Green Notes 2015

CIVIL LAW

QUESTION NO. 1
Abe received a handwritten letter from his
mother in which she expressed a desire to give
her diamond ring to Abes wife. A short time
later, Abes mother died without a will. Abes
wife claims the ring. Will she prevail?
No. Every will must convey clearly the
intention of the testator to dispose of his
property after his death. (Art. 783, Civil Code)
The letter of Abes mother is merely an
expression of an intention to make a gift
mortis causa and, as the wishes of the donor
had not been carried out during her lifetime,
the letter would have no legal effect upon the
distribution of the estate.
The letter does not even have the effect of a
valid donation inter vivos because there is no
showing that Abes wife had accepted the
donation during the donors lifetime; neither is
there any showing that the donor when she
was still alive came to know of such
acceptance. (Art. 748, Civil Code)
QUESTION NO. 2
Abe agrees to paint Reys house within a
month. They agree that Abe will pay a penalty
in the sum of of Php10,000 in case of non-
compliance. Before Abe could start painting
Reys house, he learns that Larry wanted his
services to paint the latters house for a higher
amount. Abe now goes to Rey and tells him
that he will not be able to paint Reys house
and offers to pay the penalty of Php10,000. Is
Abe allowed to pay the penalty?
Yes, provided Abe had expressly reserved such
right. Article 1227 of the Civil Code expressly
provides that the debtor cannot exempt
himself from the performance of the obligation
by paying the penalty, save in the case where
this right has been expressly reserved for him.
QUESTION NO. 3
Rey drafted and properly executed a notarial
will. Assume the following clauses in his will
and the following events. Discuss fully each
situation and the legal effects of the events on
the testamentary provisions.
a. Reys will provides, I leave my 2011
white Mitsubishi Montero with Plate
No. AFB 346 to my friend, Abe. At
Page 1 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
the time of Reys death, Abe has
already died, leaving his son, Zandro.
Abes legacy is invalidated by Abes
predecease. As a result, the property devolves
to Reys heirs in intestacy. Zandro has no right
to the property because a voluntary heir who
dies before the testator transmits nothing to his
heirs. (par. 1, Art. 856, Civil Code)
b. Reys will provides, I leave to my friend,
Abe, my 2011 white Mitsubishi Montero
with Plate No. AFB 346. Just prior to
Reys death, Rey sold the Montero.
The sale of the property constitutes a
revocation of the legacy. The law grants Rey
the right to revoke because of the ambulatory
character of a will. Abe has no right to
question the sale because the right of an
instituted heir, legatee or devisee to the
inheritance is merely inchoate. (Art. 777, Civil
Code)
QUESTION NO. 4
When he was still a bachelor, Abe made out a
will naming his mother, Anne, as sole heir to
an estate valued at Php1 million. A few years
later, Abe marries Bea. If Abe dies while
married to Bea and without changing his will,
would Abes entire estate go to his mother?
No. Article 889 of the Civil Code provides that
the legitime of legitimate parents or ascendants
consists of one-half of the hereditary estates of
their children and descendants. Pursuant to
Article 893, if the testator leaves no legitimate
descendants, but leaves legitimate ascendants,
the surviving spouse shall have a right to one-
fourth of the hereditary estate which shall be
taken from the free portion.
Applying the foregoing provisions, Anne,
Abes mother, is entitled to a legitime of
Php500,000, while Bea is entitled to a legitime
of Php250,000 which is to be taken from the
free portion. The remainder of the hereditary
estate (Php250, 000) constitutes the disposable
portion which goes to Anne as Abes instituted
heir.
QUESTION NO. 5
Abe, Ben, and Carl are co-owners of a parcel
of land. Amy sells her share to Dave. A few
months later, Ben sells his share to Eric.

a) Is Dave entitled to redeem Bens share?
Yes, because the right of legal redemption is
not limited to the original co-owners. What
matters is that the Dave was already a co-
owner when another co-owner (Ben) sold his
undivided share.
b) Suppose Ben donated his share to Eric, may
Carl and Dave redeem Bens share?
No. The right of legal redemption may be
exercised only if the share of a co-owner is
alienated to a third person by onerous title.
(Art. 1620, Civil Code) Since the conveyance
to Eric was not by onerous title but by
gratuitous title, Connie and Dave are not
entitled to redeem.
c) Suppose Ben sells his share to Dave, may
Carl redeem?
No. The right of legal redemption may be
exercised only if the share of a co-owner is
alienated to a third person by onerous title.
Such right of legal redemption is not available
here because the vendee is himself a co-owner.
The rationale behind the right of legal
redemption among co-owners is to reduce the
number of co-owners and avoid the entry of
strangers into the co-ownership. If the
alienation is in favor of a co-owner, the
number of co-owners is already reduced and
no stranger has entered the co-ownership.
QUESTION NO. 6
In the following situations, two parties lay
claim to the same goods sold. Discuss which of
the parties would prevail in each situation.
a) Abe steals Reys television set and sells it to
Larry, an innocent purchaser for value. Rey
learns Larry has the set and demands its
return.
Rey is entitled to the return of the set even
without reimbursement. This is so because Rey
had been unlawfully deprived of it. Possession
of a movable, even if acquired in good faith,
is not equivalent to title when the true owner
had lost it or had been unlawfully deprived of
it, unless the possessor had acquired it in good
faith at a public sale. (Art. 559, Civil Code)
Here, Larrys acquisition of the set was not at a
public sale. His possession of the set, even if
Page 2 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
acquired in good faith, is never equivalent to
title
b) Rey takes his television set for repair to Abe
who sells new and used television sets. By
accident, one of Abes employees sells the
set to Larry, an innocent purchaser for
value, who takes possession. Rey wants his
set back from Larry.
Rey can no longer recover the set, even if he
offers reimbursement. An owner of a movable
who had lost it or had been unlawfully
deprived of it can no longer recover the
movable even with reimbursement if the
possessor had acquired the property in good
faith by purchase from a merchants stores, or
in fairs, or markets in accordance with the
Code of Commerce. Since Larry acquired in
good faith the set from a merchants store, his
possession of the set amounts to a valid title.
QUESTION NO. 7
Amy married Ben in 2007. Amy is an actress
and Ben a businessman. In 2014, Amy figured
that, even before their marriage Ben and his
family were notoriously involved in a
networking scam. This fact was not disclosed
to her at the time of the marriage. Amy feels
cheated and thinks that this can affect her
public image. Does she have a remedy?
Amy has no remedy because Bens
concealment of his involvement in a
networking scam does not constitute fraud
that would annul the marriage. To annul a
marriage on the ground of fraud, only the
circumstances enumerated under Article 46 of
the Family Code constitute fraud. No other
misrepresentation or deceit as to character,
rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute such
fraud as will give grounds for the annulment of
marriage. Bens involvement in a shady scam,
although concealed, constitutes
misrepresentation as to his character, but
which would not annul the marriage.
QUESTION NO. 8
SM Prime Holdings engaged a contractor for
the repainting of all SM malls nationwide. The
contract expressly provided that the contractor
use only paint manufactured and supplied by
Davies Paints. The contractor used another
manufacturers paint. May Davis Paints sue the
contractor for damages?

No. Davis Paints was named in the contract
merely as an incidental beneficiary. If a
contract should contain some stipulation in
favor of a third person, he may demand its
fulfilment provided he communicated his
acceptance to the obligor before its
revocation. A mere incidental benefit or
interest of a person is not sufficient. The
contracting parties must have clearly and
deliberately conferred a favor upon a third
person. (par. 2, Art. 1311, Civil Code)
QUESTION NO. 9
Abe gave Bea an engagement ring. Shortly
before the wedding date, Abe was killed in a
car accident. Abes estate brought an action to
recover the ring. How would a court rule?
It depends. If Abe gave the ring to Bea in
consideration of their marriage, the gift
partakes of a donation propter nuptias which
may be revoked on grounds of non-
celebration of the marriage pursuant to Article
86(1) of the Family Code. The action to
recover the ring prevails.
If Abe gave the ring to Bea because of his love
for her, the ring may be recovered if its value
exceeds Php5,000. This is pursuant to the rule
that if the value of the movable donated
exceeds Php5,000, the donation as well as the
acceptance shall be in writing to be valid. (Art.
748, Civil Code) Here, there is no showing
that Abe gave the ring to Bea in writing. The
action to recover the ring also prevails.
But if the value of the ring does not exceed
Php5,000, the donation and the acceptance
need not be in writing to be valid. Pursuant to
Article 748 of the Civil Code, an oral donation
of this kind is valid provided there is
simultaneous delivery. The action to recover
the ring fails.
QUESTION NO. 10
Buyer and Seller enter into a contract under
which Seller is to sell all of the palay to be
grown on his land to Buyer. After the contract
is entered into but before the palay is
harvested, the price of palay rises dramatically.
Both Buyer and Seller claim the crop.
Judgment for whom?
Judgment for Buyer. Things having a potential
existence may be the object of a sale, but the
efficacy of the sale is deemed subject to the
Page 3 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
condition that the thing will come into
existence. (Art. 1461, Civil Code) While future
things or goods may not be donated, future
things or goods may be sold, as in this case.
QUESTION NO. 11
Abe and Rey are co-owners of a parcel of
land. Unknown to Rey, Larry built a house on
the property with the consent of Abe. May
Rey sue to eject Larry from the property?
Yes. Under Article 491 of the Civil Code, none
of the co-owners shall, without the consent of
the others, make alterations in the thing
owned in common. Consequently, none of the
co-owners can, without the consent of the
other co-owners, validly consent to the
making of an alteration by another person in
the thing owned in common.
The consent given by Abe but without Reys
consent did not vest upon Larry any right to
enter into the co-owned property. Larrys
entry into the property falls under the
classification through strategy or stealth.
The holding that there is no forcible entry
because Larrys entry into the property was
not through strategy or stealth due to the
consent given to him by one of the co-owners
is utterly wrong. Larrys entry into the
property without the permission of Rey could
appear to be a secret and clandestine act done
in connivance with co-owner, Abe. Entry into
the land effected clandestinely without the
knowledge of the other co-owners could be
categorized as possession by stealth. (Cruz v.
Catapang, G.R. No. 164110, Feb. 12, 2008)
QUESTION NO. 12
Abe leased to Rey a building, the latter to pay
Abe Php20,000 monthly. The contract
stipulates that non-payment of the rent would
automatically cancel the contract, but
otherwise Rey could stay on indefinitely. After
five years, Abe tried to eject Rey because he
planned to tear down the building and put up
another. Can Abe eject Rey?
Yes, because the condition in the contract is
purely potestative rendering it void. The
continuance of the contract depends solely
upon Reys choice: between continuing paying
the rentals or not, completely depriving the
owner of all say on the matter. So long as Rey
elected to continue the lease by continuing the
payment of the rentals, the owner would

never be able to discontinue it; conversely,
although the owner should desire the lease to
continue, the lessee could effectively thwart his
purpose by simply stopping payment of
rentals. (Encarnacion v. Baldemar, 77 Phil.
470)
QUESTION NO. 13
Tom made a will in 1998 giving to his friend,
Fidel, all his cars. In 1998, Tom had three cars,
but in 2005, when Tom died, he already had
eight cars. How many cars will Fidel get upon
Toms death?
Fidel is entitled to three cars only, the number
of cars Tom had when Tom made his will.
Property acquired between the execution of
the will and the death of the testator are not
included among the properties disposed of,
unless it appears in the will that such was the
intention of the testator. (Art. 793, Civil Code)
(NOTE: The rule under Article 793 of the Civil
Code is applicable only to legacies and devises.
As to institution of heirs, Article 781 of the
Civil Code applies.)
QUESTION NO. 14
Ana was an unmarried woman when a friend
entrusted to her the care of an abandoned
infant. Eager to have a child of her own, she
registered the child to make it appear that she
is the childs mother. Ana reared and cared for
the child as if she were her own. She sent the
child to exclusive schools, doted on her, and
used her surname in all of the childs scholastic
records.
When the child was ten years old, Ana married
Brad, an American. Ana later decided to adopt
the child by availing of the amnesty given
under the law to those individuals who
simulated the birth of a child. With the consent
of Brad, Ana filed the petition for adoption.
a) Can Ana alone adopt the child without
being joined by her husband?
No. The Domestic Adoption Act specifically
provides that the husband and wife shall
jointly adopt, except if one spouse seeks to
adopt the legitimate child of the other; or if
one spouse seeks to adopt his or her own
illegitimate child; or if the spouses are legally
separated from each other. Ana does not fall
under any of these exceptions for the
Page 4 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
following reasons: Firstly, the child to be
adopted is not the legitimate child of Ana or
of her husband, Brad; secondly, the child is not
the illegitimate child of Ana; and thirdly, Ana
and Brad are not legally separated.
b) Can Ana and Brad file the petition jointly?
No. Under the Domestic Adoption Act, an
alien is qualified to adopt a Filipino child only
if a) he is a former Filipino citizen who seeks
to adopt a relative within the fourth civil
degree of consanguinity; b) he seeks to adopt
the legitimate or illegitimate child of his
Filipino spouse; and c) he is married to a
Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with
his spouse a relative within the fourth civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity of the
Filipino spouse.
The child to be adopted is not a relative of
Ana within the fourth degree of consanguinity.
Neither is the child the legitimate or
illegitimate child of Ana. Therefore, Brad,
being an alien, is not qualified to adopt the
child. While Ana is qualified to adopt, Brad is
not. Even if Ana is qualified, she still cannot file
the petition without being joined by her
husband.
QUESTION NO. 15
Abe, owner of an antique shop, asked his
friend, Rey, to mind the store while he went
to a local mall to mail a package. While Abe
was gone, Tessie came into the store and
purchased a rare painting for a very low price.
When Abe returned, Rey told him about the
sale. Abe immediately brings action against
Tessie for the return of the painting on
grounds that Rey did not have authority to
make the sale. Can Abe recover the painting?
Abe cannot recover the painting because he is
estopped from denying Reys authority.
Agency by estoppel arises when the principal
(Abe) intentionally or by want of ordinary
care causes a third person (Tessie) to believe
another (Rey) to be his agent who is not really
employed by him.
When Abe placed Rey in charge of the store,
Tessie had the right to assume that Rey was the
agent of Abe. Rey had apparent authority,
because he appeared to be the agent and Abe,
the principal, is estopped from denying the
agency, even if none existed. (Art. 1883, Civil
Code)

QUESTION NO. 16
Abe married Bea in 2005. Abe subsequently
meets with an accident, and, as part of the
treatment, receives a blood transfusion. The
blood was infected with a communicable
venereal disease, which Abe contracts, and
later transmits to Bea. Can Bea sue for
annulment?
No. Affliction of a contracting party with a
serious and incurable sexually-transmissible is a
ground to annul a marriage only if such illness
was existing at the time of the marriage.
Moreover, affliction of a contracting party of a
sexually-transmissible disease, regardless of its
nature, existing at the time of the marriage and
concealed by such party, constitutes fraud that
would annul a marriage. Because Abe
contracted the venereal disease only during the
marriage, Maria cannot use it as a ground for
annulment.
QUESTION NO. 17
Tito devised one-half of a parcel of land to
Ana, and the other half to Ben, on condition
that upon Bens death, whether before or
after that of Tito, the half portion devised to
Ben shall be delivered to Ana or her heirs
should Ben die before Tito. Upon Titos
death, Ben immediately demanded partition of
the property. Ana refused on grounds that Ben
is only a fiduciary heir (second heir). Is Ana
correct?
Ana is patently wrong for refusing partition. A
fideicommissary substitution has no effect
unless it is made expressly. The clause under
consideration is not a valid fideicommissary
substitution. The clause establishes only a
simple or common substitution, the necessary
result of which is that Ben, upon the death of
Tito, became the owner of an undivided half
of the property. Being a co-owner of the
property, Ben can rightfully demand its
partition.
QUESTION NO. 18
Mr. and Mrs. Cruz, a wealthy couple, offered
a reward of Php2 million in a newspaper to
the person or persons furnishing information
resulting in the apprehension and conviction
of the person or persons guilty of the murder
of their son. Shortly after the advertisement,
the police arrested a suspect. The police
learned that the suspect was the boyfriend of a
Page 5 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
daughter of Ana who suggested the location at
which the suspect was later found and
arrested. The suspect was charged and
convicted. Ana tried to claim the reward
money, arguing that the information she gave
to the police led to the arrest and conviction
of the murderer. When Ana gave the
information to the police, however, she had
not known about the reward. Is Ana entitled
to the reward?
Ana is not entitled to the reward because she
did not know that it had been offered. To be
effective, an offer of reward, as well as any
other contractual offers, must be
communicated to the offeree resulting in the
offerees knowledge of the offer. An offer
without acceptance does not result into a
contract. (Art. 1319, Civil Code) One cannot
agree to a bargain without knowing that it
exists. .
QUESTION NO. 19
In a cockfight involving the cocks of Abe and
Rey, the sentenciador declares Abes cock the
winner. Not satisfied with the sentenciadors
decision, Rey commences an action against
Abe, praying that the judgment of the
sentenciador be voided and his cock be
declared the rightful winner. The judge
immediately dismisses the case on grounds that
he knew of no law governing cockfights. He
also orders the return of Reys bet. Abe
appeals to the Court of Appeals. Who
prevails?
Abe prevails. In Chu Jan v. Bernas, 34 Phil.
631, the Supreme Court reversed the lower
courts order of dismissal and remanded the
case to the lower court. A judge should not
refrain from rendering a judgment just because
there is no law that governs a particular case.
In the absence of a law or principle of law, the
rules of fair play must be applied. (Sec. of
Justice v. Lantion, 322 SCRA 160 [2000] When
a provision of law is silent or ambiguous,
judges ought to invoke a solution responsive
to the vehement urge of conscience. (Amatan
v. Aujero, 248 SCRA 511)
QUESTION NO. 20
Tom died in 2005 leaving a holographic will
which is entirely written, dated, and signed by
his hand. The will contains insertions and
cancellations which are not authenticated by
his signature. For this reason, the probate of

the will is opposed by Toms relatives who
stood to inherit intestate from him. May
Toms will be probated?
Yes, the will as originally written may be
probated. The insertions and alterations are
void because they were not authenticated by
the full signature of Tom pursuant to Article
814 of the Civil Code. The original will
remains valid because a holographic will is not
invalidated by the unauthenticated insertions
or alterations. (Ajero v. Court of Appeals, 236
SCRA 468)
QUESTION NO. 21
Abe has a used farm tractor for sale. He offers
to sell the tractor to Rey for Php350,000.
Discuss the legal effect of the following events
on the offer.
b) Abe dies prior to Reys acceptance, and at
the time Rey accepts, he is unaware of
Abes death.
Abes death terminates the offer. An offerees
power of acceptance is terminated when the
offeror or offeree dies or is deprived of legal
capacity to enter into the proposed contract.
An offer is personal to both parties and cannot
pass to the decedents heirs, assigns or
successors-in-interest. This rule applies whether
or not the other party had notice of the death
or incapacity of the other party.
c) The night before Rey accepts, fire destroys
the tractor.
Abes offer is terminated. Abe need not even
tell Rey about the loss of the tractor for the
offer to terminate. An offer is automatically
terminated if the specific subject matter of the
offer is destroyed before the offer is accepted.
d) Rey pays Php10,000 for a thirty-day option
to purchase the tractor. During this period
Abe dies, and later Rey accepts the offer,
knowing of Abes death.
Reys acceptance results in a perfected contract
notwithstanding Abes death. When an offeror
promises to hold an offer open for a specified
period, and the offeree pays for the promise,
an option contract is created. An option
contract is a separate contract that takes away
the offerors power to revoke the offer for the
period of time specified in the option. The
death or incompetence of the offeror does not
Page 6 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
terminate an option contract -- unless the
offerors personal performance is essential to
the fulfillment of the contract. Consequently,
Rey can still exercise the option against Abes
estate, since Abe is not required to perform the
act of conveying the tractor to Rey.
QUESTION NO. 22
Abe, a Filipino naturalized American, now a
resident of New York, comes back to the
Philippines as a balikbayan. He is arrested at
the NAIA in possession of a caliber .38 Smith
and Wesson. Charged with illegal possession of
firearms, he moves to quash the criminal
complaint based on his constitutional right as a
New Yorker to bear arms. Decide.
Motion denied. The crime was committed
within our territorial jurisdiction and is
therefore punishable here. Under the principle
of generality, no one is exempt from our penal
laws, except those who enjoy diplomatic
immunity under international law. (Art. 14,
Civil Code; Art. 2 Revised Penal Code; see also
3rd par., Art. 17, Civil Code)
QUESTION NO. 23
Abe and Amy, husband and wife, are married
in Baguio City. Abe goes to Hongkong and
marries Bea, a Filipina domestic helper. After a
month of connubial bliss in the Crown
Colony, Abe goes to Singapore and marries
Connie, a Filipina house manager. After two
months with Connie, Abe goes to Brunei
where he marries Annie, a Filipina GRO. After
three months of connubial bliss in Brunei, Abe
heads for home sweet home. May Abe be
prosecuted for bigamy in the Philippines at the
instance of his first wife, Amy?
No, Abe did not commit any crime in
Philippine territory. (Art. 14, Civil Code)
Bigamy is committed by entering into a second
or subsequent marriage. The first marriage,
which was entered into in the Philippines, is
not bigamous. The subsequent marriages,
which are bigamous marriages, were all
entered into abroad, or outside Philippine
territory, and therefore beyond our criminal
jurisdiction.
QUESTION NO. 24
Ana and Amy, Filipinos, both women, enter
into a same-sex marriage in the United States,

where such a marriage is valid. Is the marriage
also valid here?
The general rule enunciated in the first
paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code
should apply, under which marriages valid
where celebrated are also valid here. The case
does not fit into any of the exceptions
enunciated in the foregoing provision of
Article 26 of the Family Code. Therefore, same
sex marriage is valid here if valid where
celebrated.
However, it would seem that the case falls
under one of the exceptions to the application
of the proper foreign law, i.e., it runs counter
to an important public policy of the forum --
that a marriage should be between a man and
a woman. Because of this important public
policy, same-sex marriage is void here.
QUESTION NO. 25
A ten-year old boy shot a girl with an air gun
resulting in her death. The court acquitted the
boy in the criminal case for having acted
without discernment. Undaunted, the girls
parents filed for damages against the boys
parents. How would a court rule?
The court would hold the boys parents liable.
Their liability is made natural as a logical
consequence of the duties and responsibilities
of parents exercising parental authority which
includes controlling, disciplining and instructing
their children.
In this jurisdiction, the liability of parents is
vested by law which assumes that when a
minor or unemancipated child living with their
parent commits a tortuous act, the parents are
presumed negligent in the performance of
their duty to supervise the children under their
custody. (Tamargo vs. CA, 209 SCRA 519)
QUESTION NO. 26
Two Grade 6 pupils, Ana and Bea, were
assigned by their teacher to weed the grass in
the school premises. Ana found a plastic
headband with an earthworm and tossed it to
Bea hitting the latter in her right eye resulting
in the loss of said eye. Are Anas parents liable?
No. It was not shown that the parents could
have prevented the damage as their child was
in school and they have the right to expect
their child to be under the care and
Page 7 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
supervision of their teacher. Besides, the act
was an innocent prank and usual among
children at play and which no parent could
have any special reason to anticipate much less
guard against. (Cuadra vs.Monfort, 35 SCRA
160)
QUESTION NO. 27
Two farmers entered into a contract for the
purchase of a cow. The owner told the
purchaser that the cow was barren (incapable
of breeding and producing calves). Based on
this belief, the parties negotiated a price
several hundred pesos less than it would have
been had the cow been capable of breeding.
Just before delivery, the owner discovered the
cow had conceived a calf, and he refused to
deliver the much more valuable cow to the
purchaser. Does the owner have legal grounds
to annul the contract?
Yes, the owner may annul the contract on the
ground that he committed a substantial
mistake as to the substance of the subject
matter of the contract. The mistake is
substantial enough because a barren cow is a
substantially different cow than a breeding
one. The law is clear: Even though there may
have been no damage to the party seeking the
annulment, a contract may be annulled where
the consent is vitiated by mistake. (Art. 1390,
Civil Code)
QUESTION NO. 28
ABC Insurers insured Pedros house for
Php500,000. As stated in the policy, the
insurance company undertakes, upon total
loss, to either pay the insured value of the
house, or rebuild it, upon proof of total loss. If
during the life of the policy the insured
property is completely destroyed, may Pedro
insist that the insurance company rebuild his
house rather than being paid its insured value?
No, because in alternative obligations, the
right of choice is given to the debtor, unless it
has been expressly granted to the creditor.
(par. 1, Art 1200, Civil Code) In the absence of
an agreement in the insurance policy giving the
right of choice to the insured, the general rule
applies, and therefore, the insurer may choose
which of the two prestations to perform, the
performance of one being sufficient.

