SUGGESTED ANSWERS TOTHE20l{ BAR EXAIIINATION

62 QUESTIONS !N LABqR LAW

xxvrl. CIVI LAUI

The jurisdiction of the Natioaal Labor Relations

Cotnmission does not i,lclude: (1%l
I.

(A) exclusive appellate ju sdiction ovcr ail cases decided Arlz and Paz were afficemates at Perlas ng Silangan
bjr the Labor Arbiter er,,k ipser. r n"l l.ll in love $ rd I ea'h or hF' dld hall a I rhe rvrl

(B) exclusiwe appellate jurisdictjon over all cases decided 1"J.r,"..r. \rediine \,'leanq rt!]"' Paz rapidh 'lrmlrFdVl'e'
.o,o.*," f.aa", ol pSS ana elenlrraUl bF|nme rts
bv Regional Directors or hearing officers involvilg the isor{'
Presidpnr, while Arrz remained one of irs bark suoer\
recoverv ofwages and other moDetary claims and bene-
fits arisins from employer-employee relations. wherc was short of tweive (12) units to 6nish his
"iir1""*r,'n.
Masteri of Business Administration (MBA) degree'
the aggregate money claim of each does not exceed five
thousand pesos tPs,000) Ariz became envious of the success of his wife' He
(g original jurisdictior to act as a cornpulsory arbitration staited drinking alcohol until hc becamc a drunkard
body over labor dispLrtes certi{ied to it b}' the Regional H. nreterred lo lorn his bakddas: becamc a B iJe bedl']:
Dir-ectors f,ut, his;hildrFn \\tlhort an\ rea'orr: dnd fail'd 'o
"n"fa
,-'ririrr",. to the needs of th.] familv Despite lehabilita-
{D) po(c o issu. d IaLor iniun, ,ion
iion a1.ld consultation with a psychiatrist, his ways did not
change.
--'-,q?a..
SUGCESTED ANSWERj rS years of marriage, Paz, a devolrt Catholic'
ae.ia.d to have their mal,iage an'ulled by the chulch'
(C) original jurisdiction to act as a compulsory arbitra- ihrcueh the testimony of Paz a.I]d a psychiatrist' it was \ivas
found"that Ariz was a spoiled brat in his youlh alrd
tion body ovei labor disputes c€rtified to it by the
sometimes invoived in brawls. In his teens, he iv'rs
once
Regioral Dircctors (Art. 129, Labor code). to his violent
..i*r'.a t" a psychiatrist for treatment due Matrimo-
i""a.".i.s- tn due time, the National Appellate Ariz and Paz
i'it"""r (NAMT) airnulled the union of
"i"i
J". io tlr" faiiure of Ariz to perform and
-lr""u."a fulflll his duties
iJ" ..a .. a Iathel-to their children' The NAMI
corrcfuaea tlat it is for the best interest of Paz' Adz and
-'--ll.'children to have the marriage aDnulled'
their
of the NAMT decision, Paz decided to file a
"i"*
Petiiion for Declaration of Nutlitv of Marriage oI their
civil
u.fo* u]. B"eional 1 rial cou rr (R fcl ot N4akali Cirv
".iai""
,,.r"" ii. r'te,,ilr derriion ard (he sane evrLlP'r'e addu'cd
,n t-Iie.hurch annulmenl pro'eedings as basis'(5oo)

Ifyou are thejudge, wifl you grant the petition? Explain'

 SUGGESTE D ANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAMINATION
64 QUESTIONS IN CIVILLAW
SUGGES?ED A.II/SWENI
No, I will ,lot grant the petittorx lor aleclaration of
dullity of ,,raIriage.
r^ Republic r. .Itolina (C.R. No. 108763, Febma"y
13, 19971, the Supreme Court ruleil that *hile the
interyretatiors given by the National AppeUate Matri-
monial T.ibuaal (NAJITI ol the Catholic Church ia the
Philippiaes should be givea great r€spect by our courts,
they are ,rot co[tro[tng or dectsive. Its inte?p?etation
is llot conclusive otr the coults. The courts are stiU
?equlred to make thetu own determiDatioa as to the
Ine ts of the case, aEd rely solely on the fiadirg of
the NA.trIT. 'rot
It has beeu beld that psychological incapacity as a
ground for rullifyirg a marriage is confined to the most
setious cases of personality disorders clearly de,non-
strative of an utter irseusitivity or irability to give
eeantng and sigriffcarxce to ,narriage. The thr€e €sse!-
tlal requisites iE order for psychological lncapacity to
be appreciated are: 1) giavity, 2) juridical antecen-
delce, and 3) incurability. Ir the preseit case, there
was no showirg that the psychological incapacity was
€xistirg at the time of the celebration ofthe marriage.
SUGGESl ED ANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAIIIIINATION
65
OUESIIONS IN CIVIL LAW
.
C spin dnrd lestate and was sunived by Ale)r and
Josine, his children lrom his first ivife; Rene and Ruby, his
children from his second sife; arxl A1la11. Bea, al]d Cheska,
his children from his third lvife.
One important provision in his s,ill reads as follo{'s:
"Ang lupa al bol Lall si Lungsod tlg MaAnilct
all ililipat at ilaLaftaA sa patrgaLan tlila Alex ot
Retue llindi bilanr! pamana ko sa lianlla kan.li
upa g pamahalaan at pangalagaan latwq
nikl at t\arg ang sittutn.cln sa aking mgo anak.
sanpu 4t akitg mga apo at kaaPuaPlll.t
ko sa lubang panahon, aa nlau tutulu!)an
kutlg tngnatnis tLa tnag oraL sa Maqnikl .)
sa k&lapit na mga tulqsod-"
ls the provjsion valid? (4%,
SUGCESTED AIVSWER..
The prowisioa imposirg the indivisior ofthe property
"habaDg parrahon" i3 invalid. In Santiago o. So.nti.lgo
(G.R. No. 179a59, August 9, 2O1Ol, a siro,iliar provision
appears in the will of the testator. In that case, the Court
ruled that it is clear that the testator itrteaded the house
aud lot in Manila be trausfeffed in petitioners' names fot
administratior purposes only, atrd that the property be
ovaed by the heirs in common. Eowewer, the same case
ruled that the condition set by the decedert on the proP-
erty's indivisibility iE subject to a statutory limitation
provided by Article 1083 of the Civil Code which states
that the period of ttrdtvistoa imposed by a testator shall
not exceed tweDty years. Although the Civil Code ts silent
as to the effect of the indtvistotr of a property for lnore
thalt tweaty yea$, it would bc contrary to public Policy
to sarrctior co-ownership beyoad the period expressly
mandated by the Civil Code. Thus, the provisiorr leavi[g
the admirGtratiorl of the house and lot tr Madla to Alex
atrd Rene ts vatid but the p"ovisiorl imposing the indi-
vislo[ of the plop€rty 'habar4 panahon' is inva]id as
to the excess beyoad tw€nty years, it being contrary to
 S(JGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAiIINATION
66 SUGGESTED ANSWERS TOTHE 2014 BAR EXAMINATION
CIViL LAW
67
QUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW QUESTIONS
';i

Article 1083 limittng the period of itdivision that tnay tII.

