1. JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER
ANSWERS TO 2010 MOCK BAR EXAMINATIONS
CIVIL LAW
I
SUGGESTED ANSWER
MEMORANDUM
TO: ATTY. MANUEL RIGUERA
FROM: ASSOCIATE
RE: RIGHT OF CARLA OVER THE LAND
ISSUES
The main issue is who between Beth and Carla is entitled to the land. The resolution of
the main issue in turn depends on whether Carla is an innocent purchaser for value. If
she is, then Carla would be entitled to the ownership of the land as the first registrant in
good faith pursuant to Article 1544 of the Civil Code. If not, then it would be Beth who is
entitled to the land as she is the first possessor in good faith of the land. The execution
of a deed of sale in a public instrument is a constructive delivery of possession to the
vendee.
OPINION
It is Carla who is entitled to the land as she is an innocent purchaser for value.
The Supreme Court has held that a transaction is deemed registered from the time that
the same is entered in the primary entry book. Hence the mere fact that the notice of
adverse claim was not annotated on the title does not mean that Carla does not have
constructive notice thereof.
However, under the Property Registration Decree, an adverse claim is proper only when
there is no other provision in the decree for registering the claimant’s right or interest.
Here the basis of the adverse claim is a deed of sale which could have been registered
as a voluntary transaction under the Property Registration Decree. Hence the
registration of the deed of sale as an adverse claim was improper and did not serve as
constructive notice on Carla. Hence Carla is an innocent purchaser for value.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
MEMORANDUM
TO: ATTY. MANUEL RIGUERA
FROM: ASSOCIATE
RE: RIGHT OF CARLA OVER THE LAND
ISSUES
The main issue is who between Beth and Carla is entitled to the land. The resolution of
the main issue in turn depends on whether Carla is an innocent purchaser for value. If
she is, then Carla would be entitled to the ownership of the land as the first registrant in
1

2. good faith pursuant to Article 1544 of the Civil Code. If not, then it would be Beth who is
entitled to the land as she is the first possessor in good faith of the land. The execution
of a deed of sale in a public instrument is a constructive delivery of possession to the
vendee.
OPINION
It is Beth who is entitled to the land as Carla is not an innocent purchaser for value.
Here Beth was able to register the adverse claim in his favor. Carla is deemed to have
constructive notice of the adverse claim and hence is not an innocent purchaser for
value.
The fact that the adverse claim was not annotated on the title does not prejudice Beth
because the Supreme Court has held that a transaction is deemed registered from the
time that the same is entered in the primary entry book.
The filing of the adverse claim is proper. The deed of sale could not be registered as a
voluntary transaction since the owner’s duplicate was not in the possession of the seller
but in that of the mortgagee.
II
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The opposition should be denied.
The opposition that a holographic will is not allowed under Australian law is
without merit.
Under the Civil Code provisions on Succession, the will of an alien abroad
produces effect in the Philippines if it is executed in accordance with the Civil Code.
Here what was executed was a holographic will which is recognized by the
Civil Code. Hence the will was validly executed.
The opposition that the sons were deprived of their legitime under Philippine
law is also without merit.
Under the Civil Code, capacity to succeed shall be governed by the national
law of the decedent.
Here the decedent is a national of Australia whose law allows a testator to will
his estate to anyone provided the instituted heir is alive at the time of the testator’s
death. Hence the institution of Kate as sole heir was valid.
III
SUGGESTED ANSWER
Yes, the RTC should grant the petition for authority to remarry.
The Supreme Court has held that for purposes of applying the second paragraph
of Article 26 of the Family Code, the reckoning point of determining whether the
marriage is mixed is the citizenship of the parties at the time a valid divorce is obtained
abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry, not their citizenship at the
time of the celebration of the marriage.
Here Wilma was already a U.S. citizen at the time she divorced Harry in the
United States and such divorce capacitated her to remarry which she in fact did. Hence
Harry may likewise remarry under Philippine law. [Republic v. Orbecido, G.R. 154380,
5 Oct 05]
2