QUESTION NO. 29
For damage or injuries arising out of
negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle,
what is the nature of the liability of the
registered owner?
The registered owner may be held civilly liable
with the negligent driver either subsidiarily or
solidarily.
The owner may be held subsidiarily liable if
the aggrieved party seeks relief based on a
delict or crime under Articles 100 and 103 of
the Revised Penal Code. On the other hand,
the owner may be held solidarily if the
complainant seeks relief based on a quasi-delict
under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil
Code.
(NOTE: It is the option of the plaintiff whether
to waive completely the filing of the civil
action, or institute it with the criminal action,
or file it separately or independently of a
criminal action. His only limitation is that he
cannot recover damages twice for the same act
or omission of the defendant.)
QUESTION NO. 30
Abe works as a janitor in a building at night.
On his way to work, he finds a piece of gold
necklace that contains several precious stones.
The following day, Abe decides to take the
necklace to a jewelry store to have it
appraised. While pretending to weigh the
jewelry, an employee of the jeweler removes
several of the stones. Abe brings an action to
recover the stones from the jeweler. Will he
succeed?
Yes. As the party in physical possession of the
jewelry, Abe is entitled to be respected in its
possession which he can enforce against
anyone, except the true owner. (Art. 559,
Civil Code)
QUESTION NO. 31
If a Filipino is convicted by final judgment
abroad, may he be required to serve time
here?
No, because there is no legislation allowing
such practice. It would in effect require the
Philippine government not only to recognize,
but also to enforce, a foreign judgment which
Page 8 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
is penal in nature. (Opinion of the Sec. of
Justice No. 142, s. 1992)
QUESTION NO. 32
When may a divorce decree validly obtained
in a foreign country be recognized in the
Philippines?
A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be
recognized in our jurisdiction provided the
decree of divorce is valid according to the
national law of the foreigner. However, the
divorce decree and the governing national law
of the alien spouse who obtained the divorce
must be proved. Our courts do not take
judicial notice of foreign laws and judgments.
Like any other facts, both the divorce decree
and the national law of the alien spouse must
be alleged and proved according to our law
on evidence. (Garcia v. Recio, G.R. No.
138322, October 2, 2001)
QUESTION NO. 33
Tom died in 1990 with a will. In his will, he
devised a house and lot to his friend, Abe, as
his first heir and to Abes son, Ben, as his
second heir. Ben died in 1995 survived by two
children (Eric and Fidel). Abe in turn died in
2000 also survived by two children (Chito and
Dante).
In the settlement of Abes estate, Eric and Fidel
(Bens heirs) sought to exclude the house and
lot originating from Tom on grounds that they
are the exclusive owners of the property.
Chito and Dante opposed the motion on the
ground that Ben, the second heir, predeceased
Abe, and that therefore, the fideicommissary
substitution did not produce any effect as far
as Ben, the second heir, is concerned. Who
prevails?
Eric and Fidel, Bens heirs, prevail. Ben, the
second heir, acquires a right to the succession
from the time of the testators death, even
though he, Ben, should die before the first
heir. Ben inherited from Tom as second heir
when the latter died in 1990. When Ben died
in 1995, he transmitted his right as second heir
to his own heirs, Eric and Fidel, such that when
Abe (first heir) died in 2000, the right of Eric
and Fidel over the property became absolute.

QUESTION NO. 34
A passenger bus owned by Abe and a cargo
truck owned by Ben collided. Carlito, a bus
passenger, suffered injuries, while Dante,
another bus passenger, died. The drivers of the
two vehicles were at fault. Carlito, the injured
passenger, and the heirs of Dante sued the
owners of both vehicles for damages.
c) May Abe successfully invoke the defense of
due diligence in the selection and
supervision of his employees to avoid
liability?
No, he cannot. This is because his liability as a
common carrier is based on a breach of
contract of carriage. Such a defense will only
serve to mitigate Abes liability because by
then he will be considered as a debtor in good
faith.
d) May Ben invoke the same defense?
Yes, Ben can properly and successfully invoke
the same defense of due diligence in the
selection and supervision of his employees
because his liability is based on a quasi-delict.
e) May Carlito claim moral damages from
both vehicle owners?
Yes, Carlito can claim moral damages against
Ben, the owner of the cargo truck, because of
the injuries he suffered, but as against Abe,
Carlito can claim moral damages only if he
proves reckless negligence on the part of the
common carrier amounting to fraud.
f) May Dantes heirs claim moral damages
from both vehicle owners?
The heirs of Dante can claim moral damages
against both vehicle owners because the rules
on damages arising from death due to a quasi-
delict are also applicable to death of a
passenger caused by breach of contract by a
common carrier. (Arts. 1755, 1764, 2206 and
2219, Civil Code)
QUESTION NO. 35
John, Paul, George, and Ringo are co-owners
of an unregistered land. Unknown to his co-
owners, John registered the land in his name.
What is the effect of the registration of the
land in Johns name? Is registration by John of
Page 9 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
the property in his name a repudiation of the
co-ownership?
John never acquired ownership of the land.
Registration of a parcel of land subject of co-
ownership in the name of one co-owner is not
a repudiation of the co-ownership for
purposes of prescription. (Ceniza v. Court of
Appeals, 181 SCRA 552 [1990]) Under Article
494 (5) of the Civil Code, no prescription shall
run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir so long
as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-
ownership. The registration by John of the
community property in his name merely
created a trust in favor of his co-owners.
QUESTION NO. 36
If a marriage is annulled or declared void by
final judgment, how soon may the former
spouses remarry?
A decree of annulment or decree of absolute
nullity terminates a marriage. There being no
more subsisting marriage to speak of, the
former spouses may marry again, but only
after they comply with Article 52 of the Family
Code. This provision requires the former
spouses to register with the appropriate local
civil registry or registry of property the
following: a) judgment of annulment or of
absolute nullity of marriage; b) partition and
distribution of the properties of the spouses;
and c) delivery of the childrens presumptive
legitimes. Failure to comply with these
recording requirements will render void the
remarriage of the former spouses.
QUESTION NO. 37
Abe is convicted by final judgment of a crime.
Abes wife later files an action for legal
separation. Which of the following facts would
most likely have an impact on the case?
a) Abe is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for
more than six years.
b) Abe is convicted of a crime involving moral
turpitude.
c) Abe is convicted of a crime which carries
the accessory penalty of civil interdiction.
d) Abe is a rescidivist.
The situation in (a) would most likely have an
impact on the case. Under Article 55 of the
Family Code, a final judgment sentencing the

respondent spouse to imprisonment of more
than six years, even if pardoned, is a ground
for legal separation.
That Abe is convicted of a crime involving
moral turpitude as stated in (b) is of no
consequence if the penalty is less than six
years.
That Abe is sentenced to suffer the accessory
penalty of civil interdiction as stated in (c)
would have an impact only if the crime to
which Pedro is convicted carries a sentence of
more than six years.
Abes rescidivism in (d) has no impact because
it is not one of the grounds for legal
separation.
QUESTION NO. 38
Amy donated to Betty a parcel of land on
condition that Betty builds thereon a one-
storey library for a day care center within two
years. Betty has not yet built a library on the
property after two years. Amy, with notice to
Betty, sold the land to Connie Is the sale a
revocation of the donation?
No. The act of selling the property donated
cannot be considered as a valid revocation
because a formal action in court to revoke the
donation must be filed by the donor pursuant
to Article 764 of the Civil Code which speaks
of an action that has a prescriptive period of
four years from non-compliance with the
condition stated in the donation.
The rule that there can be automatic
revocation without the benefit of a court
action does not apply in this case because the
donation is devoid of any provision providing
for automatic revocation in the event of non-
compliance with the stipulated condition.
Thus, a court action is necessary to be filed
within four years from the non-compliance
with the condition violated.
QUESTION NO. 39
Abe met Bea at a garments factory where both
were working. After a brief courtship period,
the two got married, and lived for a time as
husband and wife. When the factory closed
down, Bea went to Taiwan to seek
employment. That was the last time Abe saw
her. Abe recently obtained a court decree
declaring Bea presumptively dead. The
Page 10 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
Solicitor General disagrees with the ruling on
grounds that Abe had failed to exert earnest
efforts to locate Bea and that Abe failed to
prove his well-founded belief that Bea was
already dead. The Solicitor General assails the
ruling through a Notice of Appeal. Should the
appeal be given due course?
No. The decision of the court granting Abes
petition for declaration of his wifes
presumptive death under Article 41 of the
Family Code is immediately final and
executory upon notice to the parties. (Art.
247, Family Code) The decision is therefore
not subject to ordinary appeal, and the
attempt to question it through a Notice of
Appeal is unavailing.
In sum, the losing party in a summary
proceeding for declaration of presumptive
death under Article 41 of the Family Code may
file a petition for certiorari with the Court of
Appeals on the ground that, in rendering
judgment thereon, the trial court committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction. From the decision of the Court of
Appeals, the aggrieved party may elevate the
matter to the Supreme Court via a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court. (Republic v. Granada, G.R.
No. 187512, June 13, 2012)
QUESTION NO. 40
Abe leased to Rey a building for a ten years.
Abe has repeatedly assured Rey that if he
should decide to sell the building, he will give
Rey the right of first refusal.
On the sixth year of the lease, Abe informed
Rey that he was willing to sell to Rey the
building for Php5 million. Rey offered to buy
the building for Php4.5 million. Abe did not
reply. One week later, Rey received a letter
from Larry informing him that the building had
been sold to him by Abe for Php5 million, and
that Larry will not renew Reys lease when it
expires.
a) Did Abe violate Reys right of first refusal?
No. The lessees right of first refusal does not
go so far as to give him the power to dictate
on the lessor the price at which the lessor
should sell his property. Upon the facts given,
Abe had sufficiently complied with his
commitment to give Rey a right of first refusal
when he offered to sell the property to Rey

for Php5 million, which was the same price he
got in selling it to Larry. Abe certainly had the
right to treat Reys counter-offer of a lesser
amount as a rejection of his offer to sell at
Php5 million. Thus, he was free to find
another buyer upon receipt of such counter-
offer.
b) Suppose Abe gave Rey an option to
purchase instead of a right of first refusal,
will that make any difference in your
answer?
No, the answer will still be the same. An
option must be supported by a consideration
separate and distinct from the purchase price.
In this case, there was no separate
consideration. Therefore, the option may be
withdrawn by Abe at anytime.
c) Is a right of first refusal governed by the
Statute of Frauds?
No. A right of first refusal is not among the
contracts which are required to be in writing
under the Statute of Frauds. The application of
Article 1403, paragraph 2(e), of the Civil Code
presupposes the existence of a perfected
contract of sale of real property. A right of first
refusal need not be written to be enforceable
and may be proved by oral evidence.
(Rosencor Development Corporation v.
Inquing, 354 SCRA 119 [2001])
QUESTION NO. 41
Abe agrees to lease to Rey an office space for
five years at a fixed rent. Before Rey takes
possession of the premises, Rey learns of a
much more advantageous opportunity and
established his office elsewhere. To force Rey
to perform, Abe brings an action to enforce
the agreement. What is Reys strongest
argument?
The Statute of Frauds is Reys strongest
argument. To be enforceable, the Statute of
Frauds requires certain agreements to be
reduced into writing and signed by the party
to be charged, including agreements creating
an interest in land. Leases for more than one
year are therefore generally covered by the
Statute of Frauds. Since the agreement
between Abe and Rey is for a five-year lease,
the Statute of Frauds is Reys strongest defense
to the enforcement of the agreement. (Art.
1403, par. 2(e), Civil Code)
Page 11 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
QUESTION NO. 42
Abe is a police officer. During his lifetime, he
contracted two marriages: the first with Bea,
and the second, with Carol. Upon Abes death,
Bea and Carol separately filed claims for
benefits pertaining to Abe from various
government agencies. Because she received a
smaller amount, Carol brought an action for
the return of at least one-half of the amount
which Bea received.
Two important facts came to light during the
trial. First, Carol had no knowledge of Abes
previous marriage and that she became aware
of it only at the funeral. Second, the prior
marriage of Abe to Bea was solemnized
without a marriage license. Is Carol entitled to
half of Abes death benefits?
The marriage of Abe and Bea is void for lack
of a valid marriage license. The same is true
with respect to the marriage of Abe and Carol
for lack of a judicial decree declaring the first
marriage a nullity. Given that the marriages are
void, the applicable property regimes would
be governed by Articles 147 and 148 of the
Family Code.
Considering that the marriage of Abe and
Carol is a bigamous marriage, having been
solemnized during the subsistence of a
previous marriage then presumed to be valid,
the application of Article 148 is in order.
The disputed death benefits clearly consists of
benefits from governmental agencies earned
by Abe as a police officer. Unless Carol
presents proof to the contrary, it could not be
said that she contributed money, property or
industry in the acquisition of these monetary
benefits. Hence, they are not owned in
common by Carol and Abe, but owned by the
deceased (Abe) alone and Carol has no right
whatever to claim the same.
By intestate succession, the death benefits of
Abe shall pass to his legal heirs. Carol, not
being the legal wife of Abe, is not one of
them.
QUESTION NO. 43
On May 1, Abe goes into Reys Clothing Store
to purchase a suit. Abe finds a suit he likes for
Php7,000 and buys it. The suit needs
alteration so Abe leaves the suit at the store.
Abe is to pick up the repaired suit at the store

on May 10. Consider the following separate
sets of circumstances:
a. One of Reys major creditors obtains a
judgment on the debt which Rey owes and
has the court issue a writ of execution to
collect on that judgment all clothing and
other apparel in Reys possession. Discuss
Abes right to the repaired suit on which the
judgment creditor has levied.
Abe is entitled to demand the return of the
suit. Upon payment of the price and its
delivery to him, Abe became the owner of the
suit. (Art. 1477, Civil Code) While Rey was in
possession of the repaired suit at the time of
the levy, Rey was in possession not as an
owner but in another capacity. The repaired
suit therefore is already beyond the reach of
Reys judgment creditor at the time of the
levy.
b. On May 9, through no fault of Rey, his
clothing store is completely burned, and all
contents are a total loss. Between Abe and
Rey, who suffers the loss of the suit
destroyed by fire? Explain.
Abe bears the loss of the suit pursuant to the
res perit domino rule, he being its owner. The
obligation of Rey to return the suit after May
10 is deemed extinguished by a fortuitous
event. (Art. 1174, Civil Code)
QUESTION NO. 44
Abe has a severe heart attack and is taken to
the hospital. He is not expected to live, and he
knows it. Because he is a bachelor without
close relatives nearby, Abe gives his car keys to
his close friend, Rey, telling Rey that he is
expected to die and that the car is Reys. Abe
survives the heart attack, but two months later
he dies from pneumonia. Larry, the
administrator of Abes estate, wants Rey to
return the car. Rey refuses, claiming the car
was given to him by Abe as a gift. Discuss
whether Rey will be required to return the car
to Abes estate.
Rey is required to return the car to Abes
estate. The donation is mortis causa, not inter
vivos. It is a mortis causa donation because
Abe intended it to take effect upon his death
because of his heart attack. That Abe died
from a cause unrelated to the heart attack does
not detract from the fact that Abes death is
the operative cause that would have conveyed
Page 12 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
ownership of the car to Rey. Since the
donation was not expressed in accordance
with the formalities of wills, the donation is
void and Rey never acquired ownership of the
car.
QUESTION NO. 45
Toms driveway runs the entire length of his
property and connects to Jerrys property.
Jerry has a right of way over the driveway,
which is obviously Jerrys only access to the
nearest public road. The right of way is duly
recorded in the Registry of Property. Jerry sells
his property to Larry. Is Larry entitled to use
the driveway?
Yes, he being the new owner of the dominant
estate. The owner of the dominant estate
cannot use the easement except for the benefit
of the immovable originally contemplated.
Since the law makes no distinction whether the
owner of the dominant estate be the original
owner at the time of the establishment of the
easement, as in the case of Jerry, or a mere
transferee of the dominant estate, as in the
case of Larry, then there is no need to
distinguish, and this is so because the easement
is constituted for the benefit of the dominant
estate, regardless of its owner. (Art. 626, Civil
Code)
QUESTION NO. 46
Romeo and Juliet are married. Shortly before
their wedding, Romeo donated to Juliet in a
notarized instrument a parcel of land on
condition that should Juliet die before Romeo
and there be no children, one-half of the
property shall be given to Juliets parents.
Nine months after the wedding, Juliet died
without issue. Juliets parents now claim the
one-half share given to them in the deed of
donation. Will they succeed?
No. Insofar as the one-half share is concerned,
it cannot be a valid donation propter nuptias
nor a donation inter vivos nor a donation
mortis causa.
The donation is not a donation propter
nuptias because the share was not given to one
of the spouses. The donation is not a donation
inter vivos, for there was no acceptance on the
part of the parents. The donation is not a
donation mortis causa because the deed of
donation did not have the formalities of a will,

aside from the fact that the donor, Romeo, is
still alive.
QUESTION NO. 47
A friend called Abe by cellular phone from
Tarlac City to say that his car had suffered a
tire blow out and that he must have a new tire
for his car to get back home to Baguio City.
Over the telephone, Abe said to the owner of
the car repair shop, Give him the tire and I
will pay for it. Is Abes oral promise
enforceable?
Yes. Abes promise was not one of guarantee,
but one in which he made himself directly and
primarily responsible for the amount of credit
extended. Thus, Abe made his own contract
with the repair shop owner, as he was not
guaranteeing his friends obligation. Abes oral
promise is binding on him. This is not a case of
a special promise to answer for the debt,
default or miscarriage of another which the
law requisites to be in writing to be
enforceable.
QUESTION NO. 48
Abe, a door-to-door salesman of vacuum
cleaners, demonstrated one of the latest model
cleaners at Mrs. Peraltas house. Mrs. Peralta
said that she was interested in buying the
cleaner but would have to consult her husband
before deciding. Abe offered to leave the
machine with Mrs. Peralta, saying, Ill leave it
here so that you can show it to your husband.
Here is my number. If I dont hear from you
by the end of the month, Ill send you a bill
for the machine. She agreed. A month passed
and Abes bill arrived. Is Mrs. Peralta liable to
pay the vacuum cleaner?
Yes. By her silence, Mrs. Peralta accepted Abes
offer and would therefore be liable under the
agreement discussed with Abe. Both parties
had agreed that continued silence would be
the manner of acceptance. A contract may be
perfected in any manner sufficient to show a
meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon
the thing and the cause which are to constitute
the contract, including conduct by both parties
manifesting such meeting of their minds. (Art.
1319, Civil Code)
Page 13 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
QUESTION NO. 49
Husband obtains a decree of legal separation
because of Wifes sexual infidelity. Is Wife
entitled to inherit from Husband?
It depends.
By intestate succession, she cannot. According
to Article 63(4) of the Family Code, the
offending spouse shall be disqualified from
inheriting from the innocent spouse by
intestate succession.
By testate succession, if the husband executed
the will prior to the decree of legal separation,
the wife cannot inherit from her husband.
According to Article 63(4) of the Family Code,
provisions in favor of the offending spouse
made in a will shall be revoked by operation
of law. However, if the will was executed
subsequent to the decree of legal separation,
the wife will then be able to inherit from her
husband. In such a case, there is a tacit or
implied pardon. (Art. 1033, Civil Code by
analogy)
QUESTION NO. 50
Abe and Bea were married in 1992. Shortly
after their wedding, Bea left to work abroad.
While on vacation in the Philippines in 2003,
she discovered that Abe married their
neighbour, Mila, in 2001. She also discovered
that Abe filed in 2002 with the Manila RTC a
a complaint for declaration of nullity of their
marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Aggrieved by Abes acts, Bea retaliated by
filing with the Makati RTC a complaint for
bigamy against Abe.
Meanwhile, in 2007, during the pendency of
the bigamy case, the Manila RTC rendered a
decision invalidating the marriage of Abe and
Bea on grounds that Bea was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with her essential
marital obligations. This decision has since
become final. Should the Makati RTC still
convict Abe of bigamy?
Yes. When Abe contracted a second marriage
in 2001, his marriage with Bea was still
subsisting. The finality of the decision declaring
the nullity of his first marriage with Abe came
about only in 2007 or about six years after his
second marriage. It is evident therefore that
Abe committed the crime charged. The
contention that Abe cannot be charged with
bigamy in view of the declaration of nullity of

his first marriage is without merit. The Family
Code settled once and for all the conflicting
jurisprudence on the matter. A declaration of
absolute nullity of a marriage is now explicitly
required either as a cause of action or a
ground for defense. Where the absolute nullity
of a previous marriage is sought to be invoked
for purposes of contracting a second marriage,
the sole basis acceptable in law for said
projected marriage to be free from legal
infirmity is a final judgment declaring the
previous marriage void. (Teves v. People, G.R.
No. 188775, August 24, 2011)
QUESTION NO. 51
Abe granted Rey a road right of way. Rey was
at that time using a cart and a carabao to
transport his products from his farm to the
market. Ten years later, Rey asked for a
widening of the easement as he had resorted
to the use of a jeepney to transport his
products. Can Rey successfully demand a
wider easement?
Yes, because the width of an easement of right
of way shall be that which is sufficient for the
needs of the dominant estate and may,
accordingly, be changed from time to time.
(Art. 651, Civil Code) The needs of the
dominant estate determine the width of the
passage. (Sta. Maria v. Court of Appeals, 285
SCRA 351 [1998])
QUESTION NO. 52
Abe, a widower, has two children (Basilio and
Crispin). Basilio has two children (Dante and
Eric), and Crispin has one child (Fidel). Abe
died without a will with an estate valued at
Php600,000.
(1) At the time of Abes death, Basilio and
Crispin have long died. How shall Abes
estate be distributed?
The grandchildren inherit by representation
and the following distribution would then take
place: Dante and Eric; Php150,000 each,
taking Basilios share. Fidel; Php300,000,
taking Crispins share.
The above distribution is per stirpes in
accordance with the rule that grandchildren
always inherit by right of representation,
whether they concur with children of the
decedent or not. (Arts. 981 and 982, Civil
Code)
Page 14 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
(2) Suppose Basilio and Crispin have
renounced their inheritance, how shall
Abes estate be distributed?
The grandchildren would inherit in their own
right. Hence, Dante, Eric, and Fidel will each
receive a one-third share, or Php200,000.
The above distribution is per capita in
accordance with the rule that heirs who
repudiate their share may not be represented
(Art. 977, Civil Code) Since Basilio and Crispin
have repudiated their shares, the grandchildren
will then inherit in their own right being the
relatives (in the descending line) next in degree
of the decedent.
QUESTION NO. 53
Abe and Rey are business partners in buying,
developing, and selling real estate. Abe learns
through the partnership staff that five hectares
of land will soon come on the market and that
the staff will recommend that the partnership
purchase the land. Abe purchases the property
secretly in his own name. If the partnership
discovers these facts and immediately brings
suit, what will the court say?
A court will create a constructive trust and
declare that Abe, as legal owner of the
property, holds the title to the property in
trust for the partnership who, in equity, is
actually entitled to the property. A
constructive trust may be imposed when a
party holding legal title to property stands in a
fiduciary relation to another resulting in an
equitable duty to convey the property on the
ground that he would be unjustly enriched if
he were permitted to retain it. In the problem
presented, Abe stood in a fiduciary relation to
the partnership and would be unjustly
enriched if allowed to retain the property.
Because Abe secretly purchased the property in
his own name and for his own benefit, Abe
was under an equitable duty to convey the
property to the partnership.
(NOTE: A constructive trust arises by
operation of law as an equitable remedy that
enables plaintiffs to recover property (and
sometimes damages) from defendants who
would otherwise be unjustly enriched. In other
words, when a transaction takes place in which
the person who takes the legal estate in
property cannot also enjoy the beneficial
interest without violating some established
principle of equity, the court will create a
constructive trust. The legal owner is declared

to be a trustee for the parties who, in equity,
are actually entitled to the ownership of the
property.)
QUESTION NO. 54
Tom names his friend, Fidel, as one of his heirs
on condition that Fidel should not enter any
gambling casino here or abroad for one year
after Toms death. Is Fidel entitled to receive
the inheritance upon Toms death?
Yes, but Fidel must give a security to guarantee
that he would not enter any gambling casino
for one whole year upon Toms death. The
security is called caucion muciana. If Fidel
enters any casino during the prohibited period,
he should return whatever he may have
received, together with its fruits and interest.
(Art. 879, Civil Code)
QUESTION NO. 55
Debtor owes Creditor Php400,000. The debt
is the subject of a lawsuit, and the court
awards Creditor a judgment of Php400,000.
To satisfy the judgment, the sheriff levies on
Debtors family home in Baguio City valued at
Php500,000. Debtor opposes the levy on
grounds that his family home is exempt from
execution. Judgment for whom?
Judgment for Creditor. Under Article 160 of
the Family Code, if judgment is rendered
against the owner of a family home, and the
creditor has reasonable ground to believe that
the value of the family home is in excess of
Php300,00 (urban land) or Php200,000 (rural
land), the creditor may apply for an order
directing the sale of the family home. In the
case presented, the value of Debtors family
home is in excess of Php300,000 so the same
may be sold at public auction to satisfy the
judgment against him. The foregoing rule
applies even if the increase in value of Debtors
family home resulted from improvements
introduced by Debtor.
QUESTION NO. 56
Amy needs Php100,000, so Ben agrees to lend
her the money. To secure the loan, Amy
delivers some of her jewelry to Ben and signs a
power of attorney giving Ben the power, in
case she fails to repay the loan, to sell the
jewelry as her agent for the best price that can
be obtained and to pay out of the proceeds
the unpaid amount of the loan, giving any
Page 15 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
surplus to her. Having obtained the money,
Amy tells Ben that she revokes the power to
sell. Is Amys power to sell revoked?
No, because Amys agency is coupled with
interest and therefore irrevocable. Even if
Amy dies, the power is still not affected. An
agency coupled with an interest is a
relationship created for the benefit of the
agent. The agent actually acquires a beneficial
interest in the subject matter of the agency.
Under these circumstances, it is not equitable
to permit a principal to terminate the agency
at will. Hence, this type of agency is
irrevocable.
QUESTION NO. 57
Seller, in reply to an inquiry from Buyer, sent a
letter dated December 8 stating terms upon
which he would sell 100 to 300 computer
units of a certain brand at a certain price. On
December 16, Buyer sent a letter to Seller
ordering 90 computer units on those terms.
On December 18, Seller sent a telegram to
Buyer rejecting the order. The next day Buyer
sent Seller a telegram stating, Please enter an
order for 150 computer units per your letter of
December 8. Seller refused the order, and
Buyer sued for breach of contract. Judgment
for whom?
Judgment for Seller. Buyers telegram of
December 16, referring to the terms stated in
Sellers letter of December 8, varied the
number of computer units, and was therefore
a counter-offer. A counter-offer is a rejection
of the original offer. On December 8, the
Seller declined to fulfill the Buyers order, thus
the negotiations between the two parties was
closed. As a result, the Buyers attempt to fall
back on the Sellers original offer by the
telegram of December 19, therefore, created
no rights against the Seller.
QUESTION NO. 58
Husband sues Wife for declaration of nullity of
marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.
In due course, the court rendered judgment
nullifying the marriage. The court then
directed the former spouses to liquidate their
common properties pursuant to Article 147 of
the Family Code, and to partition the family
dwelling and all their other properties in
equal shares.