b€ iaposed by a testator to twerty years.
ALTERNAAIVD ANSWER:
The provisloE is valid. Article 944 of the Civil Code
provides i! part that 'a legecy for education lasts urtil
the legatee ls of age, or beyond the age of majority i,t
ordetthatthe legatee may furish some plofesslonal,voca-
tioEal or ge[eral course, proeided he pursues his course
d &eDtly." Ir this case, the latentiorr of the testatot in
transferrlllg tlte property in the name of Alex artal Rene
is rrot for the purpose of giviag the property to them as
thelr inhelitarcc, but for theE to admirdste? the aa,rle
for the benefft of his descendarts' use in pursuit of th€ir
education. Thus, this provisio[ is a legacy for education,
f,,hich lasts as lorg as the legatee/s conae ofage o, until
such legatee/s tu tsh then course.
ANO7:H ER ALT ERNATIYE A-tvSWER;
The provisior is not valid. Article a7O of the Civll
Cod€ provid€s that 'the dispositions of the testator
declaring a[ or part of the estate iralieuable for more
thalt tweaty years are void." In this case, the provision
"haba[g panahou" clearly p]ovides for iralienability of
thc hou6e foi more than twenty yeaB! herce, it is void.
S.ECOND ALTERNATIVE AI{SWER:
'lhe Roman C.rtholic Church acccpted a donation o{
a real prope.ty located h Lipa City. A deed of donation
lvas exe.utcd, signed bl, the donor, Dort Mariano, and the
doncc, ihe Church, as represented by Fr. Damian. Before
ihe deed could be notarized. Don Mariano died.
ls the doDation valid? (,1ol.)
SLrG(;ESTED AA'SIYEN:
The doration is void, Article 749 of the Civil Code
provides thet a do,ratio! ofan ir|l[rovable Eust be mad€
in a public irstrume[t to be valid. Iu this case, it is
clear that the deed of donatiou nevei becr,Ile a public
instrument because the donol died bcfore it could be
notarized. The deed of donation canuot be rotarized
after the death of the donoi slnce it is novl ilrpossible
for hilu to ackrowledge before a rotary public. The dora-
tion was never perfected. Thus, the donatiou is void for
not comptying lirith the formaliti€s required by law.

The provbion is valtd. The irstitutior of heir ia

this case is a modal institrtion unde" Artlcle 882 of
the Civil Code. IE this type of institutlor, shich ls
present in the caEe at bar, the orrneEhip of the thing
is passed or! to th€ heir, exc€pt that the?e is a mode 01
charge ieposcd upon the heir, IIt a modal institutton,
the testator states (11 the object of the iastitutiorr,
(2) the purpose or appllcatiorr of the property left by
the testator, or 13) the charge iEposed by the teststol
upon the het! (RaDaditla e. Cour-t oJ Appeals, G.R. No.
1r372s, JuDe 29, 2OOo).
 SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 201{ BAR EXAMINATION
68 SUGGESTED ANSI,IVERS']O THE 2014 8AR EXAMINATIOI,I
69
QUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW OIIESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW

IV' sale arrd a contract to sell. In a contract ofsale, tie ttt]e

Nante, a registered owner ofa parcel ofland in euezon
City, sold the property to Monica under a deed of salc
vhich reads as lollows:
"That for and in consideration of the
sum of P5O0,0O0.OO, value to be paid and
delivered to me, and receipt ofwhich shal be
acknoiiledged by me to thc full satislaction
of Monica, relerred to as Vendee, I hereb-y
sell, transfer, cede, convey, and assign, as by
tiese presents, I do have sold, transferre.l,
ceded, conveyed and assigned a parcel of
land covered by TCT No_ 2468 in lavor ofthe
4tler dch!,.n oi Ihc iniriai pa\menr ol PlU0,0O0 OO,
Monica immediatel'y.. took possessior of the property_ Five
(5)monthsafter, Monicafailed to pay the remalning balance
ofthe purchase price. Nante filed a. action for the recovery
olpossession of the property. Nante alleged that the agrce
rrent was one to sel1, rihich was not consummated as the
flr'l , onlrn, pricF was no' paid.
'
Is the corrtention of Nante tenable? Why? (4%)
to the property passes to the buyer upon the deliwery of
the thing sold. I,1 a contr:act to sell, on the other hand,
the ownership is, by agreement, r€tained by the seller
alrd is not to pass to the veadee until fidl paylnellt of
the purchase price- In the contract of sale, the buyer's
l[on- payment of the price is a negatlve tesolutory condl-
tioq i'r th€.contract to se[, the buyer's full payment of
the price is a positive suspedsive conditior to the coming
into effect of the agreemeat. h the ffrst case, the seuer
has lost and carot iecowe, the ovrership of the prcperty
unless he takes action to 6et aside the contract ofsale. h
the second case, the title simply remaios ta the se[er if
the buyer does rtot comply with the conditior prece.lent
of Eaking payrrert at the ti$e speciffed in the cont.act,
The agreemettt ln this case is Dot a contract to sell
because aothiDg i! the facts sho$s that thc parties
agreed that owrrership is retained by ante (seller) and
ls uot to pass to Morica (buyerl until full payment of
the purchase price.

SUGGES?ED E]VSIYER;

No, the corte[tion of NaEte that it is otr€ to sell ls

untenable. There ls a perfected contract of sale ln this
case $hea Nante agreed to sell aad Mor ca egreed to
buy the subject prrcel of land at its agreed price. Ulder
Article 1475 of the Civil Code, therc is a perfected
conttact of sale at thc ,aoment there ls e nreetiag of
the altrds upoa the thing s,hich ts the obJect of tle
cortract a,rd upon the prtce. OEnershtp was trans-
fetred upon delivery or upon the taktrg of possesslon
by UoIrica, the buyer. The don-payhent ofthe full price
afiects the consuEmatlon of the cortract of sale and
rlot lts peifectlon.
The cese of lIeirs of Atienze r. Espidol lc.R. Ito.
140665, August 11, 2OrO|, dlfierentiated a contract of
70 SUGGESTEO ANSWERS TO THE 2014BAR EXAI INATION
QUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW
v.
What is the effect of preterition? (1%)
{Ai rr dnnuls rl-e devise anJ le8dc\
(B) it annuls the institution of heir
(C) it reduces the devise and legacy
(D) it partially anruls the institution ofheir
SUGGES?T' AffSWER;
lB) it anuuls the institutlou of heir
SU GGESTED ANSWERS TO
OUESTIONS III CIVIL LAW
IHE 2014 BAR EXAMINATION
7l
vI.
Miko and Dirrah started to live together as husband
and wife without the beneflt of mariage in 1984. Ten (10)
years after, they separated. ln 1996, they decided to live
logether agaiD, and in 1998, they €:ot marjed.
On February 17, 2001, Dinah f,lc.l a cornplaint for
clcclaraijon of mrllit) of her marriage lvith Miko on the
ground of psJchological incapacity under Alticle 36 of the
Family Code. The court rendere.l the follo$'ing decision:
1. Declaring the marrjage nuli and void;
2. Dissolving the regime ofabsolute communily
of property; ar-rcl
3. Decl.rring thal a decree o, absolute nlrlit, of
mar:riage shalt only be issuecl aller liquidation,
partition and dislributlon of the parties' proper-
lies under Article 147 ofthe !'amily Code.'
Dinah filed a motion for partial reconsideration qres-
iioning the portion otthe decision on the issuance ofadecrcc
ofnullity of mariage oily after the liquidation, partition and
distribution of properties uildcr Article 147 of the Code. If
you are thcjudge, how will r-ou dccide peti&)ner's motion for
partiat recolsideralion? Why? (4%)
SUGGES?ED AIVSWERI
I l,ill grart the motlon for pa*ial recorsideratioo.
Section 19 (1) of the Rute.on Declaration of Absolute
Nuuity of ltull Marriages and Atrrulment of voidable
lllarriages, whlch require that the decree of nullity of
marrisge be issued ody after the liquidation, partt-
tion atrd dlsttlbutiott of properties' does llot apPly to
declaHtiors of nullity based on Art. 36 of the FarIlilv
Code: The said lule o y apPlies if there cras a secord
marriage which i6 vold because of noll-co'IrPttanc€ with
the requireEents of Atttcle zlo of the Famlly Code' la
the case ofDiAo ?, Dino lG.R. o. 17aO44, January 19,
2()11), the Court held that Sec. 19 11) oaly aPPlies to
FaElly Code, Articles 50 and 5 1 , vhich ate, subsequently

