(Note: This is not a one-size-fits-all format. This is just a general guide) T!es of "ssa #uestions 1. $%je&tive T!e 2. 'ssue-Posing T!e 3. 'ssue-(!otting T!e 1. Objective Type - )s* for definitions+ enumerations and distin&tions - )nswer as %rief and &on&ise as !ossi%le Not more than , senten&es. -ite the legal %asis. - What is the doctrine of renvoi? (.efinition) o 'n the &ase of )znar vs. /ar&ia0 - Enumerate the grounds for the annulment of marriage ("numeration) o )&&ording to )rti&le 12 of the Famil -ode0 - Distinguish psychological incapacity from insanity (.istin&tion) o Ps&hologi&al in&a!a&it ma %e distinguished from insanit as follows: )s to their effe&t on the marriage+ !s&hologi&al in&a!a&it nullified the marriage+ while insanit is onl a ground for annulment of marriage. (se!arate !aragra!hs) )s to the time of their e3isten&e in order to %e a ground to terminate the marriage+ !s&hologi&al in&a!a&it must %e &hara&terized % juridi&al ante&eden&e. $n the other hand+ insanit need onl affe&t to mental dis!osition of the !art during the &ele%ration of their marriage. 2. ssue-Posin! Type - Fa&t-%ased 4uestions - Provide the issue and onl re4uire the e3aminee to address su&h issue - 5!otheti&al e3am!le ". ssue-#pottin! Type - Fa&t-%ased 4uestions - #uestions whi&h do not e3!ressl !rovide the issue+ and re4uire the e3aminee to determine the issue %efore addressing the issue - 6ou need to s!ot the rea$ issue %efore ou are a%le to answer - Justin Bieber was only trying to pull a joke by pointing a toy gun at Orlando Bloom Believing it was a real gun! Orlando Bloom killed Justin Bieber as an act of self"defense #f you were the judge! will you hold Orlando Bloom liable for the death of Justin Bieber? o .isse&t the #uestion7 'mmediate #uestion: 's $rlando 8loom lia%le for the death of 9ustin 8ie%er: Real #uestion: 's %ista&e o' 'act a valid defense on the !art of $rlando 8loom: No+ ' will not hold $rland 8loom &riminall lia%le for the death of 9ustin 8ie%er %e&ause $rland 8loom was a&ting %ased on mista*e of fa&t. 'n the &ase of ;( vs. )h -hong+ the defendant had no reasona%le time and o!!ortunit to as&ertain the fa&ts. 'n the !resent &ase+ $rlando 8loom %elieved that the to gun was real and he was a&ting in self- defense had the fa&ts %een as he %elieved them to %e. <ith all the elements of mista*e of fa&t !resent+ $rlando 8loom is not &riminall lia%le for the death of 9ustin 8ie%er. Use t(e #)A* +et(o, - #hort )nswer = st !aragra!h - )egal 8asis , nd !aragra!h - A!!li&ation 1 rd !aragra!h - *on&lusion 1 rd !aragra!h $hort %nswer - )ddressed the immediate 4uestion %eing as*ed - ;se the e&ho method - #s the petition correct? No+ the !etition is not &orre&t. &egal Basis - (tate the law or juris!ruden&e a!!li&a%le to the set of fa&ts - ;se !ro!er &itation. -ote. /o not write t(e artic$e nu%ber or case tit$e i' you are not 1001 sure t(at it is t(e correct citation - 'ntrodu&tor terms o /eneri&: >;nder the New -ivil -ode0? >;nder the law0? >'t is a well-settled ruled that0? >The (u!reme -ourt has held that0? o (!e&ifi&: >)rti&le =@ of the New -ivil -ode !rovides that0? >'n the &ase of ;( vs. )h -hong+ the (u!reme -ourt held that...? >The (u!reme -ourt has ruled in the &ase of -ui vs. )rellano ;niversit that...? %pplication - )!!l the law to the given set of fa&ts - /o not assu%e 'acts. Aimit ourselves to the fa&ts given in the 4uestion. - Transitional terms o >5ere...? >'n this &ase...? >'n the &ase at %ar...? >'n the !ro%lem...? >8ased on the fa&ts...? >)!!ling the laws...? - 8e &onsistent. ;se the same &on&e!ts or terms that ou used in our legal %asis. - (llogism: o -orre&t: )ll dogs are mammals )ll mammals have mammar glands Therefore+ all dogs have mammar glands o <rong: Therefore+ all &anines have %reasts. 