In addressing the issue on the disposition of
the family dwelling, the lower court declared
that the property regime of the former spouses
shall be governed by the rules on co-
ownership, and that the provisions on
liquidation of the absolute community and
conjugal partnership under Articles 102 and
129 of the Family Code find no application.
Not satisfied with the ruling, Husband seeks a
partial reconsideration on grounds that Articles
50, 51, and 52 in relation to Articles 102 and
129 of the Family Code are applicable.
Husbands move is expected because the
couples children have chosen to live with him,
and applying Articles 102 and 129 of the
Family Code, the family dwelling will be
adjudicated to him. Is Husband correct?
No. In a void marriage, regardless of the cause,
the property relations of the parties during the
period of cohabitation is governed by the
provisions of Article 147 of the Family Code.
Under this provision, a peculiar form of co-
ownership arises when a man and a woman
who are capacitated to marry each other, live
exclusively with each other as husband and
wife without the benefit of marriage or under
a void marriage.
Article 147 of the Family Code presumes that
property, including the family dwelling, in the
absence of proof to the contrary, were
acquired by the parties through their joint
efforts and will be owned by them in equal
shares. A party who did not participate in the
acquisition of property shall still be considered
as having contributed thereto jointly if said
partys efforts considered mainly in the
maintenance of the family household.
The rules set up to govern the liquidation of
either the absolute community or the conjugal
partnership, the property regimes recognized
for valid and voidable marriages, in the latter
case until the marriage is annulled, are
irrelevant to the liquidation of the co-
ownership that existed between Husband and
Wife.
The first paragraph of Article 50 of the Family
Code, applying paragraphs (2), (3), (4) and (5)
of Article 43 thereof, relates only, by its
explicit terms, to valid and voidable marriages,
and exceptionally, to a void marriage under
Article 40 of the Family Code, i.e., the
declaration of nullity of a subsequent marriage
contracted by a spouse of a prior void
Page 16 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
marriage before the latter is judiciary declared
void. (Valdez v. RTC of Quezon City, 260
SCRA 221 [1996])
QUESTION NO. 59
Distinguish between ordinary legitime and
presumptive legitime.
Ordinary legitime arises only when a person
dies. (Art. 777, Civil Code) The decedent may
either be a child, parent or spouse, ascendant
or descendant. In a presumptive legitime, the
spouses whose marriage is annulled or
declared void are still alive. It is the marriage
itself which died or is terminated.
While in both kinds of legitimes the marriage is
terminated, the causes of termination are not
the same. In presumptive legitime, the cause is
either the annulment of the marriage or its
nullification. In ordinary legitime, the cause of
termination is the death of the decedent who
is not necessarily a spouse.
The term legitime in the law on succession
presupposes the existence of a valid and
effective will; in presumptive legitime, no will
is presupposed. It applies without any relation
to the existence or non-existence of a valid
and effective will of the spouses.
QUESTION NO. 60
Employer hired Driver to operate a delivery
van. Before allowing Driver to operate the
van, Employer checked Drivers prior job
references, required Driver to undergo a
physical examination by a doctor, and
provided Driver with extensive training in
motor vehicle safety. Medic, the doctor who
examined Driver, discovered that Driver had a
sleep disorder that caused Driver to
spontaneously fall asleep and that Driver had
on several occasions fallen asleep while
driving. Driver pleaded with Medic not to
inform Employer of the sleep disorder. Medic
agreed, and omitted this information from the
physical examination form that he sent to
Employer. Medic also sent a letter to Employer
assuring Employer that Driver was fit for
employment as a delivery van operator.
Employer then provided Driver with a daily
delivery route and paid him a monthly salary.
While Driver was making deliveries for
Employer, the van left the road and struck
Pedestrian, who suffered severe injuries as a

result. Pedestrian filed a lawsuit for damages
against Driver and Employer.
a. Is Driver guilty of negligence?
Yes. By operating the delivery van, Driver
owes a duty to exercise reasonable care to
others on the road. Driver failed to conform
to the required standard of care when his van
left the road and struck Pedestrian. He knew
that he was susceptible to falling asleep and
yet he took the risk that he would not cause
harm to others by operating the van.
b. Can Pedestrian prevail under the res ipsa
loquitor rule concerning Drivers alleged
negligence?
Driver is guilty of negligence but not on the
basis of res ipsa loquitor. He was negligent
because he operated the van knowing that he
was susceptible to falling asleep while
operating a vehicle.
The fact that Driver left the road and struck
Pedestrian is not a type of accident that
happens only if the Driver was negligent.
There are many other situations that could
have caused the Driver to veer off the road,
including mechanical failure, defective steering
wheels, or emergency reaction. Thus, Drivers
negligence is one of the many possible causes.
This factor makes it highly unlikely that res ipsa
loquitur could be used in such a situation.
c. What arguments will Pedestrian make in
support of his claim of negligence, what
defenses can reasonably be asserted, and
who is likely to prevail in a lawsuit filed by
Pedestrian against Employer?
Pedestrian will argue that an employer is
vicariously liable for the negligence of his
employees committed within the scope of the
employment relationship. Here, Driver was
negligent as discussed. Employer hired Driver
to operate the van and is thus an employer
within the meaning of vicarious liability.
Drivers negligence occurred within the scope
of the employment relationship because Driver
was making deliveries for Employer when the
van left the road and struck the Pedestrian.
Employer will argue that he is liable for
negligence only if it can be determined that he
failed to exercise the diligence required in the
selection and supervision of his employees.
Here, Employer made reasonable efforts to
Page 17 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
investigate Drivers prior job references and
physical conditions. By exerting such efforts,
Employer would not be liable for negligent
hiring or supervision of Driver.
QUESTION NO. 61
Abe, a widower, has two married children
(Ben and Carla). Carla has two children (Drew
and Eric), while Ben has no children. Abe dies,
leaving a will that gives all his property equally
to his children, Ben and Carla, and provides
that should a child predecease him, leaving
grandchildren, the grandchildren are to inherit
equally with the surviving child. Carla has
predeceased Abe. Abe dies with an estate
valued at Php180,000.
a) Discuss the distribution of Abes estate if the
will is invalid.
Should Abes will be denied probate, his estate
shall be distributed as in intestacy. Under
Article 981 of the Civil Code, should children
of the deceased and descendants of other
children who are dead, survive, the former
shall inherit in their own right, and the latter
by right of representation. Consequently, Ben
shall inherit in his own right Php90,000, while
the grandchildren (Drew and Eric) shall each
inherit Php45,000 by right of representation.
b) Discuss the distribution of Abes estate if the
will is valid.
Ben and Carla were the heirs originally
instituted by Abe in his will. Such institution
concerns only the free disposal. Because Carla
predeceased Abe, the proviso that the free
disposal shall be received equally by Ben and
the children of Carla (Drew and Eric) is valid.
Consequently, Ben and the children of Carla
are first given their legitimes as follows: Ben,
Php45,000 which he shall receive in his own
right; Drew and Eric shall each inherit
Php22,500 by representation. The free
disposal of Php90,000 is then divided equally
among the three instituted heirs, Ben, Drew
and Eric. In sum, the heirs shall inherit as
follows:
Ben : 45,000 (in his own right)
30,000 (as voluntary heir)
Drew : 22,500 (by representation)
30,000 (as voluntary heir)
Eric : 22,500 (by representation)

30,000 (as voluntary
heir)
QUESTION NO. 62
Abe owes Rey Php100,000 which is due on
June 1. Abe has been in a freak car accident,
has already missed a great deal of work, and
consequently will not have the money on June
1. Larry, Abes father, offers to pay Rey
Php25,000 in four equal instalments if Rey will
excuse Abe from any further liability on the
debt. Rey accepts.
Is the transaction a novation?
Yes, the transaction is a novation because it
involves the substitution of Larry as new
debtor in place of Abe, the original debtor.
This is true even if the substitution is with the
knowledge of Abe or without his knowledge
or against his will. (Art. 1290, Civil Code)
Does the agreement between Rey and Larry
have to be in writing to be enforceable?
No. Larrys promise was not one of guarantee,
but one in which he made himself directly and
primarily responsible for the amount of credit
extended. Thus, Larry made his own contract
with Rey, as he was not guaranteeing his sons
obligation. Put otherwise, Larrys oral promise
is binding on him because this is not a case of a
special promise to answer for the debt, default
or miscarriage of another which the law
requisites to be in writing to be enforceable.
(Art. 1403, par. 2(a))
QUESTION NO. 63
Mrs. Cruz leaves a painting worth Php50,000
in her will to her grandson, Sam. Shortly
before her death, the painting is destroyed in a
fire. Mrs. Cruz does not change her will. What
will Sam receive?
Sam is not entitled to receive anything from his
grandmothers estate. This is pursuant to
Article 957 of the Civil Code which provides
that the legacy or devise shall be without effect
if the thing bequeathed is totally lost during
the lifetime of the testator, or after the
testators death without the heirs fault.
QUESTION NO. 64
What are the rules for the liquidation of the
absolute community of property or conjugal
Page 18 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
partnership of gains in case of death of a
spouse?
The rules regarding the liquidation of the
absolute community or conjugal partnership
are the same. These are:
1. If a special proceeding for the settlement of
estate of deceased persons under the Rules
of Court has been instituted after the death
of one spouse, the absolute community or
conjugal partnership shall be liquidated in
the said proceeding.
2. If no special proceeding for the settlement
of estate of the deceased spouse is
instituted, the surviving spouse shall
liquidate the absolute community or
conjugal partnership either judiciary or
extra-judiciary within one year from the
death of the spouse.
3. If no liquidation is made within one year
from the death of the deceased spouse, any
disposition or encumbrance involving any
community or conjugal property of the
terminated marriage shall be void.
4. Should the surviving spouse contract a
subsequent marriage without liquidating the
community property or conjugal
partnership, a mandatory regime of
complete separation of property shall
govern the property relations of the
subsequent marriage. This is to protect the
heirs of the deceased spouse. (Arts. 103 and
130, Family Code)
QUESTION NO. 65
Abe has a wife and two sons, both legitimate.
His estate, including a house, a car, shares of
stocks, and savings in a bank account, is worth
Php2.1 million. If Abe dies without a will, how
shall his estate be distributed?
Abes wife and two sons will each inherit
Php700,000. If a widow or widower and
legitimate children or descendants are left, the
surviving spouse has in the succession the same
share as that of each of the children. (Art. 996,
Civil Code)
QUESTION NO. 66
Abe is married to Bea, while Chito is married
to Donna. Abe and Chito are brothers. Due to
a property dispute, Abe and Bea filed a
possessory action against Chito and Donna.

Citing Article 151 of the Family Code, Chito
and Donna moved to dismiss the complaint
for failure to state a cause of action. Chito and
Donna claim that the absence of an allegation
in the complaint that earnest efforts toward a
compromise between members of the same
family had been made and that it was
unsuccessful, renders the complaint fatally
defective. Should the court dismiss the
complaint?
No. Article 151 of the Family Code does not
apply because it is not exclusively between or
among family members. The inclusion of
Donna as defendant and Bea as plaintiff takes
the case out of the ambit of Article 151 of the
Family Code. The phrase members of the
same family refers to the husband and wife,
parents and children, ascendants and
descendants, and brothers and sisters, whether
of the full or half-blood. Here, Carol (Abes
wife) and Donna (Chitos wife) are considered
strangers to the family of Abe and Chito for
purposes of Article 151 of the Family Code.
(Hontiveros v. RTC Iloilo City, Br. 25, 309
SCRA 340)
QUESTION NO 67
Seller and Buyer were dealers in cattle. During
an extremely hot spell, Seller was worried over
the fact that he had too many cattle on the
market. Discovering this fact Buyer jokingly
offered to buy the cattle. After some dickering
as to price, the parties apparently came to an
agreement. Buyer later insisted that the whole
transaction was a joke. Seller believed that
Buyers offer to buy the cattle was made
seriously. Seller sues for damages. Who wins?
Seller wins. A contract results from an offer
and the acceptance thereof. In other words,
every contract must have mutual consent of
the parties which is manifested by a meeting of
the offer and the acceptance upon the thing
and the cause which are to constitute the
contract. The offer must be certain and the
acceptance absolute. (Art. 1319, Civil Code)
The elements of offer and acceptance are
present in the instant problem. Undisclosed
intentions of one party are not part of the
contract. If the law were otherwise, a party
might successfully escape his obligations on a
contract by stating that he was only joking.
QUESTION NO. 68
Brenda orally offers to sell a number of
Page 19 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
household items to Daria. No item is worth
more than Php30.00, but the total price for
the items is Php550.00. Daria orally accepts
the offer. Brenda later receives an offer from
another buyer to buy all the items for
Php750.00, which Brenda accepts. Can Brenda
argue that the contract with Daria is not
enforceable because it was made orally and
not in writing?
Yes, because the total price in the contract is
Php550.00. In sale of goods, the Statute of
Frauds, under Article 1403 No. 2(d) of the
Civil Code, requires that the contract be in
writing to be enforceable if the price
isPhp500.00 or more. The claim that the
Statute of Frauds does not apply because the
unit price of each item sold is less than
Php500.00 is not tenable because what
controls is not the unit price but the total price
of the goods sold.
QUESTION NO. 69
Husband and Wife own a property. Wife
donated her interest in the property to
Husband five years before her death; Husband
devised his half of the property to his brother,
Abe. Husband and Wife died simultaneously in
a car accident. Husband is survived by his
brother, Abe, while Wife is survived by her
brother, Rey. What interests do Abe and Rey
hold on the property?
Abe inherits half of the property, while Rey
inherits the other half, both as intestate heirs of
the deceased couple. The couple died
simultaneously, and therefore, there shall be
no transmission of successional rights from one
to the other. (Art. 43, Civil Code). Because the
couple died simultaneously, they retained their
respective half interests in the property, which
in turn devolve to their heirs. Wifes earlier
donation of her half share to Husband is void
because it was made during the marriage and
is not a moderate gift under the circumstances.
(Art. 87, Family Code)
QUESTION NO. 70
Debtor owes Creditor Php100,000. Upon
maturity of the loan, Debtor fails to pay and
so Creditor sues him for collection sum of
money. Debtor answers the complaint and
before actual hearing, Creditor assigns Debtors
promissory note to Stranger for Php80,000.
Stranger now demands payment from Debtor.
How much is Debtor obliged to pay Stranger?

Debtor is liable for Php80,000 only, plus cost
and interest. Under Article 1634 of the Civil
Code, when a credit in litigation is sold, the
debtor shall have a right to extinguish it by
reimbursing the assignee for the price the latter
paid therefor, the judicial costs incurred by
him, and the interest on the price from the day
on which the same was paid. In paying only
such amount, Debtor exercises his right of legal
redemption.
(NOTE: The right of redemption granted in
Article 1634 of the Civil Code is proper only in
case of sale of the credit in litigation, and not
to cases of barter, donation, or other modes of
acquisition.)
QUESTION NO. 71
Aragon is indebted to Benitez and Chua in the
amount of Php200,000. Upon maturity of the
debt, Aragon fails to pay so Benitez and Chua
sue him in a complaint for sum of money.
Aragon answers the complaint and before
actual hearing, Benitez assigns his right to the
credit to Chua (presumably or Php100,000)
for only Php75,000. How much is Aragon
obliged to pay Chua?
Aragon is liable to pay Php200,000 to Chua
because the assignment was made to a co-
owner. In other words, Aragon cannot redeem
the credit in litigation sold by Benitez to Chua.
Article 1635 of the Civil Code enumerates the
three instances when the debtor cannot
redeem a credit in litigation which is sold by
his creditor, one of them being an assignment
or sale to a co-owner.
QUESTION NO. 72
In 1976, pursuant to a homestead patent, Abe
obtained an original certificate of title over a
big tract of land. Upon Abes death in 1978,
the land was transferred by succession to his
son Ben who obtained a certificate of title in
his name. In 1989, Ben mortgaged the land to
PNB as security for a loan. Because Ben failed
to pay, the bank extra-judicially foreclosed the
mortgage, purchased the property at public
auction, and secured a title in its name in 1997.
Invoking Section 119 of the Public Land Act,
Ben tried to repurchase the property in 2002,
but the bank refused. The bank defends that
there can no longer be any right of repurchase
because the property was no longer covered
Page 20 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
by a free patent but by a TCT, and that the
right to repurchase had already prescribed.
a. Is Ben still allowed to repurchase the
property?
Yes. The plain intent of Section 119 of the
Public Land Act is to give the homesteader
every chance to preserve and keep in the
family the land that the State has gratuitously
given him as a reward for his labor in cleaning,
developing, and cultivating it.
The fact that the land had been inherited by
Ben and a new title in his name is issued does
not bring it outside the purview of Section 119.
In fact, the policy behind the law is fulfilled
because the land remains in the family of the
patentee.
b. Is Bens right to repurchase already time-
barred?
No. If the land is mortgaged to parties other
than rural banks, the mortgagor may redeem
the property within one (1) year from the
registration of the certificate of sale pursuant
to Act No. 3135. If the mortgagor fails to do
so, he or his heirs may repurchase the property
within five (5) years from the expiration of the
redemption period also pursuant to Section
119 of the Public Land Act. (Rural Bank of
Davao City, Inc. v. CA, 217 SCRA 554 [1993])
In extrajudicial foreclosures under Act 3135,
the debtor or his successors-in-interest may
redeem the property within one year. This
redemption period should be reckoned from
the date of registration of the certificate of
sale. (Belisario v. Intermediate Appellate
Court, 165 SCRA 191 [1988]. The five-year
period fixed in Section 119 begins to run from
the expiration of the one-year redemption
period.
Here, the certificate of sale in the name of the
bank was registered in 1997 and the one-year
redemption period expired in 1998. Reckoned
from that day, Ben had a five-year period, or
until 2003, to exercise his right to repurchase
under Section 119 of the Public Land Act.
Consequently, the complaint filed in 2002 was
not time-barred. .
QUESTION NO. 73
Tessie heard her neighbors talking about her
son, Abe, a minor and a polio victim. The
neighbours said that Tessies son is a cripple

who has no future in life. Does Tessie have a
remedy against her neighbors?
Tessie is well within her right to institute a civil
action for damages against her neighbours
because of their vexing or humiliating
comments about her sons physical condition.
Article 26 of the Civil Code clearly provides
that every person shall respect the dignity,
personality, privacy, and peace of mind of his
neighbours. Talking about Tessies crippled son
is a clear sign of disrespect warranting a cause
of action for damages.
QUESTION NO. 74
Due to a sudden burst of lightning, Abes
carabao which was tied to a tree in his farm
scampered to a nearby field. The crops on the
field which were to be harvested in a few days
were totally destroyed. Should Abe be held
liable for the damages to the crops?
No. Article 1174 of the Civil Code expressly
provides that no person shall be responsible
for those events which could not be foreseen,
or which though foreseen, were inevitable.
Here, the incident under which Abes carabao
scampered to the nearby field because of a
sudden burst of lightning. is an occurrence
which could not have been foreseen by Abe.
QUESTION NO. 75
Debtor owes Creditor the sum of Php20,000
on a personal debt. Trudy, a third person,
promises Debtor that he would pay Creditor
the full debt if Debtor will give Trudy's
children dance lessons. Debtor faithfully
provides dance lessons regularly over an
extended period. Can Creditor sue Trudy for
the payment of the debt?
Yes, because Creditor is an intended
beneficiary of the agreement between Debtor
and Trudy. Under Article 1311 of the Civil
Code, if a contract should contain some
stipulation in favour of a third person, he may
demand its fulfilment provided he
communicated his acceptance top the obligor
before its revocation. A mere incidental benefit
or interest of a person is not sufficient. The
contracting parties must have clearly and
deliberately conferred a favour upon a third
person. Such a stipulation obtains in this case.
Page 21 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
QUESTION NO. 76
A seller shipped goods to a buyer by common
carrier, using a shipment contract. When the
carrier arrived at the buyer's location, the
buyer refused to accept the goods unless the
driver unloaded them inside the buyer's
warehouse. The driver refused and the goods
were subsequently damaged. Who bears the
risk of loss?
The buyer bears the risk of loss, since this was
a shipment contract and the seller had
completed the performance obligations.
Where actual delivery has been delayed
through the fault of either the buyer or seller
the goods are at the risk of the party in fault.
Since the buyer himself delayed the actual
delivery of the goods, he necessarily bears the
loss of the goods. (Art. 1504(2), Civil Code)
QUESTION NO. 77
Abe works for Yellow Cab delivering pizzas in
a motorcycle to customers across the city. One
day, in his haste to meet the 30 minutes or
free pizza delivery standard, he causes an
accident in which Reys car is damaged.
Against whom can Rey file a civil action for
damages?
Rey can file a civil action either against Abe for
breaching his duty and causing Rey harm, or
against Yellow Cab for being vicariously liable
for Abes actions, or against both. (Arts. 2176
& 2180, Civil Code)
QUESTION NO. 78
Abe and Ana are engaged to be married. A
month before their wedding, Ana was forced
to marry Rey. Despite the marriage, however,
Abe and Ana continued their amorous
relationship thru text messaging and social
networking expressing their love for each
other. Rey consults you on whether these acts
of Abe and Ana would constitute an
actionable wrong. Advise Rey.
I would advise Rey that he can commence an
action against Abe for damages for meddling
with or disturbing Reys married relations with
Ana. This is an actionable wrong recognized
under Article 27 (2) of the Civil Code.

QUESTION NO. 79
Tito dies with a will leaving his entire estate of
Php6 million to his live-in partner, Marie. Tito
is survived by his brother, Sonny, and his
legitimate half-sister, Ana.
a) Is the testamentary disposition in Titos will
valid?
Yes. Titos testamentary disposition of his
entire estate to his common-law wife is in
accordance with the law on succession. Tito
has no compulsory heirs, who can inherit from
him. (Art. 887, Civil Code) Under the law,
brothers and sisters are not compulsory heirs.
Accordingly, Tito can bequeath his entire
estate to anyone who is not otherwise
incapacitated to inherit from him. A common-
law wife is not incapacitated under the law, as
Tito is not married to anyone.
b) Suppose Tito dies intestate, how shall his
estate be distributed?
Assuming that Titos entire estate of Php6
million is his net hereditary estate, Sonny is
entitled to receive Php4 million which is twice
the intestate share of Ana, a half-sister, who is
entitled to inherit Php2 million. Marie is not
entitled to inherit anything because she is not a
legal heir of Tito. (Art. 1006, Civil Code)
QUESTION NO. 80
Abe owns an agricultural land with no access
to a public road. He had been passing through
Reys land with Reys acquiescence for over 20
years. Abe recently subdivided his property
into ten residential lots and sold them to
different persons. Rey immediately blocked the
pathway and refused to let Abes buyers pass
through his land. Did Abe acquire an easement
of right of way over Reys land?
No, he did not. An easement of right of way is
discontinuous in nature - it is exercised only if
man actually passes over somebodys land.
Under Article 622 of the Civil Code,
discontinuous easements, whether apparent or
non-apparent, may only be acquired by title.
QUESTION NO. 81
To secure a loan from a bank, Abe assigned his
leasehold rights over a stall at the public
market in favour of the bank. The deed of
assignment provides that in case of default in
Page 22 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
the payment of the loan, the bank shall have
the right to sell Abes rights over the market
stall as his attorney-in-fact, and to apply the
proceeds to the payment of the loan.
a) Is the deed of assignment a cession or a
mortgage?
The deed of assignment is a mortgage, not a
cession of leasehold rights. A cession would
have transferred ownership to the bank. The
grant of authority to the bank to sell the
leasehold rights in case of default is proof that
no such ownership was transferred and that a
mere encumbrance was constituted. There
would have been no need for such authority
had the deed of assignment been a true
cession.
b) If the assignment is a mortgage, is the
stipulation authorizing the bank to sell the
leasehold rights in case of default a pactum
commissorium?
No, it is not. The stipulation is pactum
commissorium only when default in the
payment of the loan automatically vests
ownership of the encumbered property in the
bank. Here, the bank does not automatically
become the owner of the property upon
default of the mortgagor. (Art. 2088, Civil
Code) The bank has to sell the property and
apply the proceeds to the loan.
QUESTION NO. 82
X, Y and Z are co-owners in equal shares of a
residential house and lot. During the co-
ownership, the co-owners performed the
following acts on the co-owned property: a) X
caused the repair of the foundation of the
house, then titling to one side, to prevent the
house from collapsing; b) Y and Z mortgaged
the house and lot to secure a loan; c) Y built a
concrete perimeter fence on the lot; d) Z built
a beautiful grotto in the garden; and e) X and
Z sold the property to B for a good price.
a) Is the decision of X in repairing the
foundation of the house binding on Y and
Z? May X require Y and Z to contribute
their 2/3 share of the expense?
Yes. Under the law, each co-owner has the
right to compel the other co-owners to
contribute to the expense of preservation of
the thing (house) owned in common in
proportion to their respective interests in the

co-ownership. (Arts. 485 and 488, Civil Code)
The expense incurred by X in repairing the
foundation of the house is decidedly an
expense to preserve the house by preventing
its collapse.
b) What is the legal effect of the mortgage
executed by Y and Z?
The mortgage does not bind X and shall be
deemed to cover only the respective rights and
interests of Y and Z in the house and lot. The
mortgage shall be limited to the portion which
may later be allotted to Y and Z in the
partition of the property owned in common.
(Art. 493, Civil Code)
c) Is the decision of Y in building a perimeter
concrete fence binding on X and Z? May Y
require X and Z to contribute their 2/3
share of the expense?
Ys decision in building the perimeter fence is
not binding upon X and Z. Expenses to
improve the thing owned in common must be
decided upon by a majority of the co-owners
who represent the controlling interest. (Arts.
489 and 492, Civil Code) Since Y does not
constitute a majority with a controlling interest
in the co-ownership, his decision does not bind
the other co-owners.
d) Is the decision of Z in building a grotto
binding on X and Y? May Z require X and Y
to contribute their 2/3 share of the
expense?
Zs decision in building a grotto is not binding
upon X and Y. Expenses to embellish the thing
owned in common must be decided upon by a
majority of the co-owners who represent the
controlling interest. (Arts. 489 and 492, Civil
Code) Since Z does not constitute a majority
with a controlling interest in the co-ownership,
his decision does not bind the other co-
owners.
e) What is the legal effect of the sale executed
by X and Z?
The sale to B does not bind the 1/3 share of Y
and covers only the 2/3 share of X and Z in
the land. (Art. 493, Civil Code) Moreover, Y
has the right to redeem the 2/3 share sold to B
by X and Z considering that B is a third person
to whom the ideal shares of the co-owners
were onerously alienated. (Art. 1620, Civil
Code)
Page 23 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
QUESTION NO. 83
Seller sells to Buyer his house and lot for Php1
million payable in five equal annual
instalments. The sale is registered and title is
issued to Buyer. Buyer later failed to pay the
last three instalments and Seller files an action
for collection of sum of money, damages and
attorneys fees. Seller immediately proceeds to
the Registry of Deeds for annotation of a
notice lis pendens on Buyer's certificate of title.
Is the notice lis pendens proper?
The notice lis pendens is not proper because
Sellers action against Buyer is only for
collection of sum of money, damages, and
attorney's fees. Annotation of a notice lis
pendens is proper only in cases involving the
recovery of possession of real property,
quieting of title or removal of a cloud thereon,
or partition or any other proceeding affecting
title to the land or for the use or occupation
thereof. The action filed by Seller does not fall
on anyone of these.
QUESTION NO. 84
Abe lost Php100,000 in a card game, but he
had no more cash to pay Rey, the winner.
When the card game ended, Abe still owed
Rey Php30,000 which Abe promised to pay in
two weeks. When Abe still failed to pay after
three months, Rey filed a suit to collect.
Will the collection suit prosper?
The collection suit will not prosper. Under
Article 2014 of the Civil Code, no action can
be maintained by the winner for the collection
of what he has won in a game of chance.
Could Tessie institute an action to recover
the amount which her husband lost?
If the money paid by Abe to Rey were
conjugal or community property, the wife
could sue to recover it pursuant to Article
117(7) of the Family Code which expressly
provides that losses in gambling are borne
exclusively by the loser-spouse. Conjugal or
community funds may not be used to pay for
such losses. And if the money were the
exclusive property of Abe, the wife may also
sue to recover it under Article 2016 of the Civil
Code if she and the family needed the money
for support.