SUGGESTEDANSWERS TO THE 2014 8AR EXAIiIINATION
72 OUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW
appltcable only to marriages which ar€ declared void ab
i'rltro or annulled by fftral judgmert uader Articles 40
and 45 ofthc Family Code. Siace there is ro previous
martage in this case ard the marriage was nulllfred
unde! Article 36 ofth€ FaEily Code, secttor 19 (11 of
the said Rule6 does lrot apply.
SI]GGEST ED ANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXA INATION
OUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW
!'ll'
Due to the coitinuous heaw rainfail, the major strects
in Manila became flooded. This compelled Cris to check-in
at Square One liotel. As soon as Cris 8ot off lronl his
Toyota Altis, the Hotel's parkiig attendant got the kev
of his car and gave him a valet parking customcr's claim
stub. The attendant parked his car at tne basement of thc
hotel. Early in the morning, Cris $as informed by the hotel
manager that his car was camapped ('1%)
(A) What contracl, if any, was perfected betreen Cds and
the Ilotel rvhen Cris sulTendered tlre kev of his car to
the Hotel's par.king attendant?
{B) What is the liability, if any, of the Hotel for the loss of
Cris' car?
SUGGES?ED AIVSWEN..
(A) A conttact of deposit was pe ected bebreen Cris
ard th€ llotel when cris surendeted the key of hts
car to the Hotel's parkiag attendant. ln Tripte-V
Food Sen ices u. Filipifto Merchd ts I'lsurance
Compang (G,R. No. 160544, rebruary 21, 2OO5), it
c.as iuled that wher a car is entrusted to a valet
atteEdant thete is a contract of dePosit. Article
1962 of the Civil cod€ ptovid€s that a dePosit is
corEtituted f?oln the t[oment a Persor receives a
thilrg belongiEg to aoother, l,ith the obligation of
safely keePiag it aad of returniqg the saae lDurbq
Apdrtments 1. Pio,.eer lftsura.n.ce, e-R. No. 179419'
Uarch 30, 2011). FuttherEore, Article 199a of the
Civil Code proyides that the dePosit of effects aade
by tnyellers iD hot€h or ilns stall be rega'ded as
DLecessary, and that the keepers of hotels and inns
are resPoasible for the effects dePosited as dePosi-
taries 6ubiect to their beirng lotlficd of the Gfiects
beirg brought in by the ttavellers ard the teking by
the trevellers of such precautlo[s which th€ hotel or
itrtr-LeepcE ot thek substltutcs advtsed retativ€ to
the carc atrd vlgiLEce of such effects. Article 1999
 SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAIJINATION
SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAMINATION
74 OUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW
OUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAI'Y

of the Civil Code also prowid€s for the liability of vur'

the hotel-keeper fo" wehicles intioduced oi placed
in the aurexes ofthe hot€I, which in this casc is the
baserreat of the hotel.
(B) The Hotel wss corstituted as a depositary tr this
case. Thus, it has the obltgation to safely Leep tbe
car which is expected by Cris to be returned to hilrr.
With the loss of the car, the Hotel ls liabl€ for tLe
cost ofthe car as actuel damages.
SUCGESTIOTY FON A DDITIONAL CREDIT:
Art, 2OO1 ofthe Ciwil Code provides that the act ofa
thiefor robber, who has entered the hotel is lxot deemed
force majeure, unless it is done with the use of arrns or
through an irresistible force. In thls case, there is no
indication that the carnapping was doue with the use
of arras or through iresistible force; hence, the hotel
cauaot claim that it is ,1ot liable foi the loss ofCris'car.
Tess leased her 1,500 sq.m lot in Antipolo CitY to
R,,rh for aDeriodotlh'ee(Jl l'cars. lrom Januarv 20lO ro
iir..rr^ :br: on March lo. 2oll Tess:Fnr a lcrrer ro
Ruth, p;rt of which .eads as lollo\i's:
"l am offering ]ou to buy the property
vou arc presenll) leasing cl P5 000'00 p'r
P7 5Oo'o0O'00' You
"" - "i ro' a lotal d1price by installment
can pay the contract
for t;o (2) years without iuterest' I 1,i[ give
.., :r period of on' (lJ vear from te' FiPr nt
it i" t.tie. ro a."'a. hFlher \ uu u ill bu\'1r'
property.' "
After the expiration of the lease conttact' Tess sold
rhe DroDerv lo her nierF lor a Iohl 'onsideratiorr ol
i;l,ooo,6oo.'oo Rurh filed d .omplainl for thF annrrlm'nr
-Tess and
;;;;;;;1., reconveyaice and darnases asainst property
trer r.i.ce. iuttt alteg.d that tle sale of the leased
r,* .igr,t t" lruv under the principle of risht of first
"i.r"i"J

ls the atlegation of Ruth tenable? (4%)

SUCGESTED AIIISI,UEN;
tro
The allegatiod of Ruth ls unteDable' There wes
to het, the wordirg of the letter
'rrtt if
t.flr-."f
"ff.real a nere offet to s€ll ot lease
""'i.i -".t be toconsidered
"--i ar oPtton o.buy.
wtth
Juae 14'
si^.n"" Rigos (G'R' o' L-25494'e unilateral
19;1. the Court heid that in orde' that
;.'rs" ; buv or to sell raev be bitrding upon thc
I"-ii.r. a'uJr. 1479 of the civil code requlreE that
Iiia -"ir*" be suPPorted bv a consideratlor distinct
ir"-'tn. p.... Thl-proraisot caarot be coT Peled to
-ith the prJmke , unless the eristerce of a
";;;
;;;ft:Jtr"" distinct ftoE the Pdce is established'
inin. pr"".ot casc' thet€ rr'3 ro valueble or hdePen_
dent cinstderatior, thus, lt Gainot be classlfrGd as a
 SUGGESTEDANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAMINATION
76
QUESTIONS IN CIVILLAW
udilateral promise to sell, but is only a mere offer to
seU. Since there was no valuatrl€ or irdeperldent consid-
eratiorl it was not an optio contract but a mere option
to buy, vhlch aay be withdrawn at any tiEe.
sUGGES?TON FO,R A DDITIONAL CREDIT:
The option to buy or the offel to selt given to Ruth ls
o,le year from recelpt ofTess'letter by Ruth. The lease
is for tbree (3) years frorn January 2O1O to February
2013. Tess sent the letter on lfiarch 19, 2O11. The right
has already explred when Tess sold the lot to her aiece.
SUCG ESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAMINATION
77
OUESTIONS IN CIVIL LA\II/
IX.
Spouses Macario and Boriiacia Dalila entered into a
, onuJ{ r iu sFll \\,,rr h ll,,n^r,o Crr.z ove J Jrdr.pl or rnduslnal
r" ,d in Valen7,.el". Bul . an lor d p , F ,,r P I.JUU u00 00
The spouses would gi!'e a downpayneni oI P500,OO0.00
upon the siAning ofthe contract, while the b:rtancc q.ould be
paid for lhe next three (3)consccutive months in the amount
oIPl,00O,O00.OO per month. The spouses pard the firsl 1uo
(2) installnents but not the iast installmcnt. Afier one (1)
lear, the spouses offered to pay the unpaid balarce l,vhich
ilolro o refused to accept. The spouses filed a complaint lor
specifi. performance against Honorio invokins the applica
tion o{ the Maceda Law.
lfyou are the judge, hor.\,vi11 rou decide the case;') ('1%)
SUGGESTED AIVSTYER:
I rrill dismi$s the complaiat. The irlvoc{tioD of the
Maceda Law by the spouses is misptraced. Sectiod 3 of
R.A. 6552 (Macede Lawl provid€s that it is appllcable iu aI
transactiors or contracts iavolvlng the sale o, ffnanci4
ofteal e3tate on instalment payments, including residen-
tial condominium apartmeats but excluding industiial
lots, comrDercial buildirgs and sales to terarts. Siuce
tbe subject ofthe case is a[ industrial land, Maceda Law
is dot applicable,
 SUGGESTEO ANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR ExAMINATION IGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2Ol4 8AR EXAMINATION
7a 79
QUES'IIONS IN CIVIL LAW IJIIESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW

x- xr-
Dorotea leased portions ofher 2,OO0 sq.m. lot to Monet, An eascmeit that can be acquired by prescriptioti: (1%)
Kathy, Celia, and Ruth for five (5) years Two (2) years
befor€ the expimtior1 ol lhe lease contnact, Dorolea sotd the (A) risht of u.ay
prcperty to PM Realty and Development Corporation. The (B) s-aterins of an animal
folowing morlth, Dorotea and PM Realty slopped accepting (C) Iateral and subjacent support
rcntal pa),rnents from all the lessees because they wanted to (D) lisjrt and view
terminate the lease contr:acts.
Due to the relirsal of Dorotea to accept rcnlal payments, SUGGES?TD EJvSIryER:
the lessees, Ruth, et al., fi1ed a comptaint 1br consisration of
the rentals before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ot Maniia {D) lieht afld vierl/
\ ilhoLrt nolrrvinB Do, olea.

ls the consignation valid? (47o)

SUCGES"ED EJ\TSwER:

The consignatlor is Eot vdid. Article 1257 of the

Civil Code plovides that in order that the constgoatioE
ofthe thiag due may release the obligor, it raust ffrst b€
an[ounced to the pelsotls ilterested in the fulfilmeEt
of the obligation. Uoreover, Artlcle 1258 of the same
Code provides that consignatiotr havlng been made,
the interested parties shall also be notified thereof. In
this case Dorotea, ar interested party, was not notiffeal
of the colsignation. The cousig atioa is tberefore lot
valid for no!-coBpliance with Anicle 1257.

ALTE R ],IATIITE A NSW ER :

The conslgnation may be valid. Had the lessees been

infor&ed of the tlansfer of the prope?ty to PM Realty,
rotice to lrorotea unaler Article 1257 rfi,s-y lolger
be necessary, but it is ootice to PM Realty'ro which is
requlred.

ao SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO T H E 2014 BAR EXAMINATION
QTIESTIOI.{S IN CIVIL LAW
x[.
J.C. Construction (J.C.) bought steel bars from Matib.ry
Steel lndlrstries (NISI) \ihich is ov,,ned by Buddr" Batuns
bacal. J.C. failed to pay the purchased materials worth
t'j500,00O.00 on due datc. J.C. persuaded its client Amoroso
with whom it had reccivables to pay its obligalion to MSI
Amotoso agreed and paid MSi thc arnount of P5O,0O0.OO.
After two (2) other payments, Amoroso stopped makiDla
further payments.
tluddy filed a complaint lor collection of the balance oI
the obligatiolr and damages against -I.C. J.C. denied an!
liability ctanning that its obligation was cxtinguished bv
reason of novation xhich took place \l-hen MSI accepLM
partial payJnents from Amoroso o, its behall
Was the obli8ation of J.C. Construction to iUSI extin
euished by novation? Why? (4%)
SUGGES?ED AI\ISII/ER:
No, the obligatioa of J.C. Construction to MSI \sas
Ilot extinguished by nowation.
Under Article 1292 of tlre Ctvil Cod€, irn order that
an obligation lltay be extiaguished by another which
substitute the satlre, it is irnpetative that it be so
declareal ir unequivocal terms, or that the olil and the
new obligations be ou every poilt incompattble wtth
each other. Novatio[ by substitutior'of debtor r€qulres
the coasert ofthe credltor as provlded in Article 1293
of the Civtl Cod€. This requirernent ls not present i!
this case, Ir llldgrdal€nd Estates, I'!.c, o, Rodrlguez lG.R.
No. L-18411, December 17, 1966), it was ruled that the
Eere fact that the creditor recelyed payEeat from a
third person does uot constltute novatiorl and does
ltot extiaguish the obligatiotr o{ the origiral debtor.
Siace ther€ was no novatior, the obligatio! ofthe orig-
iaal debtor is not extinguished. Thus, the obligatior of
J.C. Constructior to MSI eubsists.
SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAMINATION
81
OUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW
XIII.
llsteban and Maltha had foLrr ('1) cblklren: Rolando,
,lun, Mark, and Hector. Rolando had a d.ughter, Edith,
uhitc Marl had a son, Plrilip. Alter the dcath of Esteban
and Martha, iheir illree (3) parcels o1 land wert adjudl-
cated to Jlrr. Alter thc death of..ILrn, the properties passed
lo his suni\.irs spousc Anjta, aD.t son Ces.r Whcn.Anita
died, her share went to her son Cesar. Ten (10) Ye.us after,
Cesar died intestate without arly issue. Peachy, Anita's
sistcr, adjudicated to hcrself the properti.s as Lhe only
surviving heir of Anita and Cesat. Edith and ]'hjLip \['ould
like to recover the properties claiming that they should
have bccn reservcd by Peachy in thcir behulf and lrtust
n.w r.v.rt ba.k to thenr.
ls the contcntion of DditLI and Philip valxl? ("1'L)
SUCGES?ED IIVSWE-R..
No, their corte[tion is not valld as the Prcperty is
,rot subject to reserod troncal. Uader Aticle a91 of
the civil Code, the asc€ndant ll,ho inh€ttts from his
descendant any property which the latter nray have
acquired by gratuitous title from another ascendant,
or a brother or sistet, is obliged to reserve such proP-
' erty as he may have acquired by operation of law for
the bensfit ofrelatives a,ho are within the third degree
and rho belong to the ltne from which said Property
came. There is no reserrd troftcal here because Anita
is not en ascerdaflt or a brother or sister of Jua. Jurr
cannot qualify as a prepositus, because tbe proPerty
whtch he inherited ftotn his ascendant was not inher_
ited by aaother ascendant by operation of la\r.
h Meftdoza o. Policdtpio lG.R. No. 176422, Match
20, 20131, the Court ruled that the lineal characte, of
the reservable propedy is reckoaed from the ascen-
daDt from whom the preposrtus received the p"operty
by gratuitous title. Irx this case, the ownershiP should
b€ ieckoned or y fro,n Jud, as he is the ascendant
from whorlr Cesar iaherited the properties. Moteover,
 SUGG ESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAIi,IINATION
82
QUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW
Article 891of the Civil Code prcvides that the percon
obliged to resewe the property should be an ascendart.
Peachy is not Cesar's ascetdant but a aere collatersl
lelative.
SUGGESTED AN SWERS TO TH E 2O14BAR EXAIJINATION
a3
QUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW
xrv.
A pedestrian, \r'ho \ras lour (4) months pregnant, \{as
hit by a bus driver while crossing the stleet. Altlrcugh
the pedestria,r sun'ived, the fetus inside her womb r.as
aborted- Can the pedestrian recover darnages oo account
of the death of the Ietus? (1%)
(A) Yes, because of Article 2206 of the Civii Codc which
allows the suNiving heirs tc demand damages Ior
mental al]guish bv reason oftbe death ofthe dcccased.
(B) Yes, for as long as the pedestlian can prove that she sas
not at fault and the bus driver was the one negligent.
(.) No LF.ausc d [FrLr\ rs nnr d nJrurr. persor.
(D) No, if the fetus did not comply Eith the .eqLrirenrents
under Article .11 of the Civil Code-
SUGGES?ED /NSIYER;
(B) Yes, fot a3 loag as the pedestriarl cau ptove that
sh. was ,lot at fault and the bus drivet was the one
,regllgetrt.
lNote: Ietter A mdg dlso be considered coffect o^
accouttt oJ: Aratcle II, section 72 or the 7987 Coftstitu-
tion; ,tr'hic'n ptovides, in part, thdt 'fhe Stote ... sh@lt
equdllu protect the lXe of the fiother @Ad the lile oJ
the ufiborn Jrorn conception ,,." C drtd D mdy dlso be
cofisidered conect.l
 SU GG ESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAMINATION
84 SUGGESTED AI.]SWERS TO THE 201.I BAR EXAIIINATION a5
OUESIIONS IN CIVIL LAW
QUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAI.Y