'onclusion - Bust address the issue whi&h ma or ma not %e the same as the immediate 4uestion. - 'n 'ssue-(!otting T!e+ there should %e , &on&lusion statements in one answer one addressing the rea$ issue and the other addressing the i%%e,iate 2uestion !osed. - Transitional terms o >Therefore...? >Thus...? >5en&e...? - (ame as the short answer E3a%p$e 4 1. (' was not a%le to write the fa&ts of the &ase %ut here are the 4uestions and answers) - 'mmediate #uestion: o <hat is the status of the marriage %etween .aniel and 9ulia: - "m%edded #uestion: o 's the divor&e o%tained % a former Fili!ino national against the Fili!ino s!ouse valid: )nswer: (a!!ling the (A)- Bethod) The marriage %etween .aniel and 9ulia is valid. ;nder )rti&le =C of the Famil -ode+ the alien s!ouse ma validl o%tain divor&e against his or her Fili!ino s!ouse and %e &a!a&itated to su%se4uentl remarr if allowed to do so under the alien s!ouseDs national law. Further+ in the &ase of Re!u%li& vs. $r%e&ido+ the (u!reme -ourt held that the national law of the alien s!ouse at the time he o%tained the divor&e de&ree shall %e the determining !oint of the validit of su&h defense. 5ere+ .aniel was alread naturalized as an )meri&an &itizen at the time he o%tained the divor&e de&ree. Provided that .aniel suffi&ientl !roves that )meri&an law allows divor&e+ .aniel validl o%tained divor&e against Eathrn and their marriage has %een terminated. 5is marriage with Eathrn having %een validl terminated+ .aniel %e&ame &a!a&itated to su%se4uentl remarr. Therefore+ the marriage %etween .aniel and 9ulia is valid. 5or% - $%serve !ro!er margins - <rite legi%l - $%serve !ro!er indention and s!a&ing - Follow %asi& grammati&al rules+ !un&tuation+ and s!elling &ommon mista*es are su%je&t-ver% agreement+ senten&e fragments+ voi&e and !ers!e&tive+ - 6our answer %ust be consu%%ate to t(e points !iven to t(at 2uestion. - )nswer must not %e more than 2 senten&es if onl one law and there is no rule dis&ussed - ;se introdu&tor and transitional e3!ressions wisel. - Refrain from using a%%reviations. ;se a&ronms s!aringl. o "3am!les of a%%reviations whi&h are not allowa%le: >wF&? for >whi&h?+ >%e&.? or >&oz? for >%e&ause? o "3am!le of allowa%le a&ronms: >N--? for the >New -ivil -ode?+ >F-? for >Famil -ode+ >RP-? for >Revised Penal -ode?+ >(-? for >(u!reme -ourt? 7UT %a&e sure t(at you (ave in,icate, t(e usa!e o' suc( acrony% in an ear$ier part o' your e3a%. - Goi&e and Pers!e&tive o <rite in a&tive voi&e+ third !erson !ers!e&tive 'n&orre&t: 'n one &ase de&ided % the (-+ it was ruled that !s&hologi&al in&a!a&it is &hara&terized % gravit+ in&ura%ilit and juridi&al ante&eden&e. -orre&t: )&&ording to the (-+ !s&hologi&al in&a!a&it is &hara&terized % gravit+ in&ura%ilit and juridi&al ante&eden&e. -orre&t: 'n the &ase of Re!u%li& vs. Bolina+ the (- held that !s&hologi&al in&a!a&it is &hara&terized % gravit+ in&ura%ilit and juridi&al ante&eden&e.