QUESTION NO. 85
Abe sold his car to Ben who issued a post-
dated check. Before the due date of the check,
Ben sold the car to Dave, an innocent
purchaser for value. The check issued by Ben
was later dishonored because Ben had already
closed his checking account when he issued the
check. Abe sued to recover the car from Dave
on grounds that he had been unlawfully
deprived of the car by Bens deception. Will
the suit prosper?
The suit will not prosper because Abe was not
unlawfully deprived of the car although he
was unlawfully deprived of the price. The
perfection of the sale and the delivery of the
car was sufficient to allow Ben to acquire
ownership of the car, which he can lawfully
transfer to Dave. Article 559 of the Civil Code
applies only to a person who is in possession
in good faith of the property, and not to the
owner thereof. Here, Ben was the owner, and,
hence, Dave acquired the title to the car. Non-
payment of the price in a contract of sale does
not render ineffective the obligation to deliver.
The obligation to deliver a thing is different
from the obligation to pay its price.
QUESTION NO. 86
In 1980, Abe leased to Rey a piece of land for
a period of three years with an option to
purchase the property during the period of the
lease for the price of Php500,000. After the
expiration of the three-year lease period, Abe
allowed Rey to remain in the leased premises
on a monthly basis at the same rental rate. In
1984, Rey tendered the amount of
Php500,000.00 to Abe and demanded that
Abe execute a deed of absolute sale of the
land in his favor. Abe refused on the ground
that Rey no longer had an option to buy the
property. If Rey files an action for specific
performance against Abe, who will prevail?
Abe will prevail. The implied renewal of the
lease on a month-to-month basis did not have
the effect of extending the life of the option to
purchase which expired at the end of the
original lease period. Abe is therefore correct
in refusing to sell on the ground that the
option had expired.
QUESTION NO. 87
Because of their friendship, Abe loaned his
passenger jeepney to Rey to allow Rey to
Page 24 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
bring his wife from Baguio City to NAIA for his
wifes travel to Hongkong. On the way back
to Baguio, people stopped the passenger
jeepney. Rey stopped for them and allowed
them to ride on board, accepting payments as
if they were ordinary passengers of jeepneys
plying their route.
When Rey was cruising at moderate speed
along the national highway in Binalonan,
Pangasinan, a wayward vehicle coming from
the opposite direction hit the jeepney. The
jeepney was wrecked.
What kind of agreement did Abe and Rey
enter into with respect to the use of the
passenger jeepney?
The contract is a commodatum.(Art. 1933.
Civil Code) Commodatum is a contract by
which one of the parties (bailor) delivers to
another (bailee) something not consumable so
that the latter may use it for a certain time and
return it.
Is Rey obliged to pay Abe for the use of the
passenger jeepney?
No, Rey is not obliged to pay Abe for the use
of the passenger ieepney because
commodatum is essentially gratuitous. (Art.
1933. Civil Code)
Is Rey liable to Abe for the loss of the
jeepney?
Yes, because Rey devoted the thing to a
purpose different from that for which it has
been loaned (Art. 1942, par. 2, Civil Code)
QUESTION NO. 88
Abe owns a mango plantation which he can
no longer properly manage due to a lingering
illness. Since Abe is indebted to Rey in the
amount of P500,000, he asks Rey to manage
the plantation and apply the harvest to the
payment of his obligation, until his debt has
been fully paid. Rey agrees.
What kind of agreement did Abe and Rey
enter into?
Abe and Rey had entered into an accessory
contract of antichresis. Under Article 2132 of
the Civil Code, by a contract of antichresis the
creditor acquires the right to receive the fruits

of an immovable of his debtor, with the
obligation to apply them to the payment of
the interest, and thereafter to the principal of
his credit.
What obligations are imposed by law on
Rey as a consequence of his agreement with
Abe?
Rey is obliged to pay taxes and charges upon
the land and bear the necessary expenses for
preservation and repair which he may deduct
from the fruits. (Art. 2135, Civil Code)
Does the law require any specific form for
the validity of the contract?
As to perfection, antichresis is a formal or
solemn contract. The amount of the principal
and interest must be specified in writing,
otherwise the antichresis is void. (Art. 2134,
Civil Code)
d. May Abe reacquire the plantation before
payment of his indebtedness?
No. Article 2136 of the Civil Code specifically
provides that the debtor cannot reacquire the
enjoyment of the immovable without first
having totally paid what he owes the creditor.
However, it is potestative on the part of the
creditor to do so in order to exempt him from
his obligation under Article 2135 of the Civil
Code. The debtor cannot reacquire the
enjoyment, unless Rey compels Abe to enter
again the enjoyment of the property.
QUESTION NO. 89
On January 5, D obtains a loan of Php1
million from C. The promissory note does not
stipulate any payment of interest. The note is
due on December 31. Before the due date of
the loan, D and C become political enemies.
Out of spite, D deliberately defaulted in
paying the note, forcing C to bring suit.
a. How much can C recover from D?
C can recover from D the amount of Php1
million, together with interest at the legal rate
of 12% from the date of judicial or
extrajudicial demand. Inasmuch as D is in bad
faith, he is also liable to pay all damages which
may be reasonably attributed to the non-
performance of the obligation. (Art. 2201(2).
Civil Code)
Page 25 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
b. Can C ask for moral damages?
Yes. Under Article 2220 of the Civil Code,
moral damages are recoverable in case of
breach of contract where the defendant acted
fraudulently or in bad faith. Here, D acted in
bad faith because he refused to pay the value
of the note to spite C.
c. Can C ask for nominal damages?
No, he cannot. Nominal damages are not
recoverable in this case because C is already
indemnified of his losses with the award of
actual and compensatory damages. Nominal
damages are adjudicated only in order that a
right of the plaintiff, which has been violated
or invaded by the defendant, may be
vindicated or recognized, and not for the
purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any
loss suffered by him. (Art. 2231. Civil Code)
d. Can C ask for temperate damages?
C may ask for, but would most likely not be
awarded, temperate damages considering that
his actual damages may already be
compensated upon proof thereof with the
promissory note. Temperate damages may be
awarded only when the court finds that some
pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount
cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved
with certainty. (Art. 2224, Civil Code)
e. Can C ask for attorneys fees?
Yes, considering that D's act or omission has
compelled C to litigate to protect his interests.
Furthermore, attorneys' fees may be awarded
by the court when it is just and equitable. (Art.
2208, Civil Code)
QUESTION NO. 90
Abe, a widower, has three legitimate children
(Allan, Ben, and Charlie). He executed a will
instituting as his heirs to his estate of
Php120,000 his two children, Allan and Ben,
and his friend, Fidel. Upon his death, how
should Abe's estate be divided?
The institution of Allan, Ben and Fidel to the
entire estate results in the preterition of
Charlie, a compulsory heir of Abe in the direct
line. This preterition of Charlie annuls the
institution of Allan, Ben and Fidel as Abes
heirs. Intestacy results. Allan, Ben and Charlie
will each get Php40,000. Fidel gets nothing.

QUESTION NO. 91
In the preceding question, suppose Abe
instituted his two children, Allan and Ben, as
his heirsl, but he gave a legacy of Php30,000
to his friend, Fidel. How should Abes estate
be divided upon his death?
Assuming that Charlie was preterited, the
institution of Allan and Ben is annulled, but
the legacy of Php30,000 to Fidel shall be
respected for not being inofficious. Therefore,
the remainder of Php90.000 will be divided
equally among Allan, Ben, and Charlie.
QUESTION NO. 92
Rey and Abe are co-owners of a parcel of
land. Rey recently discovered that Abe had
sold his (Abes) share to Larry on January 1,
2015. The following year, Rey offered to
redeem Abes share from Larry, but Larry
replied that Rey's right to redeem had already
prescribed. Is Larry correct?
Larry is not correct. Rey can still enforce his
right of legal redemption as a co-owner.
Article 1623 of the Civil Code gives a co-
owner 30 days from written notice of the sale
by the vendor to exercise his right of legal
redemption. Here, the 30-day period for the
exercise by Rey of his right of redemption had
not even begun to run because no notice in
writing of the sale appears to have been given
to him by Abe.
QUESTION NO. 93
While sojourning in New York, A and B, both
Filipinos, exchanged marital vows through the
internet. Assuming such a marriage is valid in
New York, is the marriage valid here?
Yes, the marriage is also valid here. The case
does not appear to fall under any of the
exceptions mentioned in paragraph 1 of Article
26 of the Family Code. Such being the case,
the general rule on lex loci celebrationis
applies, that is, valid there, valid here.
QUESTION NO. 94
A and B are Filipino overseas workers in Libya.
They fell in love and decided to get married in
accordance with Libyan law. On the day of the
wedding, A fell ill and could not make it to the
ceremony. Upon advice of his Libyan lawyer,
he requested his best man to stand as proxy
during the wedding. The marriage was
Page 26 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
celebrated in accordance with Libyan law and
valid there as such. Is the marriage valid in the
Philippines?
Yes. Under Article 26 of the Family Code, a
marriage valid where celebrated is valid in the
Philippines. To this general rule, the law
enumerates exceptions, but a marriage by
proxy is not one of those enumerated. Hence,
the marriage is valid. Expressio unius est
exclusio alterius.
QUESTION NO. 95
H, a Filipino, marries W, an American, in New
York. At the time of the marriage, H was
psychologically incapacitated to enter into
marriage, although the incapacity manifested
itself five years after the wedding. Assuming
that the marriage is valid in New York, is it
also valid here?
No. The rule is: valid there, valid here,
except those prohibited under Arts. 35 (1),
(4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38 of the Family
Code. The marriage is void under Article 26 of
the Family Code. The exception applies.
QUESTION NO. 96
Two Filipino second cousins got married in
Japan where such a marriage is void. Is the
marriage valid here?
No. The settled rule is: valid there, valid
here. Hence, void there, void here also.
This notwithstanding the fact that had the
marriage been solemnized here, it would have
been perfectly valid.
QUESTION NO. 97
H, a Filipino, marries W, his French girlfriend,
in Paris. At the time of the marriage, H is
psychologically incapacitated to enter into
marriage under Philippine law. Under French
law, the marriage is voidable. Is the marriage
also voidable in the Philippines?
No. The marriage is void. The rule is: valid
there, valid here; void there, void here;
voidable there, voidable here. However, the
case falls under one of the exceptions, Article
36 of the Family Code.

QUESTION NO. 98
Abe constructed in good faith a house on the
land of Ben. As owner of the land, Ben opted
to appropriate the house and bound himself to
pay the proper indemnities.
1. Before the indemnities are given, may the
builder (Abe) retain the house?
Yes, Abe, the builder is entitled to retain the
house till he is paid the full indemnities since
he is a builder in good faith. (Art. 448, Civil
Code)
2. Is Abe entitled to the rents that accrue in
the meantime in case the building is leased
to another?
No, since his possession is no longer that of a
possessor in good faith. If Abe receives the
rents, he must deduct them from whatever
indemnity is due him.
3. Is Abe legally entitled to the fruits that will
accrue during the time he retains the
premises?
No, for again we may say that he is no longer
a possessor in good faith.
4. Is Ben entitled to collect rent from Abe
while the latter retains the house?
No, otherwise the right of retention till
indemnity is given would be rendered
nugatory.
5. If Ben elects to compel Abe to pay the
value of the land (assuming that its value is
not considerably greater), is Abe, the
builder, entitled to the right of retention?
No, because he is the one required to pay. The
right of retention applies only when
landowner appropriates the building.
QUESTION NO. 99
Abe purchased a property adjacent to that of
Ben. Abe later discovered after a relocation
survey that a 30-square meter portion of his
lot is occupied by Bens house. Despite
repeated demands, Ben refused to vacate the
encroached portion. He claims that under
Article 448 of the Civil Code, he has the pre-
emptive right to purchase the portion
encroached upon. Is Ben correct?
Page 27 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
No. Article 448 of the Civil Code is
unequivocal that the option to sell the land on
which another builds, plants or sows in good
faith, belongs to the landowner. This
advantage in Article 448 of the Civil Code is
accorded the landowner because his right is
older, and by the principle of accession, he is
entitled to the ownership of the accessory
thing. (Benitez v. C, 266 SCRA 242)
QUESTION NO. 100
A contract to sell stipulates that title will be
transferred by Seller to Buyer only upon
complete payment of the purchase price.
When Buyer failed to pay, Seller filed for
rescission. Is the action proper?
No. In a contract to sell, the seller retains title
to the thing sold until the buyer fully pays the
purchase price. The full payment is a positive
suspensive condition, the non-fulfillment of
which is not a breach of contract but merely
an event that prevents the seller from
conveying title to the purchaser. The non-
payment of the purchase price renders the
contract to sell ineffective and without force
and effect. (Ayala Life v. Burton Dev. Corp.,
479 SCRA 462). Since the obligation of seller
did not arise because of the failure of buyer to
fully pay the purchase price, Article 1191 of the
Civil Code (which provides for rescission)
would have no application.
QUESTION NO. 101
Seller agreed to sell to Buyer a parcel of land
for Php100,000. Buyer was given up to 30
days to raise the necessary funds. Buyer paid
nothing for the privilege of making up his
mind. Before the lapse of the 30-day period,
Seller backed out of the agreement. Buyer now
sues to compel Seller to sell. Is Seller required
to sell the property to Buyer?
No, for this was merely a unilateral promise
on the part of Seller to sell, without a
corresponding promise on the part of Buyer to
buy. Sellers promise is not binding on him
since there was no consideration distinct from
the price. Hence, even if Sellers promise had
already been accepted by the would-be buyer,
Seller could still legally withdraw from the
agreement.

QUESTION NO. 102
X, the owner of a certain jewelry, entrusts
them to Y for sale or return of the jewelry
upon a specified period. Y sells the jewelry to
Z, but retains the price. Can X obtain
possession of the jewelry from Z?
It depends. If the phrase on sale or return
refers to a true case of sale from X to Y, it is
clear that delivery to Y transferred ownership
to him, and the subsequent sale and delivery
of the jewelry by Y to Z also transferred
ownership to Z. Hence, X cannot obtain
possession of the jewelry from Z. Xs right
would be merely to proceed against Y as a
buyer who has not paid.
If, on the other hand, the phrase for sale or
return merely meant that X was constituting Y
as his agent with authority to sell the jewelry,
X would still have no right to recover the
jewelry from Z (for after all, Z had already
paid for it and therefore, there can possibly be
no rescission for non-payment of the price).
But this time, Xs remedy would be to proceed
against Y not as a buyer but as an agent who
has failed to render an account of his
transaction and who has failed to deliver to
the principal whatever he may have received
by virtue of the agency. (Art. 1891, Civil Code)
QUESTION NO. 103
Seller sells to Buyer a house and lot for
Php500,000 payable within 60 days after the
execution of the deed of sale. It is expressly
agreed in the deed that the sale would ipso
facto be of no effect upon Buyers failure to
pay as agreed. Buyer fails to pay on maturity,
so Seller sues to declare the contract of no
force and effect. If Buyer tenders payment
before the filing of the action (but after the
stipulated date of payment), would the action
still prosper?
The action would not prosper. According to
the law, in the sale of immovable property,
even though it may have been stipulated that
upon failure to pay the price at the time
agreed upon the rescission of the contract shall
of right take place, the vendee may pay, even
after the expiration of the period, so long as
no demand for the rescission of the contract
has been made upon him either judicially or
by notarial act. After the demand, the court
may not grant him a new term. (Art. 1592,
Civil Code)
Page 28 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
QUESTION NO. 104
Anton borrowed Bens truck. During a fire
which broke out in Antons garage, he had
time to save only one vehicle, and he saved his
car instead of the truck. Is Anton liable for the
loss of Bens truck?
Yes. The bailee in commodatum is liable for
the loss of the thing loaned, even if it should
be through a fortuitous event if, being able to
save either the thing borrowed or his own
thing, he chose to save the latter. (Art. 1492,
Civil Code)
QUESTION NO. 105
A, B, and C are co-owners of a parcel of land.
Unknown to his co-owners, A sold a specific
portion of the co-owned property to D, who
immediately takes possession and builds a
house thereon. Per deed of sale executed by A,
the portion sold to D is to be taken from the
undivided share of A in the co-owned
property. Several years later, D sold his
portion to E.
Meanwhile, A, B and C sold the entire co-
owned property to F who caused the
reconstitution of the certificate of title of his
sellers, by which title the entire property was
transferred to him. Is the sale by a co-owner of
a specific portion of a community property
valid?
Yes. The mere fact that A transferred a
definite portion of the co-owned property by
metes and bounds to D does not per se render
the sale a nullity. There can be no doubt that
the transaction entered into by A and D could
be legally recognized in its entirely since the
object of the sale did not even exceed the
ideal share held by A in the co-ownership. As
right to sell a part of his undivided interest in
the co-owned property is absolute in
accordance with the well-settled doctrine that
a co-owner has full ownership of his pro
indiviso share and has the right to alienate,
assign and mortgage it, and substitute another
person in its enjoyment. (Del Campo v. CA,
351 SCRA 1 (2001)
QUESTION NO. 106
A engaged B to build a residential
condominium building on his titled property.
To finance the construction, A obtained a loan
from C, secured by a mortgage on the

condominium project. When the loan was not
paid. A entered into an agreement with C in
whose favor he conveyed all his rights and
interests in the realty project. In the same
agreement, both A and C recognized Bs
contractors lien by virtue of which C agreed
to assign to him three bedroom units to come
from the condominium project. C later
entered into a lease agreement with AMA
Computer School which converted the
condominium building into a computer school.
Because the conversion included the bedroom
units assigned to him, B brought an action
against C for delivery of his condominium
certificate of title. C defends on the ground
that B is not a condominium buyer within
the purview of PD 957, the Condominium
Law. Decide.
Yes. The term buyer under the
Condominium Law is not limited to those who
enter into contract of sale. Its concept is broad
enough to include those who acquire for
valuable consideration a condominium unit.
In the instant case, B is a buyer within the
contemplation of PD 957. He acquired the
three condominium units as they were
assigned to him by A in payment of his
indebtedness as contractors fees. Clearly, this
acquisition of the units was for a valuable
consideration.
QUESTION NO. 107
A and B are neighbors. On his buildings wall,
A opened a window beneath the ceiling joists
to admit light in 1995. Even after 10 years, B
may still obstruct the light by constructing on
his own lot a building higher than As unless A
makes a notarial prohibition prohibiting B
from making the construction. If in 2003 A
makes the prohibition, may B still make the
obstruction in 2007?
Yes, because it is only in 2013 (ten years after
the notarial prohibition) when A may be said
to have acquired the negative easement of
light and view. After 2013, B may no longer
obstruct.
QUESTION NO. 108
About 15 years ago, A constructed a house on
her lot adjoining the lot owned by B. He
provided it with windows overlooking Bs lot
half a meter away from the boundary line. A
month ago, B brought an action against A for
Page 29 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
the closure of the windows on the allegation
that they violate the law on distances. Has A
acquired an easement of light of view by
prescription of ten years?
No. In the first place, there was no formal
prohibition under which A prohibited B from
obstructing his light and view. In the second
place, A did not observe the legal requirement
that there should be a distance of at least two
meters between the windows and Bs lot, since
the view is direct. According to law, non-
observance of this distance does not give rise
to prescription.
QUESTION NO. 109
H and W are husband and wife. Believing that
his wife was sterile, H donated to C in 1990 a
parcel of land valued at Php40,000. In 1998,
W gave birth to a son, B. Assuming that the
land is the exclusive property of H and that
the net value of Hs estate at the time of Bs
birth is Php40,000, what will be the extent of
the reduction of the donation?
The donation shall be reduced by Php20,000,
because Hs free disposal is only to the extent
of Php20,000. Thus:
40,000 value of donation
40,000 value of estate at Bs birth
80,000 Net Hereditary Estate
Legitime of B: 40,000
Legitime of W: 20,000
60,000
Free Disposal 20,000
Reduction 20,000
Judicial action is necessary for reduction or
revocation of donation. (Art. 763, Civil Code)
Period of prescription is four years.
QUESTION NO. 110
X has no child. At the time he gave a donation
of P100,000, he had P1 million. Therefore,
after the donation, he had P900,000 left. Later
he adopted a minor child. At the time he
made the adoption, he had only P50,000 left.
Should the donation be reduced? How much
and within what period?
The donation of Php100,000 should be
reduced by Php25,000 because the legitime is

impaired to that extent (the free disposal being
only Php75,000). Thus:
50,000 (value at the time of adoption)
100,000 (value of donation)
150,000
The action for reduction must be brought
within 4 years from adoption.
QUESTION NO. 111
Homer died intestate survived by his wife
(Winda) and their two sons (Abe and Ben).
During their marriage, the couple acquired a
parcel of land whereon they built their family
home. Upon the death of Homer, his wife,
Winda, and their eldest son, Abe, formally
advised Ben of their intention to partition the
property and terminate the co-ownership. Ben
refused on the ground that the property which
was a duly constituted family home cannot be
partitioned while a minor beneficiary is still
living therein; namely, his minor son, Conrad,
who is the grandson of the deceased. Is
Conrad a beneficiary of the family home
constituted by his paternal grandparents?
To qualify as a beneficiary of a family home,
three requisites must concur: first, the
beneficiary must be among the relationships
enumerated in Article 154 of the Family Code;
second, the beneficiary must live in the family
home; and, third, the beneficiary is dependent
for legal support upon the head of the family.
Moreover, Article 159 of the Family Code
provides that the family home shall continue
despite the death of one or both spouses or of
the unmarried head of the family for a period
of ten years or for as long as there is a minor
beneficiary, and the heirs cannot partition the
same unless the court finds compelling reasons
therefor. This rule shall apply regardless of
whoever owns the property or who
constituted the family home.
As to the first requisite, the beneficiaries of a
family home under Article 154 of the Family
Code are: (1) the husband and wife, or an
unmarried person who is the head of a family;
and (2) their parents, ascendants, descendants,
brothers and sisters, whether the relationship
be legitimate or illegitimate.
The term descendants includes all
descendants of the person or persons who
constituted the family home without
Page 30 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
distinction; hence, it must necessarily include
the grandchild and great grandchildren of the
spouses who constituted a family home. Thus,
Conrad, who is the grandchild of Homer,
satisfies the first requisite.
As to the second requisite, minor beneficiaries
must be actually living in the family home to
avail of the benefits derived from Article 159
of the Family Code. There is no dispute that
Conrad, the son of Ben, lives in the family
home; hence, he satisfies the second requisite.
However, as to the third requisite, Conrad
cannot demand support from his paternal
grandmother, Winda, if he has parents who
are capable of supporting him. The liability for
legal support falls primarily on Conrads
parents, especially his father, Ben, who is the
head of his immediate family. The law first
imposes the obligation of legal support upon
the shoulder of parents, especially the father,
and only in their default is the obligation
imposed on the grandparents.
Conrad is dependent on legal support not
from his grandmother, Winda, but from his
father, Ben. Thus, despite residing in the family
home and his being a descendant of Homer,
Conrad cannot be considered as beneficiary of
the family home under Article 154 of the
Family Code because he did not fulfill the third
requisite of being dependent on his
grandmother for legal support. (Patricio v.
Dario III, G.R. No. 170829, November 20,
2006)
QUESTION NO. 112
Two farmers entered into a contract for the
purchase of a cow. The owner told the
purchaser that the cow was barren (incapable
of breeding and producing calves). Based on
this belief, the parties negotiated a price less
than it would have been had the cow been
capable of breeding. Just before delivery, the
owner discovered the cow had conceived a
calf, and he refused to deliver the much more
valuable cow to the purchaser. May the owner
annul the contract?
Yes, the owner may annul the contract on the
ground that he committed a substantial
mistake as to the substance of the subject
matter of the contract. The mistake is
substantial enough because a barren cow is a
substantially different cow than a breeding
one. The law is clear: Even though there may

have been no damage to the party seeking the
annulment, a contract may be annulled where
the consent is vitiated by mistake. (Art. 1390,
Civil Code)
QUESTION NO. 113
X died intestate. He is survived by: (1) A, B, D
and E, his legitimate children; (2) F and G,
legitimate children of C (predeceased), a
legitimate son of X; (3) H and I, legitimate
children of D; and (4) J and K, legitimate
children of E. D is incapacitated; while E
repudiated the inheritance. If the net value of
the estate is P/120,000, how shall the
distribution be made?
There are three vacant shares. The share which
C would have inherited if he had not
predeceased X. The share which D would have
inherited if he had the capacity to inherit from
X. The share which E would have inherited if
he had not repudiated it.
The share of C in the estate goes to his
legitimate children, F and G, by right of
representation. The share of D in the estate
goes to his legitimate children, H and I, by
right of representation. The share of E who
repudiated the inheritance goes to his co-heirs,
A and B, by accretion. This is so because an
heir who repudiates cannot be represented.
Therefore, the final distribution of Xs estate
shall be as follows:
A 24,000 own right
12,000 accretion
B 24,000 own right
12,000 accretion
F 12,000 own right
G 12,000 own right
H 12,000 own right
I 12,000 own right
________
120,000
QUESTION NO. 114
Abe and Bea, Filipinos, got married and had
two children. Abe later worked in Rome
where he acquired Italian citizenship. He got a
divorce from Bea in Rome but, on returning to
the Philippines, he realized his mistake, asked
Page 31 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
forgiveness of his wife, and resumed living
with her. They had two more children. What
is the status of the four children?
The first two children who were born before
the divorce are legitimate children, but the last
two children who were born after the divorce
are illegitimate children since Abe got the
divorce when he had ceased to be a Filipino.
(Art. 15, Civil Code)
QUESTION NO. 115
Homeowner employed Broker to sell his
house. Broker sold the house to his wife for
Php1 million. Some months later, Broker sold
the house to a third person for Php2 million.
Homeowner sues Broker for the Php1 million
profit. Judgment for whom?
Judgment for Homeowner. It is a breach of an
agents fiduciary duty to retain secretly benefits
or profits that, by right, belong to the
principal. Under the law, every agent is bound
to render an account of his transactions and to
deliver to the principal whatever he may have
received by virtue of the agency, even though
it may not be owing to the principal. (par. 1,
Art. 1891, Civil Code)
QUESTION NO. 116
Agnetha wishes to purchase a parcel of land
owned by Tropical Gardens. She learns that
Tropical Gardens is a partnership owned by
Abe, Ben, and Chito. She also learns that the
partnership needs capital and that the need for
capital is the major reason the partners are
selling their property. Because Tropical
Gardens is a partnership, Agnetha has the
following concerns. You are now called upon
to advise Agnetha of her concerns.
1. Can the partnership convey the land in the
name of the partnership?
Yes, because a partnership has a juridical
personality separate and distinct from that of
each of the partners. This is true even if the
formalities under Article 772 of the Civil Code
which requires that the articles of partnership
which must be in a public instrument is not
recorded in the Office of the Securities and
Exchange Commission. (Art. 1768, Civil Code)
Besides, any immovable property or interest in
immovable property belonging to the
partnership shall be conveyed only in the
partnership name. (Art. 1774, Civil Code)

2. If there is a breach of contract, against
whom must Agnetha file a lawsuit?
If there is a breach of contract arising from the
sale of the property, Agnetha must maintain
the lawsuit against the partnership, not against
the individual partners. This is because a
partnership has a juridical personality of its
own separate and distinct from that of each of
the partners. (Art. 1768, Civil Code)
3. If Agnetha obtains judgment against
Tropical Gardens, against whom can she
execute it?
Partnership liability is first paid out of
partnership assets when a judgment is
rendered against the firm name. In a general
partnership, the personal assets of the
individual members are subject to liability if
the partnerships assets are inadequate. Even in
limited partnerships, at least one of the
partners the general partner subjects his
personal assets to liability for the partnerships
obligations.
QUESTION NO. 117
S contracts to sell his house and lot to B for
Php3 million. The terms of the contract call for
B to pay 10 percent of the purchase price as
deposit or down payment. B pays the deposit,
but because his expected financing of the
balance falls through, he breaches the contract.
Two weeks later S sells the house and lot to
another buyer for Php3.2 million. B demands
his deposit back, but S refuses, claiming that Bs
breach entitles him to keep the deposit. Decide
who is correct.
B is correct because the deposit is in the nature
of earnest money. Under Article 1482 of the
Civil Code, whenever earnest money is given
in a contract of sale, it shall be considered as
part of the purchase price and as proof of the
perfection of the contract. By its very nature,
an earnest money is an advance payment
which must be deducted from the purchase
price. Hence, the parties could not have
intended that the earnest money or advance
payment would be forfeited when the buyer
should fail to pay the balance of the price,
especially in the absence of a clear and express
agreement thereon. Moreover, to allow the
forfeiture of the earnest money or advance
payment in favor of the seller would amount
to unjust enrichment of the seller at the
Page 32 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
expense of the buyer. (Goldenrod, Inc. v. CA,
299 SCRA 141 [1998])
QUESTION NO. 118
Under which of the following breach of
contract situations would specific performance
be an appropriate remedy?
(a) Abe offers to sell his house and lot to Rey.
Then, upon finding another buyer willing
to pay a higher purchase price, he revokes
his offer.
(b)Amy contracts to sing in Abes videoke bar
for one month, beginning May 1. She then
refuses to perform.
(c) Abe contracts to purchase a rare coin
owned by Rey, as Rey is breaking up his
coin collection. Abe gives Rey Php1,000 for
the privilege of deciding whether to buy the
rare coin. At the last minute Rey decides to
keep his coin collection intact and refuses to
deliver the coin to Abe.
(d) Abe contracts to sell to Rey 100 cavans of
dinorado rice that Abe intends to harvest
from his farm. Because the price of rice rises
dramatically, Abe refuses to go on with his
promise.
The remedy of specific performance would
most likely be appropriate in (c). If the offerer
has allowed the offeree a certain period to
accept, the offer may be withdrawn at any
time before acceptance by communicating such
withdrawal, except when the option is
founded upon a consideration as something
paid or promised. (Art. 1324, Civil Code) In
this case, Abe gave Rey Php1,000 for the
option of buying or not the rare coin. Being
so, the option is valid and cannot be
withdrawn by Rey.
An action for specific performance in (a)
would most likely be dismissed by the court.
This is so because Abe can withdraw his offer
to Rey at anytime before Reys acceptance; the
option given to Rey is not founded upon a
consideration as something paid or promised.
(Art. 1324, Civil Code)
The remedy of specific performance is
inappropriate in (b) which involves a personal
obligation. To compel Amy to comply with
her contractual obligation would amount to
involuntary servitude.

The obligation in (d) involves the delivery of a
generic thing. When what is to be delivered is
indeterminate or generic, the creditor may ask
that the obligation be complied with by
another person at the expense of the debtor.
(Art. 1165, Civil Code)
QUESTION NO. 119
Abe, who is eight months short of his
eighteenth birthday, buys a car from Delta
Motors. Five months later, Abe drives the car
to Delta Motors to make the fifth monthly
payment and tells Delta Motors, I love this
car. Sixty days and two payments later, Abe
drives the car to Delta Motors and says, Im
tired of this junk. Take it and give me my
money back. Is Abe too late to get his money
back?
No. Contracts entered into by a minor are
voidable at the option of that minor, and the
minor has four years from the time the
guardianship ceases to annul the contract. (Art.
1391, Civil Code) Abes declaration that he
loves the car after five months of the sale does
not constitute ratification that would have
cured the defect in the contract. Besides, he
was still a minor at the time when he made
such declaration.
QUESTION NO. 120
Abe purchased a female pedigreed miniature
poodle dog from a pet shop. Unknown to
either party, the dog was pregnant. When the
litter was born, both Abe and the pet shop
claimed the right of ownership. Who is
correct?
Abe is correct. Under the law, a creditor has a
right to the fruits of the thing from the time
the obligation to deliver it arises. However, he
shall acquire no real right over it until the same
has been delivered to him. (Art. 1164, Civil
Code) Here, the litter was born after the
poodle dog was actually delivered to Abe.
Upon delivery of the dog, Abe necessarily
became its owner thereby giving him the
ownership of the litter by accession. (Art. 441,
Civil Code)
QUESTION NO. 121
Isabella is the daughter of Carlos, a widower.
Over the objections of Carlos, Isabella
adopted a 5-year old girl named Barbara who
grew up into a fine woman and trained to be
Page 33 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
a nurse. When Carlos fell ill, he was admitted
to the hospital where Barbara took care of
him. They fell in love and got married. What is
the status of their marriage?
Their marriage is valid because Barbara and
Carlos are not at all related to each other,
either by blood or by affinity or by fiction of
law. The fact that Barbara is the adopted child
of Isabella does not make Barbara a direct
descendant of Carlos, adoption being personal
between Isabella, the adopting parent, and
Barbara, the adopted child.
QUESTION NO. 122
Which of the following contract situations
need not comply with the Statute of Frauds?
(a) Debtor is indebted to Creditor. Friend
orally agrees to pay Creditor if Debtor
defaults in his loan obligation.
(b)Grandfather orally promises to give
Grandson, a first year law student, a
particular car upon Grandsons graduation
from law school.
(c) Lessee orally assigns his leasehold rights to
Assignee for the remaining six years of a 10-
year lease term.
(d)An oral sale of a car whereby Buyer takes
delivery of the car with a promise to pay
the car after 15 months from delivery.
The contract situation in (d) need not comply
with the Statute of Frauds because the statute
applies only to executory contracts, not to
partially executed contracts. The delivery of
the car to the buyer takes the contract out of
the ambit of the Statute of Frauds.
The Statute of Frauds governs the contract
situation in (a) because the promise of Friend
to pay if Debtor defaults in his loan
obligation constitutes a special promise to
pay Debtors loan, a promise which is
subsidiary or collateral, like guaranty.
Grandfathers promise to Grandson, as in the
contract situation in (b), is a promise that by its
terms is not to be performed within a year
from the making thereof. In other words,
Grandfathers performance (giving of car) is to
be made after one year from the making of
the contract. This is so because Grandfathers
promise was made when Grandson was still a

first year law student who is expected to
graduate from law school after more than one
year.
The Statute of Frauds requires that lease of real
property for a period longer than one year be
in writing to be enforceable. Therefore, the
contract situation in (c) is governed by the
Statute of Frauds.
QUESTION NO. 123
Arnel sold his land to Bert who began to
possess it. Conrad, a stranger, sold the same
land, unauthorized by anyone, and in his own
name, to Dondon, who registered the sale in
good faith. Who owns the land, Bert or
Dondon?
Bert should be considered as the owner even if
he did not register the land. This is so because
Dondon, who registered the sale, did not buy
the land from its lawful owner, but from a
complete stranger totally unconnected with
the land. Article 1544 of the Civil Code cannot
therefore apply, because it cannot be said that
the land had been sold twice by the same
person. (Art. 1544, Civil Code)
QUESTION NO. 124
Seller sells to Buyer a parcel of land under a
notarized deed of sale. On the same day and
along with the execution of the deed of sale,
the parties execute a separate instrument,
denominated as Right of Repurchase
granting Seller the right to repurchase the lot
within four years. Within four years, Seller
offers to redeem but Buyer refuses. Who is
correct?
Buyer is correct. The right of repurchase is not
a right granted the vendor by the vendee in a
subsequent instrument, but a right reserved by
the vendor in the same instrument of sale as
one of the stipulations of the contract. Once
the instrument of absolute sale is executed, the
vendor can no longer reserve the right to
repurchase, but some other right like an option
to buy. (Vasquez v. Court of Appeals, 198
SCRA 102 [1991])
QUESTION NO. 125
Abe and Ben are childhood friends. Because of
their friendship, Abe gave to Ben in usufruct a
parcel of land to last up to the time their high
school teacher, Mrs. Aguada, reaches the age
Page 34 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
of 70. Mrs. Aguada died at the age of 65. Is
the usufruct extinguished?
No. Under Article 606 of the Civil Code, a
usufruct granted for a time that may elapse
before a third person attains a certain age shall
subsist for the number of years specified even
if the third person should die before the period
expires, unless such usufruct has been granted
only in consideration of the existence of such
person. If the document constituting Bernard
as a usufructuary does not state that it will end
the moment Mrs. Aguada is dead, then it will
continue.
QUESTION NO. 126
Buyer buys on instalment a residential
subdivision lot. After the 5th year, he is unable
to make further payments. Can Developer
unilaterally cancel the sale? Is Buyer entitled to
any refund?
Yes. The Developer need not even go to court
to obtain cancellation of the sale, provided
that the actual cancellation takes place after 30
days from receipt by Buyer of the notice of
cancellation or demand for rescission of the
sale by a notarial act and upon full payment of
the cash surrender value to Buyer. (Sec. 3, R.A.
No 6552) Buyer is entitled to a cash surrender
value which is 50% of the total payments
made by him.
QUESTION NO. 127
Seller contracts to sell to Buyer a parcel of
land. They agree that Buyer shall pay the
purchase price on October 25, and that in case
of Buyers failure to pay, the contract shall be
automatically rescinded. If Buyer does not pay
on October 25, can he still pay on October
29?
Yes, provided no judicial or notarial demand
for rescission of the contract as of October 29
has been made by Seller to Buyer. Under
Article 1592 of the Civil Code, in the sale of an
immovable property, even though it may have
been stipulated that upon failure to pay the
price at the time agreed upon the rescission of
the contract shall of right take place, the
vendee may still pay even after expiration of
the period, as long as no demand for rescission
of the contract has been made upon him either
judicially or by a notarial act.

QUESTION NO. 128
In a letter, Seller offers to Buyer the sale of a
parcel of land. Buyer sends a reply. Which of
the following statements in Buyers reply will
NOT result in a contract?
1. I accept your offer to sell the land. I wish
I could have gotten a better price.
2. I accept your offer to sell the land, but can
you shave the price?
3. I accept your offer to sell the land, but
only if I can pay on 90 days credit.
4. I accept your offer to sell the land,
provided that you are the owner.
The reply in (c) will not result in a contract.
Acceptance is a voluntary act by the offeree
that shows agreement to the offer. The
acceptance must be unequivocal and
communicated to the offeror. The acceptance
in (c) is not an unequivocal acceptance because
of the condition to pay on credit; such a
condition operates as a counter-offer.
An acceptance may be unequivocal even
though the offeree expresses dissatisfaction
with the offer, as in the case of the replies in
(a) and (b).
The condition imposed by Buyer in his reply in
(d) that the offeror owns the property is
implied in every sale of land, so the condition
does not add any new or different terms to
the offer.
QUESTION NO. 129
Batman, Superman and Iron Man are co-
owners of a parcel of land. They later sold the
land to Flash Gordon with a right to
repurchase. Only Batman exercised the right of
repurchase for which he obtained a title to the
property. Is the co-ownership terminated by
Batmans repurchase of the property?
No. The repurchase of the land by Batman did
not terminate the co-ownership nor did it give
him the title to the entire land. Superman and
Iron Man remain as co-owners with obligation
to reimburse Batman their respective shares in
the repurchase price of the land.
QUESTION NO. 130
Pedro owns a car. To raise money for his
business venture, he instructs Abe to sell the
Page 35 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
car. Abe, in his own name, sells the car to
Menardo. Can Menardo sue Pedro in case the
car has hidden defects?
Yes. Although Abe acted in his own name, still
the sale involved a car belonging to Pedro, the
principal. Here, we apply the exception stated
in the second paragraph of Article 1883 of the
Civil Code which provides, In such case the
agent is the one directly bound in favor of the
person with whom he has contracted, as if the
transaction were his own, except when the
contract involves things belonging to the
principal. As a matter of fact, the sale is
completely valid.
QUESTION NO. 131
Principal appoints Agent, a minor, to sell a
particular car. Agent sells the car to Buyer.
Principal afterwards seeks to annul the sale,
and brings an action to recover the car on the
ground that Agents act was voidable, as a
minor cannot be an agent. Judgment for
whom?
Judgment for Buyer. Agent is deemed to be an
extension of the personality of Principal who is
himself capacitated. Hence, Principal cannot
annul the contract on the ground of Agents
incapacity.
QUESTION NO. 132
Martha died, leaving her son, Sam, as her sole
heir. Among the items inherited by Sam were
some old oil paintings that had been stored in
Marthas attic for a number of years. Sam
knew nothing about art and had no place to
put them in his house. He placed an ad in the
paper offering to sell the paintings at a price
to be mutually agreed upon. Riza, a buyer for
an art gallery, responded to the ad and
examined the paintings. From the signature
and the style, Riza recognized that the artist
was Ben Cab, a renowned Filipino portrait
artist. Sam and Riza agreed upon a price and
executed a contract.
Which of the following facts, if true, would
give Sam the best basis for annulling the
contract with Riza?
a. Sam told Riza that his mother, Martha, had
dabbled in painting when she was younger
and had undoubtedly painted them herself.

b. Sam did not know that Riza was a buyer
for an art gallery and was very familiar with
the works of renowned artists.
c. Sam told Riza that he wanted to get rid of
the paintings as soon as possible because he
was angry at his mother for giving away
most of her possessions to her friend just
before she died.
d. Riza falsely told Sam that the paintings were
to be used to furnish Rizas newly-
constructed vacation house in Baguio.
The statement in (a) would enable Sam to
annul the contract on the ground of mistake if
Riza was aware that Sam was mistaken about
the identity of the artist. Under the facts in this
choice, Riza knows that Sam is mistaken about
the identity of the artist, which mistake refers
to the substance of the thing which is the
object of the contract. (Art. 1311, Civil Code)
The statement in (b) is wrong because the fact
that one of the parties to the contract has
superior knowledge about the subject matter
of the contract does not by itself justify
annulment, even if the other party is unaware
of that fact. Rizas knowledge or lack of it was
not the principal cause on which the contract
was made and was not relied on by Sam in
making the sale.
The statement in (c) is wrong because the fact
that Sam was angry when he agreed to the
contract is not a ground for annulment of a
contract under the law. Regardless of Sams
state of mind, there was a meeting of the
minds between the parties.
The statement in (d) is incorrect because Rizas
misrepresentations to Sam as to how she will
use the paintings does not appear to go to the
substance of the thing which is the subject
matter of the contract or to have been relied
on by Sam. Hence, the misrepresentation is
not significant enough to serve as a ground for
annulling the contract.
QUESTION NO. 133
Is the sudden emergency rule an absolutory
cause in negligence cases?
Yes. A person who is confronted with a
sudden and unforeseeable occurrence, because
of the shortness of time in which to react,
should not be held to the same standard of
Page 36 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
care as someone confronted with a foreseeable
occurrence.
One who suddenly finds himself in a place
danger, and is required to act without time to
consider the best means that may be adopted
to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of
negligence, if he fails not to adopt what
subsequently and upon reflection may appear
to be the better method, unless the emergency
in which he finds himself is brought about by
his own negligence. (Gan vs CA, 165 SCRA
378) The rule applies, for instance, in the
following cases: 1) a child suddenly darts into
the road between parked cars; 2) a load from
a truck suddenly bounces across the highway;
or 3) a driver of a car is suddenly stricken by a
period of unconsciousness which he has no
reason to anticipate and which renders it
impossible for him to control the car he is
driving.
QUESTION NO. 134
Husband and Wife were married in 1974.
Their marital union bore two children (Abe
and Ben). The birth certificates of the children
identified Husband as their father and their
status as legitimate. Husband died in 1990.
In a notarized document in 1991, Gigolo
admitted his illicit relations with Wife and
acknowledged Abe and Ben as his illegitimate
children. After Gigolos death in 1993 and on
the strength of Gigolos notarized
acknowledgment, Abe and Ben brought an
action for the partition of Gigolos substantial
estate. Will the action prosper?
No. The attempt to establish the status of Abe
and Ben, as the illegitimate children of Gigolo
would in effect impugn their legitimate status
as children of Husband and Wife. This cannot
be done because the law itself establishes the
legitimacy of children conceived or born
during the marriage of the parents. There is
perhaps no presumption of law more firmly
established and founded on sounder morality
than children born in wedlock are legitimate.
(Tison v. Court of Appeals, 276 SCRA 582
[1997])
The presumption indeed becomes conclusive
in the absence of proof that there is physical
impossibility of access between the spouses
during the first 120 days of the 300 days which
immediately preceded the birth of the child
due to: a) the physical incapacity of the

husband to have sexual intercourse with his
wife; b) the fact that the husband and wife are
living separately in such a way that sexual
intercourse is not possible; or c) serious illness
of the husband which absolutely prevents
sexual intercourse. (Art. 166, Family Code)
Considering that Abe and Ben were born
during the marriage of their parents, they are
therefore considered the legitimate children of
Husband and Wife.
QUESTION NO. 135
Ann is a working student at a local university.
In need of funds to pay for tuition and books,
she attempts to secure a short-term loan from
East Bank. The bank agrees to make a loan if
Ann will have someone financially responsible
guarantee the loan payments. Betty, a
businesswoman and a friend of Anns family,
agrees in writing to pay the loan if Ann
cannot. Because of Bettys reputation, the loan
is made. Ann is making the payments, but
because of illness she is not able to work for
one month. She requests that East Bank extend
the loan for three months. East Bank agrees,
raising the interest rate for the extended
period. Betty is not notified of the extension.
One month later Ann drops out of school. All
attempts to collect from Ann fail. Can East
Bank collect from Betty?
No. Unlike a surety who is primarily liable, a
guarantor is merely subsidiarily liable. The
guarantor can be required to answer for the
obligation only after the principal has
defaulted. (Art. 2047, Civil Code) The creditor
must also have attempted to collect from the
principal, and the latter still has not paid. (Art.
2058, Civil Code) Under Article 2079 of the
Civil Code, an extension granted to the debtor
by the creditor without the consent of the
guarantor, as in this case, extinguishes the
guaranty.
QUESTION NO. 136
Ben, Calvin, and Don form a limited
partnership. Ben is a general partner, and
Calvin and Don are limited partners. Consider
each of the separate events below, and discuss
fully which will constitute dissolution of the
partnership.
1. Calvin assigns his partnership interest to
Don.
2.
3. Don goes into bankruptcy.
Page 37 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
4. Ben dies.
The event in (c) dissolves the limited
partnership of Ben, Calvin, and Don. This is by
express provision of Article 1860 of the Civil
Code which provides that the death,
insolvency, insanity or civil interdiction of a
general partner dissolves the limited
partnership, unless the business is continued by
the remaining general partners. The
partnership here consists of only one general
partner (Ben), and there being no other
remaining general partner to continue the
business, the partnership is dissolved.
The event in (a) does not dissolve a
partnership because a limited partners interest
is assignable (Art. 1859, Civil Code)
The insolvency of the other limited partner, an
event stated in (b,) does not likewise dissolve
the limited partnership because the partnership
business can still continue despite such
insolvency.
QUESTION NO. 137
Abe took his car to a carwash station and
asked to have it washed. While it is being
washed, Abe went to a nearby mall for two
hours. In the meantime, one of the workers at
the car wash had mistakenly hand-waxed the
car. When Abe came back, he was presented
with a bill for a wash job and a hand wax. Is
Abe liable to pay for the hand wax job?
No. The doctrine of quasi-contract does not
apply when there is a contract between the
parties. Although there was a benefit bestowed
to Abe, Abe did not receive an unjust benefit
because the hand wax job was not
contemplated by his agreement with the
owner of the car wash station.
QUESTION NO. 138
Mao Tse Tung, a Chinese national donated in
Germany in favor of Fidel, a Filipino, a parcel
of land situated in the Philippines.
1. The law of which country governs the
formalities of the donation?
Philippine law governs the formalities of the
donation. The lex loci celebrationis does not
apply because the transaction relates to land
and must therefore be governed by the law of
the place where the land is situated.

2. The law of which country governs the
capacity of the Chinese to make the
donation?
Philippine law, the situs of the property,
governs the capacity of the Chinese to
alienate. Here, the doctrine of national law
under Article 15 of the Civil Code yields
because the subject matter is land.
QUESTION NO. 139
Dingdong was coerced into marrying Marian.
Dingdong sued for annulment. During the
pendency of the case, Dingdong married
Karylle. When Karylle learned of the first
marriage, Karylle sued Dingdong for bigamy.
Dingdong now alleges that the pendency of
the annulment case is a prejudicial question. Is
Dingdong correct?
Dingdong is wrong because the decision in the
annulment case is not important. The first
marriage will either be annulled or not. If not
annulled, bigamy can prosper. And if annulled,
still bigamy can prosper, for when Dingdong
married the second time, he was still married
to his first wife, Marian, a voidable marriage
being considered valid until annulled.
QUESTION NO. 140
Dingdong, a married man was forced by
Marian to contract marriage with her.
Dingdong then sued for annulment of the
second marriage. Marian retaliated with a
charge of bigamy. In the bigamy case,
Dingdong moved to suspend the criminal
proceedings until after the termination of the
annulment case on the ground that the
annulment case is a prejudicial question.
Should the motion be granted?
Yes, because the annulment case poses a
prejudicial question. If Dingdong was really
forced into marrying Marian, then his consent
was defective; hence, the second marriage is to
be annulled on that ground. He cannot
therefore be guilty of bigamy.
QUESTION NO. 141
If a marriage is dissolved because of the death
of the husband, what surname may the widow
use?
Although the death of the husband dissolves
the marriage ties, still the widow may desire to
Page 38 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
cherish her deceased husbands memory by the
continued use of his surname. However, if she
does not want to, she is allowed to use her
maiden surname again. Notice the use of the
word may in Article 373 of the Civil Code.
QUESTION NO. 142
If a marriage is annulled, is the wife required
to resume her maiden name and surname?
It depends. If WIFE IS THE GUILTY SPOUSE,
she SHALL resume her maiden name and
surname. But if WIFE IS THE INNOCENT
SPOUSE, she MAY resume her maiden name
and surname, but she may choose to continue
employing her former husbands surname,
unless (1) the court decrees otherwise; or (2)
she or the former husband is married again to
another person. (Art. 371, Civil Code)
QUESTION NO. 143
What if legal separation occurs, is the wife
entitled to continue using the husbands
surname even if she is the guilty spouse?
Article 372 of the Civil Code does not
distinguish whether the wife is the guilty
spouse or not, unlike in the case of annulment
of marriage under Article 371, because in legal
separation the marriage ties still subsist.
QUESTION NO. 144
Brian, an American, and Juana, a Filipina,
cohabited as husband and wife ten years ago
without marriage. During their cohabitation,
the couple bought a parcel of land in Baguio
City. Although the deed of sale was placed in
the names of the couple as buyers, the sale was
registered in the name of Juana alone because
of Brians American citizenship. It is sufficiently
established, however, that the funds used to
buy the property came solely from Brian, as
Juana has no sufficient source of income.
After their relationship turned sour and they
went separate ways, Brian sold all his rights
and interests in the property to Caloy, a
Filipino. When Caloy tried to register the
property in his name, he discovered that the
certificate of title of the property is registered
in the name of Juana, and that it had already
been mortgaged.
1. If Brian is the true buyer of the property,
what is the effect of the registration of the
property in the name of Juana?

The registration of the property in the name of
Juana does not make her the owner of the
property in question. It is settled that
registration is not a mode of acquiring
ownership. Certificates of title are not a source
of right. The mere possession of a certificate of
title does not make the holder the true owner
of the property. The mere fact that Juana has
the title of the disputed property in her name
does not necessarily, conclusively, and
absolutely make her the owner.
2. Given that Brian is disqualified to own real
properties in the Philippines, what is the
legal status of the sale of the property by
Brian to Caloy?
Because aliens are disqualified to own real
properties in the Philippines, the sale of the
property to Brian, who is an American, would
have been declared invalid if challenged, had
not Brian conveyed the property to Caloy
who is a Filipino citizen. According to
jurisprudence, if the land is invalidly
transferred to an alien who subsequently
becomes a Filipino citizen (or transfers it to a
Filipino), the flaw in the original transaction is
considered cured and the title of the transferee
is rendered valid. (Borromeo v. Descallar, G.R.
No. 159310, February 24, 2009)
QUESTION NO. 145
Buyer, a minor, purchased a used car for
Php250,000 from a used car dealer. The
minor used the car for three months and then
damaged it in an accident. The car is now
worth Php100,000. Buyer takes the car back to
the dealer and demands the return of the
purchase price. Dealer refused. Judgment for
whom?
Judgment for the minor. A contract may be
invalidated when one of the parties to the
contract does not have the legal capacity to
give consent to the contract. A minor is
certainly one who lacks legal capacity. (Art.
1390, Civil Code)
QUESTION NO. 146
Baguio Country Club made public an offer to
pay Php500,000 to any person who, having
paid Php2,000 for the opportunity of
attempting to do so, shot a hole in one on its
golf course pursuant to certain conditions. Abe
complied with the conditions, including the
payment of the money, and shot a hole in
Page 39 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
one. Baguio Country Cluf refuses to pay
contending the contract was a wagering
contract. Abe claims the shooting of the hole
in one was a feat of skill and not a feat of
chance. Who prevails?
Abe prevails. Gambling is essentially a chance
for a prize for a price. Gambling is illegal
regardless of the name attached to it. But if the
result of a game does not depend entirely on
chance and may also depend upon the skill of
a person, such game is not a game of chance as
to make it a gambling game.
QUESTION NO. 147
Pedro wished to delay action by a government
Bids and Awards Committee for the execution
of a public works project in which he was
interested. He made a contract with Abe to
pay the latter Php100,000 if Abe could get the
members of the bid committee to postpone to
a later date the committees scheduled
bidding. Abe gave a majority of the members
of the bid committee and their wives a round
trip ticket to Hongkong, at which time Abe
gave each of the wives shopping money and
convinced the wives to talk to their husbands
regarding a postponement of the scheduled
bidding. Subsequently, the bid committee
postponed the bidding. Pedro refuses to pay.
Decision?
Decision for Pedro. Pedros commitment to
pay Abe Php100,000 for the latter to influence
the postponement of the scheduled bidding of
a government agency to execute a public
works project tends to be against public
interest. Such agreement is unquestionably
void and cannot be enforced, especially so
because both parties are in pari delicto.
QUESTION NO. 148
F and M are the parents of S. Upon the death
of M, S immediately brings an action against
his father for the partition of his mothers
estate. F counterclaims for reconveyance of a
parcel of land which is registered in the name
of S. F claims that the lot is owned by the
conjugal regime but was registered in the
name of S as a trustee because at that time, S
was at the time the only Filipino citizen in the
family. F caused the annotation of a notice lis
pendens on his sons certificate of title. S
objects on the ground that the notice lis
pendens amounts to a collateral attack on his
title obtained more than 20 years ago. He

argues that his sole ownership of the property
would be improperly assailed in the partition
case and that it should be done through a
separate action. Should the notice lis pendens
be cancelled?
No. The annotation of a notice lis pendens
does not in any way amount to a collateral
attack on the certificate of title of a parcel of
land. What cannot be collaterally attacked is
the certificate of title and not the title. The
certificate referred to is that document issued
by the Register of Deeds known as the Transfer
Certificate of Title. By title, the law refers to
ownership which is represented by the
document.
S apparently confuses certificate of title with
title. Placing a parcel of land under the mantle
of the Torrens system does not mean that
ownership thereof can no longer be disputed.
Ownership is one thing, registration is another.
(Lee Tek Sheng v. CA, 292, SCRA 554 [1998])
QUESTION NO. 149
Manuel (judicially) adopts Minerva in Baguio.
They go to Paris and there get married.
Assuming the marriage to be valid under
French law, is it also valid here?
No. Even if the marriage is valid in Paris,
where it is celebrated, it is void here because it
is void from the beginning for reasons of
public policy it being a marriage between the
adopting parent and the adopted child. (Art.
35 (4), Family Code)
QUESTION NO. 150
Abe was engaged and intended to get married
as soon as he completed his college education.
Abes parents did not approve of the marriage
and offered him a one-half interest in the
family business if he would give up his plans
for marriage. Abe agreed, but after he finished
college his parents refused to give him the
share of the business that they had promised.
May Abe enforce the promise made by his
parents?
No. Promises not to marry in return for some
benefit is void because it is contrary to public
policy. The law has always regarded marriage
as a sacred institution (Art. 1, Family Code)
and a the right and privilege of all persons, not
to be denied by private contract with other
persons.
Page 40 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
QUESTION NO. 151
After searching for months, a young married
couple found a house which fitted their needs
perfectly. The location, size, price, sale terms,
proximity to church, school, and malls were
all they had been looking for. After thorough
discussion with the owner, they agreed to buy
the house and sealed their agreement with the
owner with a handshake. Is there a contract?
Yes, because all the essential elements of a
contract of sale are present; namely, consent
of the parties, a determinate object, and a
price certain in money or its equivalent.
However, if the owner of the house later
refuses to perform, the sale could not be
enforced by court action because it was made
orally. This is because of the statutory
requirement that all contracts for the transfer
of any interest in real property must be in
writing to be enforceable. (Art. 1403, par.
2(e), Civil Code)
QUESTION NO. 152
An applicant in a land registration case failed
to mark in evidence the original tracing cloth
plan of the land applied for. Instead, he
presented a blue print copy of the plan as
evidence. Is this sufficient?
Yes. It is true that the best evidence to identify
a parcel of land for registration is the original
cloth plan, yet the blue print copy of the plan
suffices for the purpose where the original
tracing cloth plan was attached to the
application for registration. (Republic v. IAC,
144 SCRA 705) Moreover, even the true
certified copy of the white paper plan would
suffice if it bears the approval of the Land
Registration Authority and verified by the
Bureau of Lands. The fact therefore that the
original survey plan was recorded on white
paper instead of a tracing cloth plan should
not detract from the probative value thereof.
(Dir. of Lands v. CA, 158 SCRA 586 [1988])
QUESTION NO. 153
A fire broke out on the fifth floor of the Venus
Parkview Hotel. Although the fire was
confined to that floor, several guests on the
other floors reported losses to their property
due to fire and water. The hotel was able to
prove that the fire had started from a cigarette
dropped on a bed by one of the guests. Such
careless smoking violated a Baguio City

ordinance and a rule of the hotel. Is the
hotelkeeper liable?
No. The loss of property due to accidental fire,
in which no negligence may be attributed to
the hotelkeeper is an exception to the
hotelkeepers liability as a depositary of
valuables of hotel guests. This is in keeping
with the rule that no person may be held liable
for those events which could not be foreseen,
or, even though foreseen, were inevitable.
(Art. 1174, Civil Code) Here, the hotelkeeper
would not be responsible for the losses caused
by the fire because it has not breached its duty
of care.
QUESTION NO. 154
Abe was anxious to sell his house located on
Rainbow Hills Subdivision. He made a
luncheon appointment with a real estate
broker and at that time requested the broker
to sell the house, agreeing on specific details of
price and commission. Since they were friends
of long standing, the two men did not discuss
the necessity of a written agreement and
sealed their agreement with a handshake. If
the broker secured a buyer, would Abe be
obligated to sell the house and pay the broker
his commission?
No. An agency may be oral, unless the law
requires a specific form. However, when a
piece of land or any interest therein is through
an agent, the authority of the latter shall be in
writing. (Art. 1874, Civil Code) Here, any
attempt of the broker to hold Abe to his
agreement will not succeed since the brokers
authority was not in writing and therefore
void.
QUESTION NO. 155
In each of the following cases, name the party
on whom the loss due to damage to, or
destruction of, the goods falls, and give the
reasons for your answer.
1. Abe purchased a used car. The seller was to
put a mechanic on it and make several
mechanical adjustments. After the
adjustments had been made, and while the
seller was testing the car before delivery,
the car was badly damaged in a collision.
The seller bears the loss of the car pursuant to
the res perit domino rule -- the thing perishes
with the owner. Under the law, the goods
Page 41 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
remain at the sellers risk until the ownership
therein is transferred to the buyer (Art. 1504,
Civil Code), either by actual or constructive
delivery thereof. (Art. 1477, Civil Code)
The extinguishment of the obligation to
deliver affects both vendor and vendee since
their obligations are reciprocal. If the
obligation of the vendor to deliver is
extinguished, the correlative obligation of the
vendee to pay, which depends upon it, is also
extinguished. Besides, a contract of sale is
onerous in character; the cause, as far as the
vendee is concerned, is the acquisition of the
thing which is the object thereof.
2. Abe bought a very expensive laptop, with
the understanding that he might return it
within thirty days if he found it to be
unsatisfactory for his needs. Abe found that
the laptop did not suit his needs and was
preparing to return it within the stipulated
period when it was stolen.
Abe bears the loss of the laptop. When goods
are sold with right of return, the buyer
becomes the owner upon delivery, but he may
revest the ownership of the thing in the seller
by returning it within the time fixed in the
contract, or if no time is fixed, within a
reasonable time. (par. 1, Art. 1502, Civil Code)
Buyer may return the thing sold to the seller
event if he finds nothing wrong with the
quality of the thing. Until he returns the thing,
buyer owns the thing. And if it is lost,
regardless of the cause, buyer bears such loss.
3. Abe purchased a treadmill on ten days
approval. Before expiration of the ten-day
period, the treadmill was destroyed by fire
of accidental origin.
Seller bears the risk of loss of the treadmill.
When goods are sold on approval, they
remain the property of the seller until the
buyer has expressed his approval or does any
other act adopting the transaction. (par. 2, Art.
1502, Civil Code) The sale thus becomes
absolute if the buyer does not signify his
approval or acceptance to the seller, but
retains the goods.
4. Abe purchased at Php5.00 per kilo all the
potatoes that farmer Rey had piled in a
storage bin on his vegetable farm. Rey was
able to put the potatotes in sacks to
determine the price. Lighting struck the bin,

and the resulting heat and fire ruined the
potatoes.
Seller bears the loss of the potatoes. Article
1504 of the Civil Code is explicit: goods
remain at the sellers risk until the ownership
therein is transferred to the buyer (Art. 1504,
Civil Code), either by actual or constructive
delivery thereof. (Art. 1477, Civil Code).
Parenthetically, the sellers obligation to
deliver to Abe the same quantity of potatotes
stored at his storage bin is not extinguished by
the loss of the potatoes presently piled at his
storage bin. Genus nunquam peruit.
QUESTION NO. 156
Rey, a mechanic, performed Php5,000 worth
of repair work on Abes car, on a thirty-day
credit terms. Abe failed to pay the bill at the
expiration of the credit period, but returned
the car to Rey two months later for Php1,000
worth of additional repairs. When the repairs
were made, Rey refused to deliver the car to
Abe until Php6,000, the bill for the full
amount due him, was paid. Does Rey have the
right to retain possession of the car until the
full amount of the bill is paid?
Abe may demand delivery of his car upon
payment of the charges for the current repairs
only. Reys obligation to return the car arises
from a contract of deposit (Art. 1968, Civil
Code) under which Rey as depositary may
retain the car in pledge until the full payment
of what may be due him by reason of the
deposit. (Art. 1994, Civil Code) Until Rey is
reimbursed of his expenses by reason of the
deposit, he may retain the car in pledge.
Accordingly, Reys lien does not extend to
amounts owed for previous service.
QUESTION NO. 157
Abe spent a night at a hotel, taking with him
an overnight bag. Since no rack was provided
in the room for a guests luggage, Abe placed
his bag on the floor. Later that night, when he
came into the room he tripped over the bag
and injured himself. Both Abe and the hotel
are shown to have been negligent in the
creation of the situation that led to Abes
injuries. Is the hotel liable to Abe?
Abes contributory negligence relieves the
hotel of any liability to compensate Abe for
Abes injury. The hotelkeeper is not liable for
compensation if the loss is due to the acts of
Page 42 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
the guest himself, as in the case of Abe in the
problem. (Art. 2002, Civil Code)
QUESTION NO. 158
Donald, a Californian, and Ann, a poor
barrio girl from the hinterlands of La Union,
are married. Two years into their marriage, the
couple purchased from Juan a house in Baguio
City. Although the sale was solely financed by
Donald, the sale document was issued in Anns
name as vendee as a result of which title to the
property was issued solely in Anns name as
owner. When the couple had a falling out,
Ann immediately sold the house to Ben
without her husbands consent.
1. If Donald maintains an action to annul the
sale, what would be his strongest cause?
Donald has no other recourse but to anchor
his suit on the argument that the sale is void
because it was made without his consent; that
in bringing the action, he is merely exercising
the prerogative of a husband in respect to
absolute community property.
2. If the case goes to trial, what would be the
most likely result?
Being an alien, Donald is prohibited from
acquiring private and public lands in the
Philippines. Considering that Ann appeared to
be the designated vendee of the property, she
acquired sole ownership thereto. This is true
even if Donalds claim that he provided the
funds for such acquisition is to be sustained. By
entering into such contract knowing that it was
illegal, no implied trust was created in
Donalds favor; no reimbursement for his
expenses can be allowed; and no declaration
can be made that the subject property was
part of the conjugal or community property.
In any event, Donald had, and has, no
capacity to question the sale of the property
by his wife on the ground that in so doing, he
was merely exercising the prerogative of a
husband in respect to conjugal property. To
sustain such an argument would countenance
indirect violation of the constitutional
prohibition. If the property were to be
declared conjugal, this would accord the alien
husband a substantial interest and right over
the land, as he would then have a decisive
vote as to its transfer or disposition. This is a
right that the Constitution does not permit him
to have. (Matthews v. Taylor, June 22, 2009)

QUESTION NO. 159
Abe intends to buy a new battery for his car.
At an auto parts supply store, a salesman tells
Abe: This is the finest battery you can buy
and we guarantee that you will find it superior
to any you have owned. This battery will no
doubt outlast the life of the car itself. Is the
store liable for breach of express warranty if
the battery does not meet the salesmans
statements?
No express warranty is created simply by the
seller expressing his personal opinion to the
buyer, nor do his statements to the buyer
constitute a warranty if he is just talking up
the merchandise (called puffing), even
though the buyer may rely on such statements.
Even the use of the word guarantee adds
little, considering how it was used. A statement
of fact must be of the essence of the subject
matter.
QUESTION NO. 160
An airline pilot bought a watch from a
reputable watch dealer. He stressed the
importance of great accuracy in any watch
bought by him, and the seller said, In my
opinion you will find this watch the most
accurate of any watch sold today. You will be
able to keep exact schedules by it. Suppose
the watch does not meet such specifications,
does the pilot have a cause of action?
Yes. Expressions of opinion by professionals or
experts may be accepted by others as
statements of fact under certain conditions.
This is especially true when the purchaser has
no knowledge of the product that he is
buying. Although the seller prefaced his
remarks with the word opinion, under the
circumstances, his words would represent
statements of fact because of his position.
QUESTION NO. 161
What is meant by the requirement under
Section 23 of P.D. No. 1529 that publication
of the notice of initial hearing in the Official
Gazette shall be sufficient to confer
jurisdiction upon the court?
As explained by the Supreme Court in Republic
v. Marasigan, 198 SCRA 219, the provision
under Section 23 of P.D. No. 1529 was never
meant to dispense with the requirement of
notice by mailing and posting. What it simply
Page 43 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
means is that insofar as publication is
concerned, there is sufficient compliance if the
notice is published in the Official Gazette.
Although the law mandates that it be
published once in the Official Gazette and
once in a newspaper of general circulation in
the Philippines, publication in the latter alone
would not suffice. This is to accord primacy to
the official publication in the Official Gazette.
According to the Supreme Court, such
provision was never meant to dispense with
the other modes of giving notice, which
remains mandatory and jurisdictional.
If the intention of the law were otherwise,
Section 23 would not have stressed in detail
the requirements of mailing of notice to all
persons named in the petition who per Section
15 of the Decree, include owners of adjoining
properties and occupants of the land.
(NOTE: In Director of Lands v. Court of
Appeals, 276 SCRA 276 [1997], the Supreme
Court categorically declared that publication of
the notice of initial hearing in a newspaper of
general circulation is mandatory and
imperative. Absent such publication, the land
registration court cannot validly confirm the
title of the applicant for registration.)
QUESTION NO. 162
Henry and Wilma are the conjugal owners of
a ten-hectare farm. Upon the death of Henry,
Wilma immediately sold to Ben a 2,000-
square meter portion of the farm. The children
of Henry and Wilma later brought an action to
annul the sale on the ground that it was made
without prior liquidation of the conjugal
partnership of their parents. Will the action
prosper?
No. Article 130 of the Family Code expressly
provides that if no liquidation of the conjugal
partnership is made within six months from
the death of a spouse, any disposition or
encumbrance involving conjugal partnership
property of the terminated marriage shall be
void. This provision must be read with Article
493 of the Civil Code which allows a co-
owner to alienate, assign, or mortgage his
undivided share in the co-owned property.
However, the effect of such alienation or
mortgage is limited only to the portion which
may be allotted to the co-owner upon the
termination of the co-ownership. The recourse
of co-owners in cases where their consent were
not secured in a sale of the entire property, as

well as in the sale merely of the undivided
shares of some of the co-owners, is an action
for partition under Rule 69 of the Rules of
court. (Heirs of Go v. Go, G.R. No. 157537,
Sept. 7, 2011)
QUESTION NO. 163
Anna, a Filipina nurse, married Brent, an
American engineer, in Baguio City. A few days
after the wedding, they immediately left for
California to reside there permanently. Anna
then became a naturalized American citizen.
Five years later, Anna and Brent came to the
Philippines for a short vacation. When the
couple visited Annas hometown, they decided
to adopt Annas younger brother to give him a
better future. Are Anna and Brent qualified to
adopt Annas younger brother?
No. Under the Domestic Adoption Act, an
alien is qualified to adopt a Filipino child only
if a) he is a former Filipino citizen who seeks
to adopt a relative within the fourth civil
degree of consanguinity; b) he seeks to adopt
the legitimate or illegitimate child of his
Filipino spouse; and c) he is married to a
Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with
his spouse a relative within the fourth civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity of the
Filipino spouse.
Here, Anna and Brent are aliens seeking to
adopt a Filipino child. Being a former Filipino
citizen, Anna is qualified to adopt because the
child to be adopted is her relative within the
fourth degree of consanguinity. While Anna is
qualified, Brent is not because he does not fall
under one of the exceptions. Firstly, he is not a
former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a
relative within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity. Secondly, he is not seeking to
adopt the legitimate or illegitimate child of
Anna; and thirdly, he is not married to a
Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt jointly with
his spouse a relative of the latter within the
fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity.
And even if Anna is qualified to adopt her
brother, she cannot file the petition for
adoption by herself. The Domestic Adoption
Act specifically provides that the husband and
wife shall jointly adopt, except if one spouse
seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the
other; or if one spouse seeks to adopt his or
her own illegitimate child; or if the spouses are
legally separated from each other.
Page 44 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
Here, Anna cannot file the petition for
adoption by herself because the child to be
adopted is not the legitimate child of Brent,
nor is the child the illegitimate child of Anna.
Moreover, Anna and Brent are not legally
separated.
QUESTION NO. 164
Abe is a sales representative of a drug
company who looks exactly like Vic Sotto. In
one of his provincial sorties, Abe met Tessie, a
winsome lass from an affluent family. To win
Tessies affection, Abe acted and pretended to
be Vic Sotto. After a brief courtship, Tessie fell
in love with Abe. In less than a year, Tessie
realized her mistake when she discovered that
Abe is not Vic Sotto. Does Tessie have a
remedy?
Tessie does not have any remedy. She cannot
seek to declare the marriage void on the
ground of mistaken identity of the other party,
Here, she married Abe who was the very
person she fell in love with. Neither can she
sue for annulment of marriage on the ground
of fraud. To annul a marriage, only the
circumstances enumerated under Article 46 of
the Family Code constitute fraud. No other
misrepresentation or deceit as to character,
rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute such
fraud as will give grounds for the annulment of
marriage.
QUESTION NO. 165
Determine which of the following statements is
correct. Explain your answer.
1. When a right to sue upon a civil obligation
has lapsed by extinctive prescription, the
obligor who voluntarily performs the
obligation can recover what he has
delivered or the value of the services he has
rendered.
2. Natural obligations grant a right of action
to enforce their performance, and after
voluntary fulfillment by the obligor, they
authorize the retention of what has been
delivered or rendered by reason thereof.
3. When a testate or intestate heir voluntarily
pays a debt of the decedent exceeding the
value of the property, which he received by
will or by the law of intestacy from the
estate of the decedent, the payment is valid
and cannot be rescinded by the payor-heir.

The statement in (c) is correct because an heir
who pays the debt of a decedent in excess of
his inheritance is estopped from rescinding the
payment. His only recourse is to recover the
excess from the decedents estate.
The statement in (a) is wrong because a
debtors voluntary payment of the debt
despite his knowledge that the debt had
already prescribed does not entitle him to
recover. His payment constitutes a natural
obligation under Article 1423 of the Civil
Code.
The statement in (b) is wrong because a
natural obligation - unlike a civil obligation
which is based on positive law - derives its
binding force from equity and justice, and does
not grant a right of action to enforce its
performance; but after voluntary fulfillment by
the obligor, it authorizes the retention of what
has been delivered or rendered by reason
thereof.
QUESTION NO. 166
With prior court approval, Greg, the guardian
of Willy, a minor, sells the 2010 Mitsubishi
Montero which was inherited by Willy from
his deceased parents for Php500,00 although
the vehicle was worth PhpPhp1 million at the
time of the sale. What is the legal standing of
the sale?
The sale is valid despite the fact that Willy
suffered lesion by more than one fourth of the
value of the vehicle. This is because the sale
was made with prior court approval. Had the
sale been made without court approval, the
sale would have been a complete nullity and
even unenforceable against Willy.
. a state of concubinage, between a man and a
QUESTION NO. 167
Abe, a law graduate, never intended to marry
his pregnant girlfriend, Ana. Fearing that Ana
would file an administrative complaint against
him with the Bar Confidant if he does not
marry her, Abe reluctantly married Ana. To
allow him a way out of the marriage, Abe
submitted to the solemnizing officer a fake
marriage license. Abe left Ana after passing the
bar.
Knowing that his marriage to Ana was void,
he married Bea. When Bea learned of Abes
prior marriage, she promptly filed an action to
declare her marriage void for non-compliance
Page 45 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
with Article 40 of the Family Code requiring a
prior court declaration of nullity.
What regime of property relations will govern
the cohabitation of Abe and Ana and of Abe
and Bea?
The marriage of Abe and Ana is void for lack
of a valid marriage license. The same is true
with respect to the marriage of Ana and Bea
for lack of a judicial decree declaring the first
marriage a nullity.
Given that the two marriages are void, the
applicable property regimes would be
governed by Articles 147 and 148 of the
Family Code.
As to the property regime of Abe and Ana,
Article 147 governs. Article 147 creates a co-
ownership between a man and a woman who
are capacitated to marry each other but live
exclusively as husband and wife without the
benefit of marriage and between a man and a
woman who live together under a void
marriage where the parties do not have an
existing marriage with other persons.
Considering that the marriage of Abe and Bea
is a bigamous marriage, having been
solemnized during the subsistence of a
previous marriage then presumed to be valid,
Article 148 governs. This provision creates a
limited co-ownership (depending on the wages
and salaries earned by the parties and their
actual contributions in the acquisition of
properties) between a man and a woman
who cohabit under a bigamous marriage;
between a man and a woman who are
engaged in an adulterous relationship;
between a man and a woman who cohabit in
woman who are married to other persons,
and in case of multiple dalliances of the same
man with different women.
QUESTION NO. 168
Abe and Bea, a childless couple, brought
Christian, the infant son of their driver who
died in an accident, into their home. The
couple took care of Christian, doted on him,
reared him, and treated him as their own son.
When Christian went to Manila to study, Abe
and Bea became so lonely that they judicially
adopted Digna, a 10-year old orphan.