xv. SCRA 3a2)- ID this case, neithet any showing that the
apparert sigD ofthe easetnent was temoved before the
Mr. Bong owns several properties in Pasig City. He sale on pubtic auction, ,lot that there was an agreem€nt
decided to build a condominium ramed Flores de Manila that the easement will no loage, continue; hence, the
in onc of his lots. To fund the proiect, he obtained a loan entitlelreat ol FMI to the easel ent subsists.
from the National Bark (NB) secured by a.eal estate rnort
gage over the adjoining property which he also owred.
During construction, he built three (3) pumps on the
mortgaged property to supply water to the condominium.
After one (r) year, the projcct $as completed and the
condominium was tumed over to the buyers. Hor,vever,
Mr. Bong failed to pay his loan obligation to NB. Thus, NB
foreclosed the Eortgaged propertl where the pumps were
installed. During the sale on public auction of the mort-
gaged propeity, Mr. Simon won in thc biddins. Whcn Mr.
Sjm.,fl attempted lo take possessio. of tne prope.ty, the
condominiurn owners, irho in the meantime constituted
themselves into Flores de Manila Inc. (FMI), claimed that
thcy have earlicr Eled a case for the declamtion olthe exis
tencc ofan easement before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Pasig City and prayed that the easement be annotatc.l
in the title oI the property toreclosed by NB. FMI further
clainled that lvhen Mr. Bor1g installed thc punps in his
adiorning pr.t,.Il\. a volur)rary pds.men, !\ns con\rr,u,ed
in favor of l'ML

WilI the action prosper? (1%)

SUGGE,S?ED -4]VSWERI

Yes, the actioa will prospel. Ar.ticle 624 of the Civil

Code provides that whet1 an apparent siga ofeasement
existE between two eEtates established or ,iraiDteined
by the owtrer of both, it shall be conslalered as a title
to the eas€meEt Ehould the owner of two properties
alienate one of th€m, uDless at the till€ the owllet-
ahlp between the two estates is divided the contrary is
provided ilt the deed of trallsf€r or the apparent sign
of easeErent is removeal before the executlo,l of the
deed lHtt@tizdtion dtud. Mdidgerneftt O.ffr.ce o. t egdspl
Touers 3OO. Inc.. c.R. No. 147957, July 22, 2OO9, 593
 SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAi'INATIO
a6 SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAMINATION s7
QUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW
QUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAYV

xvl. (Bl Since it does not conre withia the Pureiew ofhidde'l
A congregation for religious women, by way of commo, treasure, the spouses Maruel have the right to claim
dlrlum. rs Lsing rhe,edl properrv ownclt and i"gi","*a in ownerchip over the chest as well as its coatents'
the name of Spouses Manucl as a rer.cat house.
Maria, a helper of the congregation discovcrecl a chest
in the backvard. Wtren she opcned the chest, it contained
several pieces ofjewelry and money. (49l")

(4 Can the chest contajning the pieces of jewelry and

money be considered as hidder treasure?
lBr Who hi,s rhe flghl ro, laim o\rnership of,r?

SUCGETSIZD IcTVSWEX..

lA) Yes, the chest containing the pieces of Jewetry

arrd Doney ,xlay b€ coDsidered as htdder treasure
as long as th€y are hidden alrd unknowa and th€
la'!.ful ovnership of it does not appear as provided
itr Ar"ticle 439 of the Ctvtl Code,

(B) Uader Article 43a of the Civil Code, rhen the

dfucovery of hialden treasure is made orr the prop_
erty of auother, one-hauthereof shall be alloeed to
the ffnder provided the finder is not a trespasser. Ir
thls case, the on rer of the la[d are Spouses Maruel.
Spouses Manuel olrns ole-half ol the hidden trea_
sure slnce ov[ership.i6 aot transferred to the
botrower but is retai[ed by the lender ia a contract
of commodaturn. The other half shall belotrg to
Maria as the finder.

ALTERNATIVE A}{SWER:

(A) o, the chest coataining the pieces ofjerelty and

aoney aay ,rot be cotlsialercal as htdden treasure.
In the case at bar, there is no indication thct the
chest w.s hidden, only that the h€tper aliscovered
it ia the backyard. And slnce it is clear that the
property where the chest l9as found belorigs to the
Spouses llaru€I, tbey are presuired the ovnet of
the chest where the jenretry was foun.l. The latrful
orrrership ofthe chest is appareat.
 SUGGESTED ANSWERS TOTHE 2014 BAR EXAMINATION
8a
QUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW
XVII.
On March 30, 2OOO, Mariano died ifltestate and \ras
survived by his wife, Leonora, and child.eu, Danilo and
Carlito. One of the properties he teft was a piece of 1an.t in
Alabang (,here he built his residenLial house.
After his bu aI, Leonora alrd Mariano's children extra
judicially settlcd his estate. Therealter, Leonora and Danilo
advised Carlito of their intention to partitiorr the propefl.y.
Carlito opposed i voking Article 159 of the Family Code.
Carlito alleged that since lis minor child Lucas srilt residcs
in the premises, the familt'home continues untilthat minor
beneficiary becomes of age.
ls the contention oI Carlito lenable? (4%)
SUGG6STED AIVSTEN;
No, the cortention of Carlito is not tetrable. In the
case of Potr,cio ,. Dario (G.R. No. l7oa29, Novemb€r
20,2006l, it was provided that to be a beneEciary of
a family hose three requisites ,uust concur: (l) they
rbust be elllong the relatiouships enumerated ir Articte
154 of the Family Code; (21 th€y live in the faBily
hode, alrd 13) they a?e dependent for legal support
uporr the head ofthe family. Irx the salal case, the parti-
tion ol a family home is allowed desplte the objection
on the ground that a tnirlo" graldchild stlU reslales
itr the prel ises. Although the first two requisites are
ptesent iD this case, the third is lacking because Lucas,
the grardchild, is ,rot dependent for legal support upor
Lis grandparents vhich ts the head of the famlly who
cotstituted the family home in tbis case. Lucas still has
pa.ents who are legaUy obliged to support him. Thus,
he cannot be deem€d as dependeot foi legal support
upor the head ofth€ family, trho is Mariano.
sUGG ESTE D ANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAMINATION 89
OUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW
xvlu.
Spouscs N,lagtanggc'l managed and operaied a gaso
tine station on a 1,000 sq.m. loi which thel leased Irom
Francisco Bigla a{ra. Thc cort.act was for a period ofthree
(3) years. When the coniract explred, Francisco asked the
spouses to peacefully vacate the premises. The sponses
iHDored the denrand aDd continucd with the operatior of
the gasolirre station.
One month after. Francisco, lvith the aid of a group of
armed c . caused tlre closure ol the gasoline statioD by
constructing fences around it.
w.rs the act ofFrancisco and his men la\,|'ful? whv? (4%)
SUGG'STED .{NSWER;
No, the act of FBtrcisco and his men were not
la-ful. Even whetr one has a ?ight, such as the tight to
enjoy his property atrd to exclude anyone else from the
enjoyment of such' a petson can,rot take thc law unto
hia own hands and must still ffle the Proper actioir in
court. Dveu though trraricisco had the dght to fence
hls property as part of his dght to e Jov it' Spouses
Magtanggol ere covered by Art.539 which provides
that every possessol has a ,ight to be respected irr his
possessior despite the laPse of theit lease. Although
there is no apParent force or intirnidatio! emPloyed,
feDciag ofi the Property nrould Prevent sPouses
Magtaaggol from elterirg aad possessing the property'
The proper tecourse of Francisco is to lnvoke the aid
of a competeat court arld nb an actio[ for unlawful
 GGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAMINATION
90 SU
OUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW
SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAMINATIO,{
OI]ESTIONS IH CIVIL LAW
9l

. xrx. xx.
who enjovs the Righl. ot Retentiont' (l'l.)
Mabulr.ry ttlcrn{)rlar\'- School organizecl a lleld ir+ tbr
(A) depositarv until full payirent of $.hat nav be due hinr its Crade Vl strLdeDls irl Irort S rtiaco. MalJla Zoo. ar.l
Star Citv- To be alre r(, joln, the parents oi th(: sludcnts
(B) lessee if he advanc{)s lhc cxpenscs for the r-epai( oI the hLrd io srgn a piece olpaper that re:r.ls as {ollows:
leased premises
(C) l)ailee if bailor owes him something 'l .rllow nrl child {Darnc o{ siudent).
(D) builde. in bad faith for lhe recovery of reccssart and Gr.L.lc S.(tior, lo toi1l the school's fiel(t
uselul erpenscs 1ip ofl Fcbmal.| l.+, 2Ol.+. I lvill not file l1 r}
clajm asainst the school, adminislr.ll.n o1
SUGCESTEI) ENSWj9R.' teacher in case s.,mething happens io y
child during the irip.'
(A) depositary until full payment of what ,tlay be due
him in deposit .r .). , / \,,,r ot,t ctLrd.lr o \4d , rnd. 1.,, r,r'Irdr.
School wzrs bitlerl by.r snakc $hi1c the g.oup !'.Ls touring
lNote: Letter C witl <ttso be correct if "o1oes hlr,r Manila Zoo. The parents o, Joey sued (lte school lor
sonething" reJers to ddddges (Attiele 7944 itu reld" damagcs. The school, as a defense, preseut.d llte $aiver
tiol to Art. 19s7)-l signcd l)y Joq's par ents.

Was tl'tere a valjd q,ai\'tl oI righl (o sue thL: school?

wh)? (+"1,

SUGGESTED AATSWER..

No, there was no valid waiver ofthe right to sue the

school. Article 6 ofthe civil Code prowtdes that "(rlights
may be vraived, unless the waiver is cortrary to law,
public ordei, public policy, morals, or good customs,
or prejudicial to a pelso nlith a rtght recognized by
law." As a general rul€, patdmontal rights may be
waived as opposed to rights to personality and family
rights which may not b€ made the subject of waiver
lvaten*rcta Hardwood & I^dllstridl Supptg, Iftc. u.
Court ofAppeals, G-R. No. 1()2316, June 30, 1997). The
second paragraph of the waiver prohibiting the patent
to file any claim against the school, admiaistlator or
teacher in cas€ somethiag happena to the child during
the tdp is agaiEst publtc policy because it temoves
I liability from said school, administrator, or teacher,
and thus, removing the responsibility imposed on them
by Article 2la of the tr'alaily Code,
 SUGGESTED ANSWERS IO THE 2014 BAR EXAMINATION
92 QUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW
SU{;GE STE D ANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAMINATION
93
OUESTIC]NS IN CIVIL LAW

xxl' xxII.
On March 27, 1980, Cornelio EIed an applicalio iar
A delaycd accessiorl is: (1%) land regislralion invotving a parcel of ,gricultural tand
that he had bolrsht from lsaac jdentifled as t/)t No. 271a1
(4 lbrmation ol an island with an area olone (1) hectarc. During the trial, Corl clic'
{B) avulsion claimed that he and his predecessors in interest had been
{C) alluvium in open, continrnnrs, uninternrplcd, publi. and adverse
(D) change jn the course of the riverLred possession and occupaln)u of tbe land ior more tharl thirly
(3O) years He likewise introduccil in evidence a certil'lca
suGcEsTED etvswln.. tion dated l-ebrLrarv 12, 1981 cithg a presidential declara
tion to the effect that on June 14, 1980, agdcullxral lands
(B) avulsion of lhe pubiic domain, including the subject maller o{ thc
appli.ation, were declared alienable .rnd disposable zrsri
cultural land. (4%)
(A) Il you arc the iudge, will you grant the application for
Ian.l registration of Comelio?
iB) Can Comelio acquire said agricull.ural land throuqh
acquisilivc p.escription, r'hether ordjDarv or

SUGGESTE,,JVSWER;

(Al I will Eot grant th€ application lor registration- Under

the law, specmcaUy S€ction 4a (bl ofthe Public Lalld
Act (C.4. l{o. 1411, as amerlded by P.D, No. 1073, and
Sectior 14 (r) of the Propefty Registration Decree
(P.D. No. 1529), it is required that the applicart! by
himself or through hls predecessors-in-irtere6t, has
beea irr open, coatiauouE, €xclusive and notorious
Possesslon aEd occupation of alie[able and dispos-
able land ofthe public domain under a bona ffde clai&
of owrxersbip since Ju[e 12, 1945, or carlier. later-
preting Sectiou 14 lll of P.D. o. 1529, the Suplerne
Court held that it merely requires the property sought
to be r€glster€d as abeady allenable arld disposable at
th€ ti&e the applicatio! for registntlo! ls filed and
not durirg the GDtlre pedod of poss€sslon, or sirce
June 12, 1945 (.Re/r tlic,. Ivag&lt, c.R" No.l4-4O57,
JarNary 17, 2OO5; hlotdbd',.a.'r r. Rep.{rlic, c.R. No.
179987, Septelrlber 3, 20131. In this case, the lard
appted for by Cornello was decLared alle[able and
7-

SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO T HE 2014 BAR EXAMINAIION SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAMINATION 95
94 QUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW QUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW

disposable agricultural land only od June 14, 1980, )ouu.

