsequently, because ofB
upon Caloy to pay the entire indebtedness latter refused to pay contending

C an action against him for the collection

e s Caloys

l fully
refusal to pay the debt, Dennis brought of the
full amount of the obligation. Will the action of Dennis prosper? Explain
b
ANSWER:
Ro
a
This is a solidary obligation. As evidenced by the promissory
n note, the three debtors, a r
Arnold, Boyet and Caloy, bound themselves to payh
severally, hence, the creditor may compel any of C the solidary debtors to pay the entire s
their creditor Dennis, jointly and B
amount of the debt even if they are not bound in the same manner and by the same periods l e
and conditions. In the case at bar, the obligations of Arnold and Boyet are already dueb
o
and

only due and demandable on June 15, 2014 and he can be compelled to pay R
demandable, hence, Caloy can be compelled to pay P80,000.00. Caloys own obligation is

when the period has arrived. (Article 1211 NCC).

a n P40,000.00

C h
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ar
19. Arnold appointed Anton as his agent to manage his prawn business in
B
Dumaguete City. Anton, who is based in Manila wants to appoint Arman as his
substitute.
e s
b l
a. Can Anton validly appoint Arman as his substitute? Why or why not?

b. R
o
a n
Explain well.
a r
As to Anton, what is the effect of his appointment of Arman as his substitute?

h B
C s
c. Give the modes of extinguishing agency.
e
ANSWER:
b l
R o appoint a substitute or a sub-agent. Under Article 1892, the agent
a. Yes, Anton can validly

a n if the principal has not prohibited

may appoint a substitute
a rhim from doing so.
h B Anton shall be responsible for the
acts ofC
b. In view
s
of his appointment of Arman as his substitute,
his substitute Arman:
e
b lto appoint one;
o
(1). When he was not given the power

R
person appointed was n incompetent or insolvent. ar
(2). When he was given such power, but without designating the person, and the
anotoriously
h Bthe withdrawal of the
c. Under Article 1919,C Agency is extinguished by its s
ethe principal or of the agent,
revocation, by

by the dissolution of the firm or corporation which entrustedb l

agent, by the death, civil interdiction, insanity or insolvency of
or accepted the agency or by
the accomplishment of the object or the purpose of the
R o agency.

20. Bert, Bart and Bong agreed to form an partnership to be engaged in the saler
a a
B Bong
of

h
appliances and furniture. Bert agreed to contribute P1M; Bart agreed to contribute a
s
agreed to contribute his industry.C
parcel of land with a building where the business shall be conducted and

l e
a. What formalities must be complied with by Bert, Bart and b
constitute a legal and valid partnership?
R o Bong in order to

b. Under the law, what are the restrictions imposed a

n a r
h
on Bert and Bart as capitalist
B
partners and on Bong as industrial partner?
C e s
ANSWER:
b l
a. A partnership may be constituted in any form, except where immovable property
RoorEvery
real

contract of partnership having a capital of three thousand pesos or more,

a nin money or
rights are contributed thereto, in which case a public instrument shall be necessary.

h
property, shall appear in a public instrument, which must be recorded in the Office of the
C
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ar
B
e s
b l
o
R & Exchange Commission. A contract of partnership is void, whenever immovable
n is contributed thereto, if an inventory
Securities
aproperty a r of said property is not made, signed by the
h B theirBert,
s
parties, and attached to the public instrument. Bart and Bong must comply with these
C void. (Articles 1771, 1772, 1773eNCC).
formalities prescribed by law, otherwise, contract of partnership shall be considered

b l
b. Bert and Bart aso
operation which is R
capitalist partners cannot engage for their own account in any

a n to the contrary. Any capitalist partner

there is a stipulation
a r violating this prohibition shall
of the same kind of business in which the partnership is engaged, unless

h B
bring to the common funds any profits accruing to him from his transactions, and shall
C
personally
s
bear all the losses. (Article 1808 NCC).
e
Bong, the industrial partner, cannot engage
b l in any business for himself, unless the
may either exclude him from theR
o
partnership expressly permits him to do so; and if he should do so, the capitalist partners
firm or avail themselves of the benefits which he may

an a r case. (Article
have obtained in violation of this provision, with a right to damages in either
1789 NCC).
h B
C e s
b l
R o
a n a r
h B
C e s
b l
Ro
an B a r
C h s
l e
b
Ro
an
C h
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph