Anda di halaman 1dari 8



Part I. MULTIPLE CHOICE. Choose the letter of the best answer.

Samantha was Bryans 2 nd cousin but they were madly in love with each other so they decided to elope.
After 3 years of living together, they decided to go straight to the Mayor to get married. They eventually
realized that they were not for each other and split after they begot their 2nd child, with the wife taking
their children with her. They fought over the family car which they acquired during the time they were
still living together.

1. Is the marriage between X and Y valid?

a) Yes, all essential and formal requisites have been complied with.
b) No, for being void due to public policy.
c) No, since the solemnizing officer was without authority.
d) No, for lack of a valid marriage license.

2. How is the ownership of the car best described?

a) It shall be co-owned in a proportion according to X and Ys actual contribution.
b) It shall be co-owned by Samantha and Bryan in equal shares.
c) It is part of the conjugal partnership.
d) It is part of the absolute community.

3. Two weeks later and still affected by his parents separation, their 16-year old son ran away,
taking with him the family car. He made a wrong turn and hit a pedestrian leading to the
latters death. Which of the following statements is correct?
a) The father and the mother are solidarily liable with their son for the damage.
b) The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the
damages caused by their son.
c) The mother is solidarily liable with their son for the damage.
d) The father is solidarily liable with their son for the damage.

4. Which of the following will terminate Samanthas parental authority?

a) Repeated physical abuse and violence committed against her children
b) Abandoning her children and leaving them to the care and custody of her sister
c) Appointment of her mother as her childrens general guardian
d) Conviction of a crime which carries with it the penalty of civil interdiction


Joanna and Mark are siblings. Joanna owned an apartment compound from which she generates monthly
income through rents paid. Through the years, she has also acquired several pieces of jewellery which she
has kept in a deposit box in a bank. In 1993, Joanna decided to migrate to Canada, leaving all properties
she had behind to Marks care, arming the latter with a General Power of Attorney (GPA) to perform all
acts necessary to obtain a loan, sell, or lease any or all of her properties as may be necessary for the proper
administration of her properties. In 1995, Mark was going to get married. Because of this, X sent Y a letter
whereby she gave the latter her diamond ring so Mark need not spend money for an engagement ring.

5. Can Mark sell one of Joannas apartment units under the GPA?
a) Yes, because he was given a general power of authority.
b) No, because a special power of attorney is necessary to convey real rights over
immovable property.
c) Yes, because the GPA specifically gives him the power to sell any or all of her
properties as may be necessary.
d) No, because the power to sell under the GPA does not specify which property X is
authorized to sell.

6. Can Mark mortgage one of Joannas apartment units as security for a loan under the GPA?
a) Yes, because the GPA gives him the power to sell and a mortgage includes less
transmission of rights than a sale.
b) No, because a separate instrument giving him special power of attorney is necessary for
the purpose.
c) Yes, because a mortgage is only an accessory to a contract of loan.
d) No, because the GPA merely gives him the power to sell and not to mortgage.

7. What is the status of the donation made by Joanna in favor of Mark?

a) Valid
b) Void
c) Unenforceable
d) Rescissible

8. Which of the following is true?

a) The donation of the diamond ring requires delivery of the thing to be valid.
b) The donation and acceptance of the diamond ring must be in writing.
c) The donation must be made in a public instrument.
d) The donation of the diamond ring may be made orally.


Caitlin wanted to buy a car from Russell, and they entered into a contract of sale. Caitlin did not have
enough money for the car, so she pledged her diamond ring to Henry as security for a loan of P50,000.
She also took out a loan from Gina for another P50,000, and Gina required that the loan be secured by a
guarantor, thus Caitlin asked her sister, Amy, to be a guarantor.

9. The following contracts require delivery of the subject matter for a perfected contract to exist.
Which is the exception?
a) An agreement to borrow money.
b) A sale of a car.
c) An agreement to pledge a diamond ring.
d) An agreement to lend money.

10. The loan from Henry, which was secured by the diamond ring, was not paid.
a) Henry may appropriate the ring as his own if there is a stipulation to that effect.
b) Henry may recover the deficiency if after the auction sale, a deficiency exists.
c) Henry cannot recover the deficiency after the auction sale.
d) Henry must sell the ring to someone else in a private sale.

11. When the debt of Caitlin to Gina fell due, Caitlin did not pay despite demand.
a) Amy may ask Gina to exhaust all the properties of Caitlin first before collecting from
b) Gina may collect from Amy because he guaranteed payment of the debt.
c) Amy may refuse to pay even if Caitlin is insolvent.
d) Amy may refuse to pay even if Caitlin has absconded.
12. On the due date of the obligation of Caitlin to Russell as stipulated in the contract of sale,
Caitlin could not pay. Caitlin instead offered her jewelry collection in payment for the
obligation. Russell agrees.
a) There is no payment because the debt may only be discharged by legal tender.
b) There is dation in payment or dacion en pago.
c) There is payment pursuant to a facultative obligation.
d) There is payment by cession.


In 2001, Lily, an OFW in New York married James, an American citizen. They decided to go to the
Philippines and establish residence in Manila. Lily gave birth to their two children, Rose and Peter.
Everything was going well with their family until their business became bankrupt. James then decided to
go back to USA to work. After 5 years, Lily discovered that James was having an illicit affair with another
Filipina, Neri. Lily then decided to fly to New York where she obtained a Divorce Decree. A year after the
Decree was obtained, Lily found herself being in love with another man, John. They planned to get
married in the Philippines so Lily went to RTC Manila to have the previous Divorce Decree

13. Will the RTC of Manila grant Lily's prayer?

a) Yes, provided that Lily will be able to produce the necessary documents and
certifications by the Philippine Embassy in the US and by the New York Court to
establish the Decree and the law granting the Decree as facts.

b) Yes, as long as her ex-husband, James, will be notified and will give his consent to the
subsequent marriage.

c) No, Lily will not have the capacity to remarry because the divorce decree obtained
abroad is invalid.

d) No, for Lily to be able to have the capacity to remarry, the valid Divorce Decree must
have been obtained by her alien spouse, James, instead.

14. Will James be allowed to marry Neri abroad if he decides to do so despite Lily's objection?

a) Yes, only Lily will not be allowed to remarry under Philippine law. The Divorce
Decree obtained by her will capacitate James to remarry abroad.

b) No, because Neri is also a Filipina.

c) Yes, provided that Lily will give her consent to the subsequent marriage between James
and Neri.

d) No, the Divorce Decree is invalid.

15. Suppose that when she filed for divorce, Lily already became a naturalized American citizen.
Will her prayer for the acknowledgment of the Decree of Divorce be granted by the RTC of

a) No, the reckoning point in determining the applicability of the rule on a divorce decree
between a Filipino citizen and an alien obtained abroad is the citizenship of the parties at
the time of the celebration of marriage.

b) Yes, the reckoning point in determining the applicability of the rule on a divorce
decree between a Filipino citizen and an alien obtained abroad is the citizenship of the
parties at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating
the latter to remarry.
c) Yes, the citizenship of the parties is immaterial and irrelevant in the issue of their
capacity to remarry.

d) No, Lily's American citizenship must still be proven as a fact. Otherwise, she is presumed
to be a Filipino citizen.

16. Suppose that it was James who obtained the Divorce Decree abroad because he wanted to get
married to Neri in Manila and that Lily has no plans of tying the knot with John, will a
petition filed by James for the acknowledgment of the Decree be granted by the court?

a) Yes, because James is an alien. He has the capacity to remarry by virtue of the valid
Divorce Decree.

b) No. The rule on a divorce decree between a Filipino citizen and an alien obtained
abroad is intended only for the protection and benefit of the Filipino spouse and not
of the alien.

c) Yes. Although the rule on a divorce decree between a Filipino citizen and an alien
obtained abroad was enacted to protect the Filipino spouse, there is no prohibition with
respect to the incidental benefit to the alien resulting from the divorce decree.

d) No. James is the guilty spouse; therefore he cannot benefit from the protection provided
by Philippine laws.


On January 2013, Andrew, Ben and Charlie borrowed P1,000,000 from Wendy and Xavier, and bound
themselves to pay jointly and severally, payable in 6 months. The debt was attested to by all of the parties
in a notarized instrument, where it was acknowledged that Wendy and Xavier were solidary creditors for
the amount of P1,000,000. The instrument further acknowledged that Andrew, Ben and Charlie were
individually liable for P500,000, P300,000, and P200,000 respectively; and that all the parties to the
contract were of legal age at the time the debt was contracted. The instrument was signed by all of the

Ben and Charlie were both minors when the debt was contracted. Xavier is the father of Andrew.
On June 2013, Wendy made a remission as to the amount of Charlies share in the debt, and such was
accepted by Charlie.

On August 2013, Xavier made a demand on Charlie for the full amount.

17. How much can Xavier demand from Charlie?

a) None, because the remission released Charlie from his obligation.
b) P200,000
c) P1,000,000, because the remission was made without Xaviers consent.
d) P800,000

18. Upon Xavier's collection of the payment, how much can Wendy demand from Xavier?
a) 0
b) P500,000
c) P400,000
d) P300,000

19. Assuming that Xavier dies before the debt is collected, and Andrew is the sole heir, how
much can Wendy collect from Andrew?
a) 0
b) 500,000
c) 400,000
d) P300,000

20. Assuming the original case facts, and supposing that Wendy contracts a P500,000 debt with
Charlie in July, how much can Wendy collect from Charlie?
a) P800,000
b) 300,000
c) 0
d) 500,000



Gary and Amanda were married in 1997. A year later, they separated. In 2000, Amanda met Rey, with
whom she begot a childEva. In 2001, Amanda received news that Gary and his co-employee were
abducted by militant men in Saudi. In 2006, Amanda filed a petition for declaration of presumptive death
and married Rey.

a) What is the filiation status of Eva? Explain. (3%)

Eva is an illegitimate child. Being born to parents who are outside a valid marriage, as per Article 165 of
the Family Code, Eva is an illegitimate child.

b) What is the effect of Amandas marriage to Rey on the status of Eva, if any? Explain. (3%)
None. Eva remains an illegitimate child. Eva may not be legitimated since according to Article 177 of the
Family Code, only children born outside of wedlock of parents who, at the time of conception of the child,
were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other may be legitimated.

c) Assuming the marriage to be valid, what would be the effect of Garys reappearance? Is there any
difference if it was later on shown that Amanda and Rey were aware that Gary was still alive?
The subsequent marriage of Amanda and Rey would be terminated but only upon the recording of the
affidavit of the Gary that he has reappeared, according to Article 42 of the Family Code. If both spouses
were aware that Gary as still alive at the time of their marriage, they would be in bad faith and Article 44 of
the Family Code states that the subsequent marriage would be considered as void ab inito.


Marie and Don inherited a two-storey building from their father. The first floor was dedicated to
commercial use, some of the units being rented out to business establishments. The second floor used to
serve as their residence. When Marie got married, she and her husband migrated to Canada. Three years
later, she returned to find out that Don and his family has continued to occupy the second floor as their
residence and has collected rents from the business establishments occupying the first floor. Marie alleges
that Don is liable to pay her half of the income the latter has received for 3 years and to pay her half of the
rental price for occupying the second floor.

a) Is Don liable to pay her half rent for occupying the second floor? Explain. (5%)

NO. As per Article 486 of the Civil Code and the case of Pardell vs Bartolome (23 Phil 450), Don was merely
exercising a right pertaining to him as co-owner of the property. In living in the second floor, he did not
prejudice the rights of his sister, nor did he prevent his sister from living therein.
b) Marie found out that the lease contract with one of the tenants has already expired but refuses to
vacate the premises. She filed an eviction suit. The tenant avers that Don is an indispensable
party to the case. Is the tenant correct? (5%)

NO. According to Article 487 of the Civil Code, any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment.
Hence, Don is not anymore an indispensable party to institute the ejectment suit. Any favorable judgement
thereon shall inure to the benefit of all other co-owners.


Paulo was going on a business trip to Japan for one week. Having no one else to look after his dog, Ecru,
he entrusted it to his cousin, Alvin. Alvin took in Ecru and let the dog stay in his garage. One day, as he
and his friends returned from a basketball game, Ecru bit Aljay. Aljay went to his cousin who was a
doctor who administered anti-rabbies shots. Aljay claims payment from Alvin for the expenses the
former incurred as a result of the incident. Alvin raises the following defenses:

a) He is not the owner of the dog which was merely entrusted to him. Hence, he is not liable. Aljay
should go after Paulo.
b) Aljay was taunting the dog which caused the latter to bite him. This was attested to by two of
their teammates.

Rule on Alvins defenses. (10%)

a) The defense is not tenable. The first sentence of Article 2183 says that the possessor of the animal or
whoever may make use of it is responsible for the damage which the animal may cause, although it may
escape or be lost. Ownership of the animal is not required in order to be held liable for the damage it causes.
A mere possessor is already liable.
b) The defense is tenable. The second sentence of Article 2183 says that the responsibility for animals that a
person possesses ceases in case the damage should come from the fault of the person who has suffered
damage. In this case, it was Aljay who caused his own damage because he taunted the dog.


Dominic is a Filipino citizen who presently resides in Australia. His father, Domingo, was likewise a
Filipino citizen. The latter died intestate, leaving properties situated in Tokyo, Japan, where he resided
since 1991 until his death.

a) What law governs Dominics successional rights as regards his fathers properties in Tokyo,
Japan? (4%)
Philippine law (Art. 16, par. 2)

b) Suppose Domingo executed a will while he was in Tokyo, Japan. What law governs its intrinsic
and extrinsic validity? (6%)
The extrinsic validity is governed by either the law of Japan, being the place of execution (Art. 17. 1st par.
Civil Code), or Philippine law (by implication from Art. 816 of the Civil Code which allows an alien who is
abroad to make a will in conformity with our Civil Code)
The intrinsic validity, on the other hand, will be governed by Philippine law, Domingo being a Filipino
citizen (Art. 16)

Cinderella wanted to dress nicely for the ball so she borrowed a golden ring from Frodo. Frodo obliged.
Cinderella was not able to return the golden ring because she got so high during the party that she
destroyed it with a sledgehammer. Frodo filed for damages against Cinderella. In the judges decision,
Cinderella was ordered to pay Frodo the value of the ring. She was also ordered to pay 6% interest
starting at the point that Cinderella smashed the ring.

a. What contractual relationship arose before the ball? (2%)

It was a contract of commodatum.

b. As a judge in the appellate court, rule on Cinderellas arguments:

i. The obligation to return the ring was not a loan or forbearance of money so the interest should
only run from the date of extrajudicial demand. Since Frodo made no extrajudicial demand, no
interest should have run. (4%)
Wrong. If the obligation is not for loan or forbearance of money, the interest would run on the date of
extrajudicial or judicial demand. While there was no extrajudicial demand, the interest should run on the
date of judicial demand, which is the date that Frodo instituted the case in court.

ii. Assuming arguendo that the interest should run, it should only be 6% all throughout until the
obligation is paid. (4%)
Wrong. If the obligation is not for loan or forbearance of money, there should be 6% rate of interest at the
date of extrajudicial/judicial demand. However, the interest should not be 6% all throughout. 12% interest
should run on the date the judgement of the court becomes final until the date that the obligation is actually
paid by judgement debtor. (Eastern Shipping Lines vs. CA)


Antonio was a successful businessman who left an estate worth 200 million at the time of his death. In his
will, he instituted his live-in partner as his heir, to whom he bequeathed his entire estate. He was
survived by his twin brother, his sisters son, and his mother.

a) Was there preterition? (5%)

Yes. Preterition is the omission in the will of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line
wheher living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator. (Art. 854 Civil
Code) His mother, being a compulsory heir, was preterited.

b) Suppose Antonio died intestate, how will the estate be divided? (5%)
According to the Art. 985 of the Civil Code, in default of legitimate children and descendants, the parents
of the descendants shall inherit from the deceased to the exclusion of all collateral relatives. Applying the
provision to the case, Antonios twin brother and his sisters son are excluded by his mother. Antonios
whole estate will be inherited by his mother.


William was a wealthy septuagenarian with 4 childrenAndrew, Kate, Kaye, and Alice. At the time of
his death, he left vast amount of properties. Andrew, Kate, Kaye, and Alice agreed that it would be more
beneficial to leave the administration of the estate to their eldest brother, Andrew. For this purpose, they
signed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in his favor. Andrew leased 4 parcels of agricultural land to
Maria for fifteen (15) years. The lease agreement allows Maria to construct warehouses and like structures
on the lands.

a) Do Kate, Kaye, and Alice have a ground to question the lease? (4%)
Yes, they have ground to question the lease. Andrew is an agent under an agency couched in general terms,
as per Article 1877, which confines his powers to mere acts of administration. Moreover, under Article
1878 of the Civil Code, a special power of attorney is necessary to lease any property to another person for a
year. Hence, it is not within Andrews power to lease out the agricultural lands to third persons.

b) What is the status of the contract? (3%)

The contract is unenforceable for being entered into without authority or in excess thereof in accordance
with Art. 1403 of the Civil Code.

c) Assuming the lease contract is valid, is Maria entitled to payment for the value of the warehouses
upon expiration of the lease? (3%)
No, according to Article 1678 of the Civil Code, the lessee is merely entitled to payment of one half the
value of the useful improvements at the time of the expiration of the lease.


Arvin, 65, and Joanna, 23, died in a plane crash. There is no proof as to who died first. Arvins surviving
heir is his wife, Mara. Joanna's surviving heirs, on the other hand, are her mother, Mara and her husband,
Jay. In the settlement of Arvin's estate, Joannas husband, Jay, claims that his late wife had a hereditary
share since she was much younger than her father and, therefore, should be presumed to have survived
longer. Is Jay correct? (10%)

No. Under Art. 43, Civil Code, two persons "who are called to succeed each other" are presumed to have died at the
same time, in the absence of proof as to which of them died first. This presumption of simultaneous death applies in
cases involving the question of succession as between the two who died. In this case, since Arvin and Joanna are
mutual heirs, the presumption applies.