or ermost three (3) ,rnonths from tLe date ofthe filitg
of hi6 applicatlon or ltrarch 27, liao. H€rce, his
application for registratior cannot be Sranted. After undergoing sex reassignmentin a loreign country,
.rose, r(ho is non' using the namc of'Josie," marricd his
(B) Neither cau Cornelio acquire the land through partner Ador. ts the mariage valid? (1%)
acqulsltive prescriptioa, yhether ordlnary (posses-
sion for ten l1o) year6 i'r good faith or with just rAl Yes lhcn,drtiJscts\alrl lo' a\'orrPasir s \Tlro ln rhe
tiue) nor extaordhary (possessiorl for thirty (3O) pla,. $herc rr rs.cl.Drdlcd toll.rwrng Arri' l' l7 "l rh'
years regardless of good falth or just title). As a rule, aiivil Code.
prcperties of public domtaton caErot be acquired (u) Yes, the marnage is valid iI all ttre essential ancl lonnal
by prescdption. The exception is Secttor 14 (21 of elements of marriage undel the Family Codc are
P.D, No. 1529 shich allows a qualified iadividual to
apply for the regi6tration of property which has been (c) i.{o, the marriage is not valid because one essential
acquired by prescription under existilg laws. Article element of inarriage is absent.
1113 of the Civil Code provides the foundation for {D) No. the marriage is not
valid but is voidable bec'ruse
the applicatior of Section 14 (2) to the efect that thsie" concealed her real idc titY.
only when land ol the public domattr is patrirsoalal,
and hence, private i,l character, can sald land be SUGG'SjrED AAISWEN.'
suscepttble to acquisitive pr:escription. But in ord€r
that tand of the public domah may become patrlmo- (C) No,th€ Darriage is not Yalld because otre essential
nial property, there must be ar express declaratio:r elemert of eartiage is abse,,t.
by the state that such larxd is no lodger needed for
public aervice or for the development of the uational
wealth to conved it as such. Ia this case, there is no
such official declaratiorx, henc€ the land carnot be
the subject of acquisition through prcscriptiotr-
r
96 SUGGESTEO AN SWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAI'IINATION
QUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW
xxrv.
Ted, married to Arrnie, went to Canada to work. Irive
{5) vears latel, Ted became a naturalized Canadian citizen.
He returned to the Philippines to convince Anrie to settle
iD Canada. Unfortunately, led discovered that Annie and
his friend Louie were haying an aflair. Deeply hurt, Ted
rcturned to Canada and filed a petition for divorce which
was granted- In Decernber 2013, Ted deci.led to marry his
childhood ftiend Corazon i1 the Phiiippines. In prepara
tion for the rveddinB, Ted went to the lrcal Civil Resistry
of Quezon City where his marriage contract with Annie
was legistered. He asked the Civil Register to annotate
the dccree of divorce o.r his mardagc contract s.ith Annie.
However, he was advised by the National Statistics OIfice
(NSO) to file a petition Io.judicial recognition of the decree
of dil orce in lhe Philipphes.
Is it Decessary for Ted to flle a petition forjudicial recog-
nition ofthc dccree ofdivorce he obtained in Canada before
he can contract a second mariage in the Philippines? l4%)
SUCGESTED EIVSWER..
No, it is not necessa-ry for Ted to file a petition for
Judtclal recognition ofthe d€cree ofdivoic€ he obtaireal
in Canade before he ca'[ contract a aecond marriage in
the Philtppir€s. Ted, who tu already a foreigncr being a
naturalized Caaadian cltlzea, will b€ required to subEit
a ce iffcate ol legal capacity to corntract marriage
issued by the proper diplomatic or cotrsular oficials to
obtair a marriage llcense.
SUGGESIED ANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAMINATION
97
OUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW
xxv.
Ma o exccuted his IaSt $ill and testarncnt where he
acknowledges the child being conceived by his li\'e in
partner Josie as his o!!n child; and that his house and lot
in Daguio City be given to his unbom concelved child. Are
the acknowledgment and the donation mortis causa valid?
why? (4%)
SUGG&S?ED AJVSIYER..
The acktrowledgmert ofthe urborrx child is effective
because a wlll laay still constltute a document which
contairis 3n admission of ilegitimate filiatior- The
donation to tbe coaceived child is also valid provided
that the child is born later on and that it coEply with
the formalities required of a wiU (Articre 728, Clt'il
Code). A fetus has a presumptive Personality for al
purposes favonble to it Provided lt be born under the
con.lttiors sPeciffed in Article 41. Howewer, thete has
to be compliance with the formal requisites for a valid
last lrill and testament.