3. IV
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The marriage was attended by the following defects/irregularities
1) Zandro and Zita were both 18 years of age and hence, the consent of their
parents would still be required. This does not make the marriage void but merely
voidable.
2) The license was irregularly issued because of lack of posting but this does not
affect the marriage but may subject the LCR to civil, criminal or administrative
sanctions.
3) The solemnizing officer had no authority because only incumbent members of
the judiciary may solemnize marriages. The marriage on this score is void unless
either or both parties believed in good faith that he had authority.
4) There was no marriage ceremony which is one of the formal requisites. Be it
noted that the judge merely asked the parties to fill up the blank form and he did not
really perform the ceremony. Total absence of the ceremony makes the marriage
void.
V
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a)
No, international long distance calls are not personal property of PLDT which
may be the subject of theft.
The Supreme Court has held that international long distance calls are not the
personal property of PLDT since it could not have acquired ownership over such calls.
PLDT merely encodes, decodes, enhances and transmits the said calls using its
communications facilities.
(b)
Yes the business of providing telecommunications services is a personal
property which may the subject of theft.
The Supreme Court has held that interest in business, as well as the business
itself, is personal property and hence may be the subject of theft.
Here when Luis used the facilities of PLDT without its consent, he was unlawfully
taking the telephone services and business of PLDT. [Luis v. Abrogar, G.R. No.
155076, 13 January 2009].
VI
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would decide the controversy by dismissing the complaint for cancellation of
right of way.
The Supreme Court has held that the failure to annotate an existing compulsory
easement on the servient estate’s title does not extinguish the easement.
3

4. Here the right of way in favor of Georgina’s land is a compulsory one since
Georgina’s land is without an outlet to a public highway. Hence the right of way was not
extinguished.
VII
SUGGESTED ANSWER
The court should resolve the issue of the Alfa Romeo’s ownership in favor of
Pedro.
Under the Electronic Commerce Act, where the law requires a document to be in
writing, that requirement is met by an electronic document. [Sec. 7(a), Electronic
Commerce Act]
Here the text messages which were stored are electronic documents. Hence the
donation as well as its acceptance was in writing and thus the donation was valid.
VIII
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a)
No a Torrens title may not be subject to a collateral attack.
Under the Property Registration Decree, a certificate of title shall not be subject
to a collateral attack.
(b)
A direct attack is an action the object of which is to nullify the title and hence to
challenge the proceeding pursuant to which the title was decreed. An indirect or
collateral attack is an action the purpose of which is to seek a different relief but in
which an attack on the title or the proceeding is made as an incident thereof.
(c)
No the counterclaim should not be dismissed.
The Supreme Court has held that a direct attack on the title may be by way of a
counterclaim in which the certificate of title is sought to be nullified. [Leyson v.
Bontuyan, G.R. 156357, 18 Feb 05]
IX
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a)
Yes the will should be allowed.
The Supreme Court has held that Article 811 applies only if the holographic will is
contested, that is, its authenticity or that of the testator’s signature is challenged.
Here the will was not contested for the ground of opposition was undue influence
not the authenticity of the will or the testator’s signature therein. Hence the testimony of
two witnesses was sufficient.
4

5. (b)
No my answer would not be the same.
The Supreme Court has held that if a holographic will is contested, the
presentation of three witnesses is mandatory. [Codoy v. Calugay, 12 Aug 99].
Here only two witnesses were presented. Hence the will should not be allowed.
(c)
The formal requirement for the validity of a holographic will are the following:
[KEYWORD: EDS]
1. The will must be Entirely handwritten by the testator.
2. The will must be Dated by the hand of the testator.
3. The will must be Signed by the hand of the testator himself.
X
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a)
Only Kate and Kim, nieces of Quintin and Diana, Quintin’s sister will inherit
from him in intestacy pursuant to the rule of proximity. The other relatives being
farther in degree will be excluded. Kate and Kim as nieces who concur with their
aunt, Diana will inherit by right of representation. Thus, they get ½ of the estate of
Quintin which they will divide equally and the other half goes to Daisy, the sister of
Quintin.
(b)
If the parents of Quintin are among the survivors, they alone will get the entire
estate of Quintin because being relatives in the direct line, they exclude relatives in
the collateral line pursuant to the rule of preference between lines.
XI
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
All of the survivors will inherit from Tess. Since Tess is an adopted child, and
she died intestate, her estate shall still be divided in accordance with Article 190(4)
of the Family Code. Under this provision, if the adopted dies intestate survived by
his adopting parents, his/her spouse and illegitimate child or children, the estate
shall be divided into three parts. 1/3 shall pertain to the adopting parents which they
will divide equally, 1/3 shall go to the surviving spouse and the other third shall
pertain to the illegitimate children of the adopted child. So, Tim and Trish will get 1/3
or P120,000 which they will divide equally. Tong will also get P120,000, and the
remaining P120,000.00 will go to Tina.
5

6. XII
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
(a)
Yes, Edwin can compel Pia to accept payment from him.
Under the Civil Code provisions on obligations and contracts, a person interested
in the fulfillment of the obligation can compel the creditor to accept payment from him.
Here Edwin who is a surety is a party interested in the fulfillment of the obligation
as he is liable together with the principal debtor in favor of the creditor.
(b)
If Pia refuses to accept Edwin’s payment, Edwin’s recourse is to consign the
amount due with the court.
Under the Civil Code provisions on obligations and contracts, the debtor may
consign the amount due where the creditor unjustifiably refuses the debtor’s tender of
payment.
In this case, Pia’s refusal was unjustified since Edwin is a person interested in
the fulfillment of the obligation.
(c)
Yes, Edwin may foreclose upon the mortgage executed by Martin.
Under the Civil Code provisions on obligations and contracts, there is legal
subrogation when a person interested in the fulfillment of the obligation pays the
creditor. In such a case, payor steps into the shoes of the creditor and acquires the
creditor’s accessory rights such as those arising from mortgage.
Here Edwin who is interested in the fulfillment of the obligation had paid Pia.
Hence Edwin steps into the shoes of Pia and acquires the latter’s rights as mortgagee.
XIII
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a)
I would counter Polly’s suit by arguing that under the Civil Code provisions on
obligations and contracts, when the debtor binds himself to pay when his means permit
him to do so, the obligation shall be deemed to be one with a period and the court
should first fix the period before any action to enforce payment may be filed. [Arts.
1180, 1197].
(b)
I should first file an action to fix the period of the obligation pursuant to the Civil
Code provisions on obligations and contracts. [Arts. 1180, 1197] I would file the action
with the Regional Trial Court since it is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation.
XIV
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a)
Yes, the contract of sale is valid.
6

7. Under the Civil Code provisions on Obligations and Contracts, an oral sale of real
property is unenforceable. Nevertheless an unenforceable contract is still valid as the
same may be ratified.
Under the Civil Code provisions on Sales, the seller need not be the owner of the
object at the time of the perfection of the sale. Hence the sale is valid even if Dina did
not own Lot 1.
(b)
Yes, if I were the judge I would grant Dina’s motion to dismiss.
Under the Civil Code provisions on Obligations and Contracts, sale of real
property is covered by the Statute of Frauds and unenforceable by action.
(c)
The Statute of Frauds is that provision in the Civil Code which enumerates
certain contracts which are unenforceable by action, unless the same, or some note or
memorandum thereof, be in writing and subscribed by the party charged or by his
agent. [Article 1403[2], Civil Code].
The purpose of the Statute of Frauds is to prevent fraud and perjury.
(d)
No, if I were the judge I would not sustain the motion to strike out.
Under the Civil Code provisions on Obligations and Contracts, contracts
infringing the Statute of Frauds are ratified by the failure to object to the presentation of
oral evidence to prove the same. [Article 1405, Civil Code].
Here Dina’s lawyer failed to object to the presentation by Portia of oral evidence
to prove the contract. Hence the contract was ratified and the testimony of Portia may
no longer be struck out.
XV
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Pol’s contention is not correct.
The Supreme Court has held that the defense of substantial compliance which is
available in rescission under Article 1191 is not available in the case of failure to pay in
a contract to sell since the failure to pay is not a breach but merely an event which
prevents the vendor’s obligation to convey title from acquiring binding force.
Here the Agreement although denominated as one of purchase and sell is really
a contract to sell since the deed of absolute sale and the clean title would only be
delivered to the buyer upon full payment. Hence the defense of substantial compliance
is not available to the buyer. [Ong v. CA, G.R. No. 97347, 6 July 99]
XVI
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a)
The contract entered into among Andres, Bong, and Carlos is the contract of
partnership.
7

8. Under the Civil Code provisions on partnership, a partnership exists when two or
more people agree to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund with the
intention of dividing the profits among themselves.
Here Andres and Bong would contribute property while Carlos would contribute
his industry and they would divide the proceeds of the sales. Hence there is a contract
of partnership among them.
(b)
Carlos is not liable to bear a part of the losses.
Under the Civil Code provisions on partnership, an industrial partner is not liable
for losses of the partnership. [Art. 1797] An industrial partner is one who contributes
industry rather than money or property to the partnership.
Here Carlos is an industrial partner for he contributed only his industry or
expertise. Hence he is not liable for the partnership’s losses.
XVII
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a)
The name of the contract entered into among Peter, Andy, and Beth is the
contract of commodatum.
Under the Civil Code provisions on loan, there is commodatum when a person
gratuitously lends to another a non-consummable thing for the latter to use for a certain
time and to return it.
Here Peter lent his car, a non-consummable thing, for Andy and Beth’s free use
for one week. Hence there was a contract of commodatum.
(b)
Yes Andy should be held liable to Peter for the value of the car.
Under the Civil Code provisions on loan, the bailee in commodatum is liable for
the loss of the thing even if through a fortuitous event if the bailee keeps it for a period
longer than that stipulated.
Here Beth kept the car longer than one week. Hence Beth is liable.
Andy should also be liable.
Under the Civil code provisions on loan, when there are two or more bailees to
whom a thing is loaned in the same contract, they are liable solidarily. In solidary
liability the fault of one is the fault of all.
Here the car was lent to Andy and Beth hence they are liable solidarily. The
liability being solidary, Peter is liable for the full value of the car or P500,000 even if the
one at fault was Beth.
XVIII
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Bank of the Philippine Archipelago would have the right over the P40,000,000
proceeds of the foreclosure sale.
The Supreme Court has held that before the Civil Code provisions on
concurrence and preference of credit would apply, there should first be a binding in rem
proceeding where the claims of all creditors would be adjudicated, such as insolvency,
settlement of a decedent’s estate, and other liquidation proceedings of similar import.
[Phil. Savings Bank v. Lantin, 124 SCRA 476].
In this case there was no binding in rem proceeding but only a foreclosure suit.
Hence it is only the mortgagee who would have a right to the foreclosure proceeds.
8

9. XIX
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a)
Actual damages: Damages recoverable because of pecuniary loss.
Moral damages: Damages incapable of pecuniary estimation but awarded
because of the physical suffering, mental anguish, besmirched reputation, social
humiliation and similar injury which are the proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful
act or omission.
Exemplary damages: Damages which are imposed by way of example or
correction for the public good.
Nominal damages: Damages which are awarded in order to vindicate or
recognize the plaintiff’s right and not for the purpose of indemnification.
Temperate damages: Damages which are more than nominal but less than
actual damages and which are awarded when there is pecuniary loss but its amount
cannot be proved with certainty.
Liquidated damages: Damages which are agreed to by the parties in a contract
to be paid in case of its breach.
(b)
Ding’s defense is not meritorious.
Article 2219(7) of the Civil Code authorizes the recovery of moral damages in
cases of libel, slander, or any other form of defamation. The Supreme Court has held
in a recent case that this article does not qualify whether the plaintiff is a natural or
juridical person.
Here Ding was guilty of libel or defamation when he lambasted ANI in a radio
broadcast. Hence he is liable for moral damages to ANI. [Filipinas Broadcasting Corp.
v. Ago Medical and Educational Center, G.R. 141994, 17 Jan 05]
NOTHING FOLLOWS.
9