After several years, Christian and Digna fell in
love, and, when both were over 25, they got
married without informing Abe and Bea.
Believing that it was unfair not to have legally
adopted Christian, Abe and Bea decided to
legally adopt him. The court granted the
adoption.
1. Is Christians adoption valid?
Yes. Even assuming that Christian was already
of legal age when Abe and Bea adopted him,
the decree of adoption is still valid because a
person of age can be adopted if he had been
consistently considered and treated by the
adopter as his or her own child during
minority.
2. What is the legal standing of Christians
marriage to Digna?
Christians marriage to Digna is valid. Article
38 (8) of the Family Code expressly declares
by reason of public policy that a marriage
between adopted children of the same adopter
is void. This prohibition does not apply here
because at the time of their marriage, Christian
was not yet the legally adopted child of Abe
and Bea.
QUESTION NO. 169
Abe and Ana travelled to Boracay with their
friends and co-employees on a company
outing. While swimming, Abe shouted for
help. Because Abe appeared to be frantic and
drowning, the life guard on duty swam to
where Abe was and rescued Abe. At the beach,
Abe begged Ana to marry him, declaring his
undying love for her. Believing that Abe was
at the point of death, Bea consented, and they
were married instantly by a priest who was
nearby.
After the ceremony, Abe bounced back to life
as if nothing happened. He then confided to
his friend that he pretended to be drowning
when he shouted for help. Abe died of
drowning the following day. What is the legal
standing of Abes marriage to Ana?
The marriage is void for lack of a valid
marriage license. A marriage in articulo mortis
is exempt from a marriage license. It is a
marriage where either or both parties are at
the point of death. Abe was not at the point
of death when the marriage was performed.
Consequently, the marriage is not a marriage
Page 46 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
in articulo mortis which would have excused
Abe and Ana from securing a marriage license.
That Abe died of drowning the following day
does not detract from the fact that at the time
of the marriage, Abe was not at the point of
death.
QUESTION NO. 170
Tom, a widower, who was 89 years of age
and suffering from minor ailments, including
decreased hearing and impairment of vision,
made a will a month before his death leaving
an estate valued at Php900,000. In his will,
Tom disinherited his eldest son, Abe, without
stating the reason therefor. Tom emphatically
stated in his will that his two other children,
Bea and Carl, are the only heirs who are to
inherit from his estate to the exclusion of Abe.
Tom appointed his friend, Rey, as executor of
his will. How shall Rey distribute Toms estate?
The institution of Bea and Carl as Toms heirs
remains valid, but their shares are to be
reduced to allow Abe to receive his legitime.
Abe is legally entitled to receive his legitime
because he was disinherited for no cause by his
father. Had there been preterition here, as
when Abe was omitted from the inheritance,
Toms three children would be entitled to
receive Php300,000 each from the estate. But
because this is not a case of preterition but one
for ineffective disinheritance, the estate would
be distributed as follows:
Abe: 150,000 (legitime)
Bea: 150,000 (legitime)
225,000 (free portion)
Carl: 150,000 (legitime)
225,000 (free portion)
________
900,000
QUESTION NO. 171
Pedro died without a will. He is survived by
his legitimate children, Abe and Bea; by his
widow, Wendy; and by Carl, his illegitimate
child. The net value of Pedros estate is
Php1.4 million. How shall Pedros estate
distributed?
Satisfy the legitimes of the heirs first. The
balance must be divided among the heirs in
the proportion of 2:2:2:1.

LEGITIMES:
Abe 350,000
Bea 350,000
Wendy 350,000
Carl 175,000
________
BALANCE 175,000
The balance of 175,000 is to be divided
equally among the heirs in the proportion of
2:2:2:1. Thus, Abe, Bea, and Wendy are
entitled to 2/7 each of 175,000, or 50,000
each. Carl is entitled to 1/7 of 175,000, or
25,000. The final distribution would be as
follows:
Abe 350,000 plus 50,000
Bea 350,000 plus 50,000
Wendy 350,000 plus 50,000
Carl 175,000 plus 25,000
TOTAL 1.4 million
QUESTION NO. 172
Determine the appropriate remedy of the
aggrieved party in the following cases. Explain
your answer.
1. Abe, pretending to be a horticulturist, sells
to Tessie a bonsai plant which he claims will
bear cherry tomatoes. Tessie buys the
bonsai plant only to learn later that it
wont bear fruit.
2. Abe, a florist, agrees to decorate the tables
at the wedding reception of Tessies
daughter. In the purchase order form, Abe
agreed to supply 12 table centerpieces made
of a bunch of yellow roses in elaborate
floral arrangement. Instead, Abe delivers 12
centerpieces made of a single yellow rose
surrounded by Malaysian mums.
3. Rey hires Abe to transport Reys friends to
Mt. Pinatubo for a trek to the summit on a
4x4 vehicle due to the difficulty of the
terrain. Abe borrows a vehicle from Larry,
but Larry lends Abe a vehicle which is not
4x4.
4. Ana sells to Bea her diamond ring. Bea,
accompanied by Ana, brings the ring to an
appraiser who certifies the ring to be
genuine. Unknown to Bea, Ana had the
appraiser examine a different ring such that
Page 47 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
the ring that was brought by Bea was not
real.
Tessie has no remedy in (a). No express
warranty is created simply by the seller
expressing his personal opinion to the buyer,
nor do his statements to the buyer constitute a
warranty if he is just talking up the
merchandise (called puffing), even though
the buyer may rely on such statements. Even
the use of the word guarantee adds little,
considering how it was used. A statement of
fact must be of the essence of the subject
matter.
Abe is liable for damages in (b) for breach of
the obligation. Article 1170 of the Civil Code
refers to incidental fraud (dolo incidente)
committed in the performance of an
obligation already existing because of a
contract. Here, Abe is liable because he
deviated from his agreement with Tessie to
decorate the centerpieces with a bunch of
yellow roses.
Abe is liable for damages in (c) because he
deviated from his undertaking to transport Rey
and his friends on board a 4x4 vehicle which is
an essential element of the undertaking given
the difficult terrain of in reaching the summit
of Mt. Pinatubo.
Bea can sue for annulment of the sale with
damages in (d) on the ground that Ana
committed fraud in inducing Bea to agree to
the sale. It is clear here that had Bea known
that she was not buying a genuine diamond
ring, she would not have consented to the
sale.
QUESTION NO. 173
Abe, 70, lends Rey the sum of Php1 million
with interest thereon at 15% per annum.
When the loan fell due, Rey attempted to
deliver a personal check to Abe, inclusive of
the stipulated interest, but Abe refuses to see
him. Apparently, Abe suffers from dementia;
and there is a pending proceeding to place him
under guardianship. The court has temporarily
placed Abe in the care of his nephew, Larry, as
guardian ad litem pending the issuance of
letters of guardianship that will officially
appoint Larry as Abes guardian. What is Reys
remedy?
Rey is obliged to tender the payment to Larry
pursuant to Article 1240 of the Civil Code

which provides that payment shall be made to
the person in whose favour the obligation has
been constituted, or his successor in interest, or
any person authorized to receive it. Since Abe,
the creditor, was placed in the care of a
temporary guardian ad litem who is
authorized to administer Abes estate pending
the appointment of a permanent guardian, the
temporary guardian is decidedly a person
authorized to receive the payment.
QUESTION NO. 174
Paterno, 87, died of a heart attack without
having executed a will in his lifetime. Surviving
Paterno at the time of his death were his
widowed mother, Marie; his wife, Wendy; his
legitimate children, Abe and Bea; his grandson,
Eric, who is the son of Bea; his grandson,
Fidel, who is a legitimate son of Carl, a
legitimate son of Paterno who died five years
ago; and another grandson, Greg, the latter
being the legitimate son of Dante, a legitimate
son of Paterno who repudiated his inheritance
from his father. How shall Paternos estate of
Php1.2 million be distributed?
The legal heirs of Paterno are Abe, Bea, Fidel,
and Wendy. Eric is excluded by his mother Bea
who is still alive. Fidel represents Carl who
predeceased Paterno. Greg is excluded because
of the repudiation of Dante. Marie is likewise
excluded in view of the survival of Paternos
legitimate children.
In addition to their respective legitimes, Abe,
Bea, Fidel and Wendy are entitled to equal
shares in the free portion of Php400,000.
Consequently, the final distribution of
Paternos estate is as follows:
Abe 200,000 plus 100,000
Bea 200,000 plus 100,000
Fidel 200,000 plus 100,000
Wendy 200,000 plus 100,000
QUESTION NO. 175
With her deceased first husband, Bea begot
two children, Don and Eric. With her deceased
second husband, Bea begot Fidel, Greg, Henry,
and Inigo. Bea died last year followed by Don
who died this year without a will. Don is
survived by all his siblings. The net value of
Dons estate is Php1.2 million.
1. How shall Dons estate be distributed?
Page 48 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
The rule of double share for full-blood relative
applies. Here, Eric is entitled to a share double
that of his half-siblings Fidel, Greg, Henry, and
Inigo. Therefore:
Eric 400,000
Fidel 200,000
Greg 200,000
Henry 200,000
Inigo 200,000
________
1.2 million
b. Suppose all of Dons siblings predeceased
him, and the only survivors are his nephew,
John, the legitimate son of Eric, and his
nephews, Kurt and Lyle, the legitimate
children of Henry, how shall the estate be
divided?
The rule of double share for full-blood
collateral still applies. If there are nephews and
nieces surviving the decedent, relationship by
the whole or half-blood becomes material in
the distribution of the estate. Here, all the
nephews inherit in their own right because
they do not concur with an uncle or aunt.
John 600,000
Kurt 300,000
Lyle 300,000
________
1.2 million
QUESTION NO. 176
After securing a marriage license, Abe and Bea,
both residents of Manila, went to the Office of
the Mayor of Baguio City, to get married. The
mayor was not at his office but a secretary at
the office asked Abe and Bea and their
witnesses to fill up and sign the marriage
contract forms. Thereafter, the secretary went
out of the office to look for the mayor who
she found in another office holding a meeting.
The mayor signed all copies of the marriage
contract and gave them back to the secretary
who returned to the office. The secretary then
gave a copy of the marriage contract to Abe
and Bea and told them they are already
married. What is the legal standing of the
marriage?
The marriage is void because the mayor did
not perform a ceremony. A marriage
ceremony is one which takes place with the
appearance of the contracting parties before
the solemnizing officer and their personal

declaration that they take each other as
husband and wife in the presence of not less
than two witnesses of legal age. (Article 3[3],
Family Code)
QUESTION NO. 177
Ana is the wife of Abe. Abe was among the
passengers on board a passenger plane that
mysteriously crashed in 2002. Five years after
the crash, and believing that her husband had
died in the crash, Ana married Rey. The
marriage was performed without Ana
obtaining a prior judicial declaration of her
missing husbands presumptive death. Ten
years later, the authorities found the remnants
of the plane. After a diligent search, Abes
body was recovered. Per official report
submitted by government officials on the cause
of the accident, no passenger survived in the
plane crash. What is the status of Anas
marriage to Rey?
The marriage is valid because there was no
impediment to the valid celebration of Anas
second marriage, Anas husband being dead at
that time. That there was no prior judicial
declaration of presumptive death of Anas
husband before Anas remarriage is of no
moment because it turned out that the
husband died in the plane crash thereby
removing any impediment to Anas
remarriage.
QUESTION NO. 178
Maria, an illiterate widow, verbally sold to
Pedro in 1978 the farm which she and her
deceased husband had acquired by way of free
patent from the government in 1974. After
receiving the agreed purchase price, Maria
vacated the property and turned over
possession to Pedro. Shortly after Marias
death in 1994, Pedro attempted to resell the
farm, but failed to do so because the title
remained in Marias name. Informed of the
attempted sale, Marias only child, Juan,
demanded that Pedro vacate the property and
return it to Juan. Juan is aware of the previous
sale but he was a still minor at the time of the
sale.
1. Does Juan still have a remedy?
Yes. Juans remedy is to file an action for the
recovery of the property or for declaration of
nullity of the sale on the ground that the
Page 49 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
contract of sale is void for being contrary to
public policy.
2. Has the action prescribed?
The action has not yet prescribed. The sale of
the land by Maria to Pedro four years after the
issuance of the free patent, being in violation
of Section 118 of the Public Land Act, is void
from its inception. Juans action to declare the
nullity of the contract and to recover the land
should therefore be given due course. The
defense of prescription is even untenable
because an action which seeks to declare
nullity of a contract does not prescribe. (Art.
1410, Civil Code)
3. Can Pedro successfully invoke the pari
delicto doctrine rule in his defense?
No. While as a rule, parties who are in pari
delicto have no recourse against each other on
the principle that a transgressor cannot profit
from his own wrongdoing (Art. 1412[1], Civil
Code), such rule does not apply to violations
of Section 118 of the Public Land Act. This is so
because of the underlying public policy in said
law to conserve the land which a homesteader
has acquired by gratuitous grant from the
government for himself and his family.
QUESTION NO. 179
Abe and Bertha, both of marriageable age and
not suffering from any impediment, are living
together as husband and wife without the
benefit of marriage. Not able to beget a child
after five years of cohabitation, they sought
medical advice from a doctor. After some
tests, the doctor found Abe to be sterile.
Longing to have a child, Bertha underwent
artificial insemination using the sperm of Abes
brother, Rey. The consent of the three to the
procedure was reduced in writing. Lea later
gave birth to Larry. Which of the following
statements accurately describes Larrys status?
1. Larry is the legitimate child of Abe and
Bertha because their consent to the medical
procedure was in writing pursuant to law.
2. Larry is the illegitimate child of Abe and
Bertha because the couple are not married.
3. Larry is the illegitimate child of Rey and
Bertha because they are the biological
parents.

4. Larry is the illegitimate child of Bertha
because she is not married and there is no
presumption as to who the father is.
5. There is no presumption as to Larrys status.
The statement in (e) is correct because there is
no law which provides for the status of a child
born of artificial insemination procured by
persons who are not lawfully married, as in
the case of Abe and Bertha.
The statement in (a) is wrong. Larry is not the
legitimate child of Abe and Bertha because
they are not lawfully married. This is clear
from the provision under the second
paragraph of Article 164 of the Family Code
which declares that children conceived as a
result of artificial insemination of the wife with
the sperm of the husband or that of a donor
or both are legitimate children of the husband
and his wife provided that both of them
authorized or ratified such insemination in
writing before the birth of the child and
recorded in the civil registry together with the
birth certificate of the child.
The statement in (b) is wrong because Larry is
not the illegitimate child of Abe and Bertha.
The provision under Article 165 of the Family
Code that children conceived and born
outside a valid marriage are illegitimate is
applicable only when the child was naturally
conceived, and not through artificial
insemination.
The statement in (c) is wrong for the same
reason stated in the preceding paragraph.
The statement in (d) is wrong for the same
reason stated in the preceding paragraph.
QUESTION NO. 180
Determine the validity of the following
marriages:
1. Abe is married to Bea, while Carol is
married to David. Abe and Carol are
legitimate brother and sister, respectively.
Upon the death of Abe and Carol who died
in the same plane crash, Bea marries David.
The marriage is valid because it is neither
incestuous nor contrary to public policy.
Article 38 of the Family Code enumerates the
marriages which are void by reason of public
Page 50 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
policy. Beas marriage to David is not one of
those prohibited.
2. Abe, the only son of Pedro, is lawfully
married to Bea, the only daughter of Maria.
Pedro a widower, later marries Maria who
is herself a widow.
The marriage is valid because it is neither
incestuous nor contrary to public policy.
Article 38 of the Family Code enumerates the
marriages which are void by reason of public
policy. Pedros marriage to Maria is not one of
those prohibited.
3. Pedro is a widower, while Maria is a
widow. Being sweethearts in high school,
they rekindled their long lost love and got
married. After several years, Abe, Pedros
son by his former marriage, marries Bea,
Marias daughter by her deceased husband.
The marriage is valid because it is neither
incestuous nor contrary to public policy. Abe
and Bea are stepbrother and stepsister,
respectively. Article 38 of the Family Code
enumerates the marriages which are void by
reason of public policy. Abes marriage to Bea
is not one of those prohibited.
4. Abner, a narcotics agent, kills Benjie, a
notorious drug pusher. Abner is later
acquitted of Benjies killing, and marries
Cynthia, Benjies widow.
Abners marriage to Cynthia is valid because
Benjies killing by Abner was not for the
purpose of marrying Cynthia, but in line with
his duty as a narcotics agent.
5. Arnold, single, adopted Brad. Carol, also
single, adopted Dina. Arnold and Carol get
married. Fifteen years later, Brad marries
Dina.
The marriage is valid because it is not contrary
to public policy. While Article 38 (8) of the
Family Code prohibits the marriage between
adopted children of the same adopter, Brad
and Dina are not the adopted children of the
same adopter Brad being the adopted child
of Arnold, and Dina being the adopted child
of Carol.
6. Abe is the husband of Bea. Upon Abes
death, Bea marries Pedro, the widowed
father of Abe.

The marriage is void because it is a marriage
between a father-in-law and a daughter-in-law
which is prohibited under Article 38 (3) of the
Family Code for being contrary to public
policy.
7. Maria, single, adopted Carol, the infant
daughter of her driver. A few years later,
Maria gives birth to David out of her
relationship with her boyfriend, Abe, a
good for nothing gigolo. Maria doted on
Carol and treated her as if she were her
son. Maria also took care of David and,
together with Carol, sent both children to
exclusive schools. In college, David falls in
love with, and marries Carol.
The marriage is valid because it is not contrary
to public policy. While Article 38 (7) of the
Family Code prohibits the marriage between
an adopted child and a legitimate child of the
adopting parent, there is no similar prohibition
regarding the marriage between an adopted
child and an illegitimate child of the adopting
parent.
QUESTION NO. 181
Petronilo, an illegitimate person, dies without
a will. He is survived by his father, Fidel; his
widow, Wanda; his brother, Arnel; and his
brothers, Ben and Cosme, children of Fidel
from his lawful marriage. The net value of
Petronilos estate is Php1.2 million. How shall
the distribution be made?
Only Fidel and Wanda are entitled to inherit
from Petronilos estate, at Php600,000 each.
Illegitimate parents, such as Fidel, do not
exclude the surviving spouse. Arnel, Ben, and
Cosme, brothers of Petronilo, are not entitled
to inherit because they are excluded by Fidel
pursuant to the principle of preference of line
in succession.
QUESTION NO. 182
Tristan designated his legitimate children,
Arnel and Ben, and his friend, Fidel, as his
heirs to an estate valued at Php6 million.
Tristan dies. Divide the estate.
The institution of Arnel, Ben and Fidel
concerns only the free disposal of Php3
million. Arnel and Ben are first given their
respective legitimes (Php1.5 million each. The
free disposal is then divided equally among the
three instituted heirs:
Page 51 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
Arnel: 1.5 million (compulsory heir)
1 million (voluntary heir)
Ben: 1.5 million (compulsory heir)
1 million (voluntary heir)
Fidel: 1 million (voluntary heir)
QUESTION NO. 183
Is a motion for intervention appropriate in a
land registration case?
No. Unlike in ordinary civil actions where
parties may include a plaintiff, a defendant, a
third-party complainants, cross-claimants, and
intervenors, the only parties in cases of original
applications for land registration are the
applicant and the oppositor. (Secs. 14 , 25 PD
1529) If a party desires to be heard in a land
registration case, he should ask for the lifting
of the order of general default, and then if
lifted, file an opposition to the application for
registration.
QUESTION NO. 184
Is a motion to dismiss allowed in a land
registration case?
Yes. Both the Land Registration Act (Act No.
496) and the Property Registration Decree of
1978 (PD No. 1529) do not provide a
prohibition for the filing of a pleading similar
to a motion to dismiss. Section 34 of PD 1529
specifically provides that, the Rules of Court
shall, insofar as not inconsistent with the
provisions of this Decree, be applicable to land
registration and cadastral cases by analogy or
in a suppletory character and whenever
practicable and convenient.
QUESTION NO. 185
Husband is the operator of a public utility
vehicle which meets an accident resulting in
the death of a passenger. When judgment is
rendered against him, and execution is levied
on a conjugal house and lot, he claims that the
share of his wife in the property should not be
made to answer for the debt. Is Husbands
contention tenable?
Yes. The absolute community is not liable
because of par. 9, Article 94 of the Family
Code, which provides that liabilities incurred
by either spouse by reason of a crime or quasi-
delict, in case of absence or insufficiency of the

exclusive property of the debtor-spouse
presupposes that the husband alone is liable,
but the payment may be advanced by the
community property to be deducted from the
husbands share upon liquidation of the
community.
QUESTION NO. 186
Abe and Betty, husband wife, are the parents
of Arnel and Ben. By a previous marriage, Abe
has a legitimate child, Carl. Also by a previous
marriage, Betty has a legitimate child, Denver.
Abe gave each of the four children for their
education a donation, but did not get Bettys
consent. Who is liable for the value of the
donations?
The donations given to Arnel and Ben are
valid because they were made to the common
children of Abe and Betty in furtherance of the
career of both children. Therefore, the
expenses are to be borne by the absolute
community despite the fact that Bettys
consent had not been obtained.
On the other hand, the donation given to Carl
is valid, but the absolute community is not
liable. Only the husband is liable. It is true that
it was given for the purpose of finishing a
career, but here the consent of the wife was
not obtained. Carl is not a common child of
Abe and Betty, but of Abe only. The donation
given to Denver is void. This is so because the
donation would be an indirect donation of
Abe to Betty who is a presumptive heir of
Denver.
QUESTION NO. 187
If useful improvements can be removed by the
possessor in good faith without injury, may
the owner decide to retain them? If so, how
much should the owner refund to the
possessor in good faith?
A possessor in good faith has the right to
remove his useful improvements provided no
substantial damage or injury is caused to the
principal, reducing its value, unless the owner
refunds to the possessor in good faith the
amount spent in the increase in value which
the thing may have acquired by reason of the
improvements.
Page 52 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
QUESTION NO. 188
Abdul is a barter trader in Zamboangan City.
He communicates via text messaging to Kiram,
who is based in Jolo, to transact business. Last
month, he agreed with Kiram to exchange a
cargo of batik clothing, numbering 200 pieces
of assorted shirts, malong, and skirts, with a
cargo of 50 boxes of canned goods imported
from Australia. Kiram received the batik items,
but did not send the canned goods to Abdul
because of news reports that the incursion of
Abu Sayyaf had stopped the barter trade. Is
Kiram in breach of his obligation?
Yes, because he failed to do what is incumbent
upon him upon delivery of the batik goods to
him. Moreover, Kiram is not even allowed to
invoke the defense of fortuitous event
considering that he was already in delay in the
performance of his obligation.
QUESTION NO. 189
Abe promises to sell to Melany a parcel of
land at a reduced price on condition that
Melany should stay single and not marry
anyone. Melany subsequently enters a convent
to become a nun. The following year, Melany
demands fulfilment of Abes promise. Is Abe
bound by his promise?
Abe is not obliged to sell the land to Melany
because the condition attached to it is contrary
to law and public policy as an undue restraint
on individual freedom.
QUESTION NO. 190
Abe owes Rey Php2 million payable on or
before December 31. To secure the loan, Abe
executes a mortgage in favor of Rey on Abes
building. On October 25, the mortgaged
building is totally destroyed in a fire of
accidental origin. After the fire, Rey
immediately demands payment from Abe. Is
Reys demand valid?
Yes. The debt becomes due and demandable
at once because the security is lost even
through a fortuitous event, unless the debtor
can furnish another security for the loan which
is equally satisfactory. (Art. 1198, Civil Code)
This is once instance where the debtor loses
the benefit of the period.