SU GGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAMINATION
9a QUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW
,o<vl.
isaac leased the apartmcnt ol Dorotea for two (2) years.
SA (6) months after, Isaac subleased a portion ofthe apart
ment due to flnancial difficulty. Is thc sublease contract
(A) Yes, it is valid for as long as all thc etcments of a valid
sublearse contract are present.
(B) Ycs, it is valid il there is no express prohibition for
subleasing ir the lease contract-
(q No, it is void if there is no wdtten consent on the pa.t
lD) No, it is void because oI breach of the iease contract.
SUGGES?ED l{irSWEXr
(B) Yes, it is Erid ifthere is lro express prohibition for
subleasing in the lease contract.
PRC; J;:iO,f,LS UI]M,RY
SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAIIINATION
99
OUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW
xxv '
Fc, Espera|za, and Caridad jnheriled iiom thcir parents
a 500 sq.m. lot \i'hich they Ieased to Maria for three (3)
vears. One year after, Fe, claiming to have the authority to
reprcsent her siblings Esperanza and Caridad, oftcred to
sell lhe le.rsed property to Ma a which the t.rller acccpted'
'I'he sale was not reduced irlto writing, but Maria started
to makc partial payments to Fe, \,l'hich the latter received
and acknowledged. After giving the full pavmeni, Maria
demanded for tlre execution of a deed ol alisohrte sale
$,hich Espemnza arld Caridad refused tn d' worst- Maria
learned that the sibtings sold the same properlv to Manuel'
This compelled Maria to file a .omPlaint for the annulment
of the sale with specific pedonnance aud damages
If Jou are the Judgc, how vitl you dccide tbe case'1 (4%)
SUGGESTED E]YSWEN:
I will deciile ir favo" of }[ada but o,rlv as to the
shate of Fe, and dismiss the comPlaint with resDect
to Esperarza alrd Cartdad. The ProPettv tn question
is co-owned by Fe, Espetanza aDd Caridad' sirce it
has uot y€t been divided among them. Article 493 of
the Civtl Code ptovldes that each co_owrer shall have
full ownership of hi6 Part aud of tbe frults and bene"
6ts pertaiDing thereto, arld hc may therefore alierate,
assigr or mo*gagc it, provided that the effect of such
alleaation o, mortgage shall be limited to the Portion
which may be alotted to hirn in the division uPor the
t€rmiaatiol of the co-ownershiP. The sale by Fe to
Marla would therefore be binding ol1 het 1/3 iotcrest'
but not oa the 2/3 tnterest of Espetanza arrd Caridad
because their shares were Eot validly sold to Mada in
the absence of a written authority to F€ to sell their
,espective Portions to l,Iaria as required by Arttcl€
1874 of the Civil Code. Fe car oalv sell vhatev€t ProP-
erty right she has, l.e. 1/3 ideal portion or undivtded
irter€st ia the 5OO sq. m- lot.
The sale to Manuel is valid as to the 2/3 shar€ of
Esperanza and Caridad.
v-
100 SUGGESTEDANSWERS IO THE 2014 BAR EXA[,IINATION
QUESTIONS IN CIVILLAW
XXVIII.
Spouses Esteban and Maria decided to raise their rwd
minors, as thef own chil
(2) nieces, Faith and Hope, both
dren after the parents of rhe minors rlied in a vehicular
Ten (10) years after, Esteban died. Maria later on
married her boss Daniet, a British national who had been
living ilr the Philippi.es lor r\(rc (2) years.
With dre permission ofDaniet, Maria fited a petition for
the adoption oI Faith and Hope. She did not j clude Daniel
as her co-petitionei' beriause fo. Maria, it was her former
husband Esteban who raised rhe kids. 1,1%)
Ifyou are the judge, how will you resotve the perition?
SUGGESTED E,NiSWER..
I wiU deny the petition for adoption. Accoflting
to R.A. a552 or the DoEestic Adoption Act of 199A,
a husband and wife must jotntly adopt except ln the
followitrg cases: 1l tf oae spouse seeks to adopt the
legitidate child of the other; 2) tf ode spouse seeks to
a.lopt his/her ow,r iuegitiBate child, providcd that th€
other spouse sigtrified theft consert thereto; or O) lf
the spouses arc legally sepatated frotn each other,
In this case, sirce Da[iel and lllada do not faU
under aay of the exceptions enurnerated above, they
rlrust joirxtly adopt as required by law.
! coutdbut€ money, property or industry to a conr,non
SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAMINATION
OUESTIONS IN CIVILLAW
101
xxrx.
'l'jmothy executed a Memorandunr oI Agreemcnt (MOA)
$.ith I'/\ristopher setting up a business verture covering
ihree (3) ,astfood stores known as "llungry Toppings'that
\\,ill be established at Mail tJn.J, Mall Dos, and Mall'lres.
The pertinent provisions of the MOA provide:
l Timothy shal1 bc considered a partnel lvith Lhidy
perccnl (3o%) share jn all of the stores io be set Ip by
Kristophcr;
2. The proceeds of the business, after deductjDg
cxpenses, shall be used to pay the principal amount
of tr500,000.OO and tlxr interest therein whiclt is to bc
computed based on thc bank rale, represerting ihe
bank loan secured by Timothv;
3- The net profits, ifany, after deilucting the expenses and
paymcnis of tbe principal and interest sha1l be div ed
as rollows: scvcntv pcrccnt (7o%) lor ltristophcr ard
thjrty percent (30%) Ior Timoth],;
.1. Kristopher sha1l have a iiee hand in rurnnE 1he busi
ness withoutanv i11telfelence lrotu TiEothy, lris .1geilts,
represeDlalives, or assiens, and should such interfer-
cnce happen, Kristopher has the right to buy back ihe
share ofTimothy less the amounts alreadl paid on thc
principal and to dissol\.e the MOA; and
5. Kristopher shall submit his monthly sales rcport in
coinection with the business to limo1hv.
Wtr"t i" ttre contraclual .clationship berucen Timothy
and lftistopher? {4%l
SUGCES?ED AIVSIT'ER..
The coatractual relationship betweeu Timothy
arxd Kristopher is that of paf:rership. Article 1767
of the Civil Code provides that under a contract of
partnership, two or more persons bind themselves to
fund, with the irtentioE of dividing the profits alnolg
themselves. trtroreover, Articlc 1769 of the Ctvil Code
states in part that receipt by a perso! of a share of
 7
SUGGESIED ANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAMINAIION
t02 OUESTIONS IN CIVILLAW
the profits of a business is prirna J cie eviderce that
he is a partaer in the businessr prowided that the said
profrts w€re rot received in paym€nt for debt, as wages,
anruity, irterest od a loat, o1 as conslderation for a
sale. In this case, the OA betweer Timothy atxd Kris-
topher stiFulated that th€y shall share itr the profits of
the bushess 3O-7o. TLe cortdbutiors of the partners
irclude a bank loan obtaired by Timothy alrd industry
id the fora of aanaging the properties by Ktistopher.
Thus, thc requisites for establishing a contract of part-
r€rshtp are complied with.
I
n
SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO ]HE 2014 BAR EXAII,IINATION
OUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW
103
xxx-
.Joe Miguel, a q,ellknos,n treasure hunter in Min.lanao,
executed a Special Porver of Attorney (SPA) apponltnlg his
nephe$, John Paul, as his attorney-in-Iac1. .tohn Paul \r'as
given the power to deal uith treasure hunting activities on
Joe Miguel's land and to Ii1e chargcs agahst those who mav
enter it \vithout the latter's allthority. Joe Migrrel agreed to
give John Palrl lorty percent (40%) of the treasurt that ay
be found on the land.
Thercafter, JohD PauI fiIed a case lor damages and
injunction against Lilo for illegally entering Joe Migoel's
1an.1. Subsequerur,, he hjrod lhc lcgal se ices of Atty.
Aud.ey agreeing to give the latter thirLy percent (30%) of
Joe Miguel's share in whatever treasure that may be ft)und
in the tand.
Diss.rtisflcd howcvcr lvith the strategies implemented
by John Paul, Joe Miguel uDilaterally revoked the SPA
granted to Johu Paul.
Is the revocaiion proper? (4%)
SUGGESTED AI\ISWER..
Yes, tbe revocation is proper. Article 192O provides
that the principal may expressly o, iDrpliedly .evokc
the ageacy at wiU, and compel the agent to return
the docuEeat evidencing the agency. Joe iguel rnay
howeve! be held liable for damages if he alrused his
right iu revokiag the agency-
ALTERNATIVE AT,ISWER:
No, the revocatioa is ltot proper. Under Afticle 1927,
aa agency cannot be revoLed if a bilateral contmct
depends upon it, or if it is the means of fulfiUtng aa obli'
gation already contracted, or if a part,ler is appointed
manager ofa partneishlp in the contract ol pa?tnership
alrd his removal from the ,aaragemetrt is unjustiffable.
I,1 the case of "Republic u. .Euargelistd lG.R. No.
156015, August r1, 2OOS), which has siailar facts as
the presert caEe, it was held that'ar1 exception to the
levocability of a contract ofagency is when it is coupled
 SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAMINATION
104 QUESTIONS IN CIVILLAW
with-iaterest, i.e., if a bilatenl contract depeods upor
the agercy. The reasor for its irrevocability is because
th€ agency becomes part ofanother obligation or agre€'
ment- It is trot solely the rights ofth€ principat but also
that ofthe agert and third persons which arc afected.
Hence, the law provldes that in such cases, the agetrcy
cannot be levoked at the sole will of the p?incipal,"
ID this case, the lnterest of Johr Paul arld Atty.
Audrey in the ageacy is the treasure that lnay be found
in the land. The coatract lrith the lan ye" depelds on
the agercy which readers such ageDcy as one corpled
with an interest. Therefore, Joe Miguel cannot unila-
teraUy revoke the age[cy.
TAXATION
I.
On March 27, 2012, the llureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR) issued a notice of assessment against_Blue Water
lndustdes Inc. (tlwt), a domestic corporation, inibrming
the latle. of its alleged deficlency oorporate income 1.{x lol
ihe year 2009. On Apil 20, 2012, Bwl filed :r letter protusl
before tbe BIR contesting said assessment and demanding
that the same bc cancellcd or sct aside.
Howe\.er, oD May 19, 2013, that is, atlcr more th.Ln a
year liom the filing oI the letter protest, the BIR informed
BWI that the lattcr'a letter protest was deried o the
grourd that the assessmert had ajready become finai,
er.ecutory and demandable. The BiR reasorcd that its
f.1i1ure tc, decide the case within I80 days frorn filing ot the
letter protest should have promptcd IJWI to seek recourse
belore the Court of Tax Appeals ICTA) by fi1ing a petition
for review within thirty (30) days alter the expiratioD ofthe
180 day peric,d as mandated by the provjsions oI the last
paragraph of Section 228 ofthe Naljoial Internal Revenuc
Codc (NIITC). Accordirgly, BWI'S Iailure to Iile a petiiiorl
for revicw beforc ihe CTA rendered the assessrnent flnal,
executory and demandable.
ls rhe.onrFnrron ol rhc BlR.orre, r? !\l,l,in. r5"ol
SUGGESTED ATVSTVER:
No, the contention of BIR is ,iot correct. The right
of BUfl to corsialer the inaction of the Comlllissioaer
or1 the protest within 18O days as an appealable deci-
sion is ody optional and will not aake the assessEent
final, executory and d€rnandable (Section 22a' NIRC;
Ia'sco,.d L@rLd Co., Inc. ,. CIR, G-R. No. 171251, tr[arch
5, 2012,667 SCRA 4s5).