QUESTION NO. 191
Husband catches Wife having illicit relations
with Gigolo. Husband then tells Wife that he
will file an action against her for legal
separation to which the latter agreed provided
she will not be charged criminally. Husband
promptly files a complaint for legal separation.
Wife defaults. When questioned by the Public
Prosecutor why she failed to file an answer,
Wife signifies her intention to the petition for
legal separation. Is there a confession of
judgment?
No. On the contrary, the petition for legal
separation should be granted in view of the
presence of other evidence. Here, there was
only an extra-judicial admission and not a
confession of judgment (which usually happens
when the defendant appears in court and
confesses the right of plaintiff to judgment or
files a pleading agreeing to plaintiffs demand).
Even if the statement of Wife really constitutes
a confession of judgment, still, inasmuch as
there is evidence of sexual infidelity on the
part of the wife independently of such
statement, the decree of legal separation
would be premised not on her confession, but
on the strength of the evidence of sexual
infidelity on the part of the wife. What the law
prohibits is a judgment based exclusively on
the confession of judgment. If a confession can
automatically and itself defeat the suit, any
defendant who opposes the legal separation
will immediately confess judgment, purposely
to prevent the giving of the decree.
QUESTION NO. 192
According to Article 58 of the Family Code, an
action for legal separation shall in no case be
tried before six months shall have elapsed since
the filing of petition, the purpose being to
provide the parties a cooling-off period. Is this
requirement absolute?
An action for legal separation requires a
cooling-off period of six months. However,
when the ground alleged is one of those falling
under R.A. No.9262 (Anti-Violence Against
Women and their Children Act), there is no
such cooling-off period because the courts
are mandated to proceed with the hearing of
the case as soon as possible. (Sec. 19, RA No.
9262)
Page 53 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
QUESTION NO. 193
Homer is married to Winda. Before their
marriage, Winda confessed to Homer that she
was two-month pregnant with the child of an
African-American engineer who had already
left the country. When the child was born,
Homer could not accept it for being too black
in complexion. What is the status of the child?
The child is the legitimate child of Homer and
Winda because it was born within a valid
marriage. This is so because under the law, a
child conceived and born during lawful
wedlock is almost conclusively presumed
legitimate. The presumption is almost
conclusive because the law allows certain
grounds to disprove it. (Art. 164, Family Code)
QUESTION NO. 194
Husband and Wife are living separately from
each other. After their separation, Wife
cohabited with Gigolo from 1985 up to the
latters death in 2005. In 1994, Wife gave birth
to Son. During the three-day stay of Wife at
the hospital, Gigolo visited and stayed with
her and the new-born baby. All the medical
and hospital expenses, food, and clothing of
Wife and the baby were paid under the
account of Gigolo.
A few months later, Gigolo would bring Son
to his office, introduce him as his son, and had
their pictures taken together. On the occasion
of Gigolos last birthday, he expressly
acknowledged Son to be his son in the
presence of a priest and other friends. Since his
birth, Son had been in continuous possession
and enjoyment of the status of a recognized
child of Gigolo by the latters direct and overt
acts. After Gigolos death, Wife, as guardian of
Son, brought an action to claim his sons share
in the estate of Gigolo claiming that her son is
the illegitimate child of the deceased. Is Son
the illegitimate child of Gigolo?
No. A child born and conceived during a valid
marriage is presumed to be legitimate. While
physical impossibility for the husband to have
sexual intercourse with his wife is one of the
grounds for impugning the legitimacy of a
child born to the wife, the grounds for
impugning such legitimacy under Article 166 of
the Family Code may only be invoked by the
husband, or in proper cases, his heirs under the

conditions set forth under Article 171 also of
the Family Code.
Outside of these cases, no one - even the heirs
- can impugn legitimacy. If the husband who is
presumed to be the father does not impugn
the legitimacy of the child, then the status of
the child is fixed and the latter cannot choose
to be the child of his mothers alleged
paramour. Moreover, it is settled that a child
born within a valid marriage is presumed
legitimate even though the mother may have
declared against its legitimacy or may have
been declared as an adulteress. (Liyao v. Liyao,
378 SCRA 563 [2002])
QUESTION NO. 195
Tom in his will designated his legitimate
children, Abe and Ben, and his childhood
friend, Fidel, as his universal heirs. Abe
predeceased his father, Tom, without any
descendant to inherit from him. Tom died
with an estate valued at Php600,000. Divide
the estate.
Abes supposed share in the legitime
(Php150,000) goes to his brother, Ben, who
will inherit it in his own right since it is the
legitime. Abes share in the free portion
(Php50,000) will go equally to Ben and Fidel
by accretion since it is the proportion in which
they were instituted to the free portion. If
Fidel predeceases Tom, his share in the free
portion will go to Abe and Ben by accretion. It
is so because they were instituted as voluntary
heirs.
QUESTION NO. 196
Paco has three legitimate brothers (Abe, Ben,
and Chad) Abe predeceases Paco, but he is
survived by his legitimate child, Arnel. Ben is
incapacitated, but he has two legitimate
children, Brad and Bien. Chad repudiates the
inheritance. How shall Pacos intestate estate
of Php1.2 million be distributed?
The Php400,000 share of Abe who
predeceased his brother, Paco, goes to his
legitimate child, Arnel, by representation. The
Php400,000 share of Ben who is
incapacitated to inherit goes to his legitimate
children, Brad and Bien, also by
representation, or Php200,000 each. The
Php400,000 share of Chad who repudiated
the inheritance goes to Arnel, Brad and Bien
Page 54 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
by accretion in the same proportion that they
inherit, or in the proportion of 2:1:1.
Arnel 400,000 by representation
200,000 by accretion
Brad 200,000 by representation
100,000 by accretion
Bien 200,000 by representation
100,000 by accretion
QUESTION NO. 197
What are the essential characteristics of a
decree of registration or certificate of title?
FIRST: A decree of registration or the
corresponding certificate of title binds the land,
quiets title thereto, and is conclusive against all
persons, including the government.
SECOND: After one year from its entry or
even earlier in cases where title to the land has
been transferred to an innocent purchaser for
value, the decree becomes final and
incontrovertible.
THIRD: A torrens title issued pursuant to a
homestead patent, free patent, or sales patent
under the Public Land Act has the same force
and effect as a Torrens title.
FOURTH: The operative act that conveys or
affects a registered land is the act of
registration insofar as third persons are
concerned.
FIFTH: No title to registered land in
derogation of the title of the registered owner
shall be acquired by prescription or adverse
possession. However, the registered owner
may be barred from invoking the
imprescriptibility of his title by virtue of the
equitable principle of laches. (Heirs of Batiog-
Lacamen v. Heirs of Lauran, 65 SCRA 605)
SIXTH: Torrens titles are not subject to
collateral attack. It cannot be altered,
modified, or cancelled, except in a direct
proceeding in accordance with law.
QUESTION NO. 198
Which of two titles is superior: an earlier title
secured administratively or a later title secured
through a judicial proceeding?
 Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza

The person holding the prior certificate of title doesnt matter whether their relationship is
is entitled to the land as against the person illegitimate.
who relies on the second certificate. Pursuant
The marriage in (b) is valid because Arnulfo
to Section 32 of P.D. No. 1529, upon the
was no longer suffering from any impediment
expiration of one year from the issuance or
when he married his sister-in-law, Angela. A
entry of the decree of registration, the decree
marriage between a brother-in-law and a
and certificate shall become indefeasible and
sister-in-law is valid because it is not one of
incontrovertible. This provision also applies to
those prohibited by law for reasons of public
titles acquired through homestead or other
policy. (Art. 38, Family Code)
public land patents. (Lahora v. Dayanghirang,
37 SCRA 346) QUESTION NO. 200
QUESTION NO. 199 Tom executed a will giving a legacy of Php1
million to his friend, Frank. Tom executed the
If the title of a land applicant to a public
will in the presence of three instrumental
agricultural land is incomplete or imperfect,
witnesses. One of the instrumental witnesses
what is his ultimate remedy under the law?
was Frank. Is the will valid?
If the applicant of a parcel of land cannot
The will is valid and binding because of the
sustain his claim of private ownership or does
presence of three instrumental witnesses, but
not have enough evidence to overcome the
Frank is incompetent to receive the legacy. If a
presumption that the land belongs to the
person attests the execution of a will, to
public domain under the Regalian Doctrine, his
whom a devise or legacy is given by such will,
ultimate recourse is to admit that the land is a
such devise or legacy, so far as such person is
public land but invoke his right to confirm his
concerned, shall be void, unless there are three
imperfect or incomplete title to the land under
other competent witnesses to such will.
Section 48 of the Public Land Act, C.A. No.
However, such person so attesting shall be
141.
admitted as a witness as if such devise or
QUESTION NO. 199 legacy had not been made or given. (Art. 823,
Civil Code)
Which of the following marriages would a
court most likely declare void? QUESTION NO. 201

a. Abe and Bea are married and have a son,
Charlie, who is 19. David and his girlfriend,
Elnora, have a daughter, Fiona, who is 18.
Abe and David are brothers. Charlie and
Fiona got marriage last year with the
consent of their parents.
b. Arnulfo and Anabelle are husband and
wife. Anabelle died of pancreatic cancer
two years ago. Distraught by his wifes
death, Arnulfo married Angela, 26.
Anabelle and Angela are sisters.
The marriage in (a) between Charlie and Fiona
would most likely be declared void, but not
the marriage in (b) between Arnulfo and his
sister-in-law, Angela.
The marriage in (a) is void because Charlie and
Fiona are first cousins. Their marriage is void
under Article 38 (a) of the Family Code
because they are collateral relatives within the
fourth civil degree of consanguinity, and it
Abe, single, died without a will with an estate
valued at Php1.2 million. He is survived by the
following relatives:
a. Ana, the daughter of Rey, the latter being
Abes legitimate brother. Rey has never
been married.
b. Bea, the daughter of Sam, the latter being
Abes legitimate brother. Sam was not yet
married to Beas mother when Bea was
born. Sam has since married Beas mother.
c. Candy, the adopted daughter of Sam.
d. Dina, the daughter of Tina, the latter being
Abes legitimate sister. Shortly after Dinas
birth, Tina and her husband died in an
accident. Dina was later adopted by an
American couple.
Who is entitled to inherit from Abe?
Only Bea and Dina are entitled to inherit from
Abe. Bea is entitled to inherit because she is

Page 55 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Abes niece, she being the legitimated daughter
of Sam, Abes legitimate brother. A legitimated
child shall enjoy the same rights as legitimate
children. (Art. 179, Family Code)
Dina is also entitled to inherit because she is
the legitimate daughter of Tina, Abes sister.
That Dina was adopted by an American couple
does not disqualify her to inherit from Abe
because an adopted child remains an intestate
heir of his parents and other blood relatives.
Ana is not qualified to inherit from Abe
because of her status as an illegitimate child of
Rey. An illegitimate child has no right to
inherit ab intestato from the legitimate
relatives of his father or mother. (Art. 992,
Civil Code). Since Abe is a legitimate brother
of Rey, Ana is therefore excluded from Abes
inheritance.
Candy is also not qualified to inherit from Abe
because of her status as an adopted child of
Sam, Abes brother. Candys relationship with
Sam, her adoptive father, is purely personal
between them and does not extend to Abe.
QUESTION NO. 202
Abe wanted to have his house remodeled. He
called a number of building contractors and
received bids ranging from Php1 million to
Php1.5 million. Ben submitted a bid to do the
work for Php900,000. Abe then entered into
a notarized contract with Ben to have the
house remodeled.
Shortly before Ben was scheduled to begin
work, he called Abe and said, I just found out
my secretary made a mistake in adding figures.
I couldnt possibly do the work for
Php900,000 or Id lose money. Abe sues Ben
for breach of contract. Judgment for whom?
Judgment for Abe if he did not have reason to
know Bens erroneous bid. Ben cannot refuse
to perform on grounds of unilateral mistake
because mistake cannot and ought not co-exist
with negligence, as in this case. (Art. 1331, Civil
Code)
QUESTION NO. 203
Which of the following agreements need not
comply with the Statute of Frauds?
a. Abe is indebted to Ben which is now due.
Clay, a friend of Abe, promises to pay Ben
Page 56 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
what Abe owes in case the latter defaults in
his obligation to Ben.
8. Abe intends to borrow money from Ben to
finance a business. Clay, a friend of Abe,
tells Ben to extend the loan to Abe and
represents that Abe financially able in
paying the loan obligation.
9. Abe sells to Rey a car for Php150,000.
10.Abe assigns his leasehold rights to Rey for
the remainder of the lease period.
The agreement in (d) need not comply with
the Statute of Frauds. The contracts which are
required to be in writing to be enforceable are
those enumerated under Article 1403 (2) of
the Civil Code. The list is exclusive. An
assignment of leasehold rights, even if the lease
involves real property, is not among the
contracts which are required to be in writing
to be enforceable. Inclusio unius, est exclusio
alterius.
The agreements in (a), (b), and (c) are required
to be in writing because they all fall under the
Statute of Frauds. The agreement in (a)
constitutes a special promise to answer for the
debt, default or miscarriage of another; the
agreement in (b) constitutes a representation as
to the credit of another; while the agreement
in (c) involves the sale of personalty the price
of which is in excess of Php500.00.
QUESTION NO. 204
Ali and Raida, both of age and not suffering
from any impediment, have lived together for
several years as husband and wife without
marriage. Following the birth of a son, the
couple got married. The marriage proved to
be a failure when it was annulled on grounds
that, at the time of the marriage, Ali concealed
to Raida his affliction with a serious and
incurable sexually-transmissible disease. What
is the childs status?
The subsequent annulment of the marriage of
Ali and Raida does not affect the legitimated
status of their son. This is so because a
voidable marriage is one which is valid until
annulled.
QUESTION NO. 205
Two years ago, Abe, an engineer, and Bea, a
nurse, were introduced to each other by a

mutual friend. Tessie was a single parent with
a two-year old son, Sam. Abe and Bea were
married last year.
Immediately after the marriage, Abe, with
Beas consent, filed a petition to adopt Sam.
Sams birth certificate identified Rey as the
father. When Sam was a baby, Rey denied
paternity and left the Philippines. The court
granted the adoption. Is the adoption of Sam
by Abe valid?
Sams adoption by Abe is void. Under the
Domestic Adoption Act, a person who is
financially capable of giving care and support
may adopt a child. Although Abe, being a
lawyer, is financially capable of giving care and
support to Sam, his adoption of Sam is void.
The Domestic Adoption Act specifically
requires that the husband and wife shall jointly
adopt, except if one spouse seeks to adopt the
legitimate child of the other; or if one spouse
seeks to adopt his or her own illegitimate
child; or if the spouses are legally separated
from each other. Abe does not fall under any
of these exceptions. His adoption of Sam,
although with Beas consent, is a complete
nullity. To be valid, the adoption should have
been filed jointly with Bea.
QUESTION NO. 206
Abe and Bea, a childless couple, were married
ten years ago. Despite several trips to Obando,
Bulacan, Bea still failed to conceive a child.
Bea attributes her failure to conceive a child to
the fact that Abes family has a history of
fertility problem. Anxious to have a child, Bea
secretly had herself artificially inseminated with
the sperm of an unnamed donor. When Abe
discovered Beas pregnancy through this
procedure, he immediately commenced an
action for legal separation. Will Abe prevail?
Abe will not prevail because Bea is neither
guilty of sexual infidelity nor of any other
ground for legal separation under Article 55 of
the Family Code. Abes only remedy in law is
to impugn the legitimacy of the child on
grounds that his wife procured the artificial
insemination without his consent.
QUESTION NO. 207
Abe and Bea lived together for many years as
husband and wife, but never married. Due to
Abes advancing age, Bea became increasingly
Page 57 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
concerned about her economic security in the
event anything should happen to Abe.
Although Abe repeatedly promised to take
care of Bea in his will, Bea always insisted that
Abe must do something now, not later to
provide her with some security. One day, Abe
asked Bea to meet him at his lawyers office.
There, he signed a notarized deed donating to
her a parcel of land. Gratified by Abes
generosity, Bea accepted the donation in the
same document. Shortly thereafter, Abe died.
Abes intestate heirs immediately commenced
an action against Bea for recovery of the
property. Who prevails?
Abes heirs will prevail because the prohibition
against donation between spouses during the
marriage also applies to persons living together
as husband and wife without a valid marriage.
If the rule were otherwise, persons in
common-law relationships would be in a
better position than those in lawful wedlock.
This is certainly not the intendment of the law.
QUESTION NO. 208
Abe gives Rey in usufruct a parcel of land,
including a residential building thereon, for a
period of ten years. During the life of the
usufruct, the building is totally destroyed in a
fire of accidental origin. Abe now demands
that Rey vacate the land on grounds that the
usufruct has been extinguished by the total
destruction of the building. Is Abe correct?
Abe is wrong. Rey still has the right to use the
land and the materials left on it until the end
of the ten-year period.
QUESTION NO. 209
Abe promises to buy a new house for Tessies
parents if Tessie were to marry him. Tessie
agrees. Abe later refuses to make good his
promise. Can Tessie compel Abe to buy a
house for her parents?
No. The promise of marriage was used as
consideration for the promise to buy a new
house. Therefore, if Tessie wants to enforce
this promise, the promise must be proved
through something in writing, and Abe needed
to sign the writing. Abes promise falls squarely
within the Statute of Frauds.

QUESTION NO. 210
Andy and Ben inherited from their parents a
farm. On January 1, Andy sold his half interest
over the property to Celso for Php500,000.
Ben learned of the sale on May 5 when Andy
gave him a copy of the sale document. Ben
went to Celso and offered to redeem Andys
share for Php550,000. Ben offered his check of
Php400,000 as partial payment, and promised
to pay the balance in 60 days upon the
approval of his bank loan. Celso refused. On
July 20, Ben launched an action against Celso
for legal redemption.
a. Did Ben make a valid and effective offer to
redeem Andys share?
No. The law, in granting unto a co-owner the
right of redemption, intended that the offer to
redeem must be valid and effective,
accompanied by an actual tender of an
acceptable redemption price. Here, Ben failed
to make a valid tender of the redemption
price. Ben merely offered a check for
P400,000, which was not even legal tender
and which Celso rejected.
Celso was not obligated to accept Bens
promise to pay the balance by means of a loan
to be obtained from a bank. Bona
fide redemption necessarily imports
seasonable and valid tender of the entire
repurchase price, and this was not done. There
is no cogent reason for requiring Celso to
accept payment by instalments from a
redemptioner, as it would ultimately result in
an indefinite extension of the 30-day
redemption period, when the purpose of the
law in fixing a short and definite term is clearly
to avoid prolonged and anti-economic
uncertainty as to ownership of the thing sold.
All told, the offer to redeem was not in
pursuance of a legal and effective exercise of
the right of redemption as contemplated by
law; hence, refusal of the offer on the part of
Celso is justified. The conditions precedent for
the valid exercise of the right do not exist
. understanding, and can be corrected or
b. Suppose Ben offered to pay in cash the
redemption price, and Celso refused, did
Ben seasonably file his complaint for legal
redemption on July 20?
No, the complaint was filed out of time.
Article 1623 of the Civil Code does not
prescribe any particular form of notice, nor
Page 58 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
any distinctive method for notifying the
redemptioner. So long, therefore, as the
redemptioner is informed in writing of the sale
and the particulars thereof, the 30 days for
redemption start running and the
redemptioner has no real cause to complain.
Here, Andy showed Ben a copy of the sale
document in favor of Celso on May 5. The
furnishing of this copy is equivalent to the
giving of written notice required by law: it
came from the vendor and made available in
writing the details and finality of the sale. It
served all the purposes of the written notice,
in a more authentic manner than any other
writing could have done. As a necessary
consequence, the 30-day period for the legal
redemption by Ben began to run its course
from and after May 5, ending on June 5.
QUESTION NO. 211
What is Republic Act No. 9048?
Republic Act No. 9048 which took effect on
April 22, 2001 is the law which expanded the
basic quasi-judicial duties and functions of Civil
Registrars as provided under paragraph c,
Section 479 of the Local Government Code. It
amended Articles 376 and 412 of the Civil
Code by granting the city and municipal
a registrars the authority to correct clerical or
typographical errors and to change first names
or nicknames in the civil registrar without need
of judicial order.
QUESTION NO. 212
What kind of clerical or typographical errors
may be corrected administratively under R.A.
No. 9048?
The clerical or typographical errors which may
be administratively corrected under R.A. No.
9048 are limited to those mistakes committed
in the performance of clerical work in writing,
copying, transcribing, or typing an entry in the
civil register that are harmless and innocuous,
which are visible to the eyes, obvious to the
changed only by reference to other existing
record or records.
QUESTION NO. 212
What kind of errors is not correctible under
R.A. No. 9048?

Those errors that involve the change of
nationality, age, or status of the petitioner are
excluded from the coverage of the law.
Consequently, any petition to correct any
error that would subsequently change the
nationality, age, or status of a person shall be
filed with the proper court, and not with any
local civil registrar.
QUESTION NO. 213
On what ground may a petition for change of
first name be filed under R.A. No. 9048?
Under R.A. 9048, the following are the
grounds for the change of a persons first
name: a) the petitioner finds the first name or
nickname to be ridiculous, tainted with
dishonor, or extremely difficult to write or
pronounce; b) the new first name or nickname
has been habitually and continuously used by
the petitioner and he has been publicly known
by that first name or nickname in the
community; c) the change will avoid
confusion. Any of these grounds, if supported
with convincing proof, will be sufficient basis
of changing a persons first name.
QUESTION NO. 214
Abe was born on February 12, 1975. What
was recorded as his date of birth in his birth
certificate was February 22, 1975, while all the
other entries in the birth certificate are
February 15, 1975, the date when the
attendant signed the document; the date when
the informant gave the information; the date
when the clerk prepared the document; and
the date when the instrument was received at
the office of the civil registrar. May the error
be corrected under R.A. No. 9048?
Yes. There is in this case an impossible event
whereby registration of birth was done ahead
of the occurrence of birth. That the birth was
registered prior to its occurrence indicates a
glaring clerical error especially if the date of
birth, as recorded, is compared with the other
significant dates in the same document. This
error is visible to the eyes and is very obvious
to the understanding; hence, it can be
considered a clerical error, which can be
corrected under R.A. No. 9048.
In this case, the correction is not an attempt to
change the age of Abe, but to correct the
impression that registration was done prior to
the occurrence of birth.
Page 59 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
QUESTION NO. 214
Abe was born on January 2, 1962, but the
typist entered the date of his birth as 2-1-62
which could be interpreted as February 1,
1962 or January 2, 1962. May Abe file for
correction of his date of birth?
Yes, because the date was misleading since a
numeric character or symbol was used for the
month. In accordance with the order of
writing the date in the birth certificate, the
day should be entered first, followed by the
month and the last, the year. The month
should be spelled out and not represented by
numerical symbol, like January and not 1.
The error in question is clearly a clerical error
within the meaning of R.A No. 9048.
QUESTION NO. 215
Abe and Bea, both of age and not suffering
from any impediment, lived together as
husband and wife without a valid marriage.
Bea gave birth to a son, Rey, on October 25,
1995. Abe and Bea subsequently got married
on February 20, 1996. The following month,
March 5, 1996, Abes birth was belatedly
registered on March 5, 1996. Because Abe was
born illegitimate, he used in his birth certificate
the surname of his mother. In the entry under
Date and Place of Marriage of Parents,
however, the entries 20 February 1996,
Baguio City were made when it should have
been not married. May Abe seek a
correction under R.A. No. 9048?
Yes. The error here is a clerical error within the
meaning of R.A No. 9048 because a future
event cannot be recorded in the birth
certificate. The correction will not alter the
status of the child who, by his recorded name,
is an illegitimate child who is legitimated by
virtue of the subsequent marriage of his
parents. The error here arose because only
information obtaining at the time of birth shall
be recorded in the birth certificate, and not
information prevailing at the time of
registration.
QUESTION NO. 216
Maria Lourdes Cruz filed for correction of
entry in her certificate of live birth. She was
baptized as Maria Lourdes Cruz, the name
entered in her certificate of live birth. When
she started schooling, however, she used the
name Ma. Lourdes Cruz. Petitioners name was

abbreviated to Ma. in all her records, except
her birth certificate. She now wants her name
corrected to Ma. Lourdes Cruz, instead of
Maria Lourdes Cruz. Will she prevail?
No. There is no clerical error in this case.
Petitioners name as recorded in her birth
certificate is perfectly correct. There is no
misspelling, no misplaced letter, no omitted
letter, no unnecessary letter, and no misplaced
word. Petitioners remedy is to file for change
of first name and not for correction of clerical
error.
QUESTION NO. 216
Abe and Bea were married on January 15,
1996. On February 7, 1997, Bea gave birth to
Carla. Prior to Carlas birth, Abe left the
conjugal abode and lived with another
woman. Because of Abes infidelity, Bea
registered Carla as illegitimate with an
unknown father. The item regarding the
date and place of marriage of parents was left
blank.
In 1999, Abe and Bea reconciled. It was then
that Abe discovered the following: (a) The last
name of Carla is the maiden surname of his
wife; (2) His name as the father of Carla is not
entered, but marked unknown, and (3)
There is no information about the date and
place of marriage of the parents. Are the
errors correctible under R.A. No. 9048?
The errors are not clerical within the meaning
of R.A. No. 9048 because the correction
involves the change of status of Carla from
illegitimate to legitimate.
QUESTION NO. 217
Abe Cruz and Bea Santos, both of age and not
suffering from any legal impediment, lived
together as husband and wife without a valid
marriage. On October 25, 1995, Bea gave
birth to Caroline. A few months later, Abe
and Bea got married, particularly on
Valentines Day on February 14, 1998. The
following month, March 14, 1998, Bea
registered the birth of Caroline under the rules
governing the delayed registration of births.
The complete name of Caroline which was
recorded in her birth certificate was Caroline
Santos Cruz, and the date of marriage of her
parents was entered as February 14, 1998 and
the place of such marriage as Baguio City. The
Page 60 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
Civil Registrar later refuses to correct the
entries. Decide.
The entries are not clerical errors within the
meaning of R.A. No. 9048. The correction of
the date of marriage of the parents will affect
the status of the child.
The civil registrar was correct in denying the
correction of the entries in Carolines certificate
of birth considering that Carolines surname
should have followed that of her mothers
because she was born illegitimate. Moreover,
the date and place of Carolines parents are
erroneous because of the principle in civil
registration that only the facts obtaining at the
time of birth shall be recorded in the birth
certificate and not those facts prevailing at the
time of registration
QUESTION NO. 218
Abe and Bea, both 14 years old, eloped. A
daughter, Joy, was born to them when they
were 16 years old. When they reached the age
of 19, they got marriage with the consent of
their parents. Is Joy legitimated by the
marriage of her parents?
Yes. Pursuant to R.A. No. 9858, children born
to parents below marrying age may now be
legitimated. R.A. No. 9858 amended Article
177 of the Family Code to the effect that if the
child born to parents are disqualified to marry
each other because they are below 18 years of
age, the child may be legitimated by the
subsequent marriage of the parents. Article 177
of the Family Code, as amended by R.A. 9858,
now reads: Children conceived and born
outside of wedlock of parents who, at the time
of the conception of the former, were not
disqualified by any impediment to marry each
other, or were so disqualified only because
either or both of them were below eighteen
(18) years of age, may be legitimated.
QUESTION NO. 219
The attestation clause of a will reads: x x x
and he (the testator) signed at the bottom of
the aforesaid will in our presence and we at his
request did the same in his presence and in
that of each other as witnesses to the will, and
lastly, the testator, as well as we, as witnesses,
signed in the same manner on the left margin
of each sheet.
Is the attestation clause sufficient?

The attestation clause is sufficient because
the words in the same manner mean
nothing but that the testator and the
witnesses signed on the left margin of each
sheet of the will in the same manner in
which they signed at the bottom thereof,
that is, the testator in the presence of the
witnesses and the latter in the presence of
the testator and of each other (Fernandez
v. Vergel de Dios 46 Phil. 922 [1936)
QUESTION NO. 219
Abe executes a document in his handwriting
denominated as Kasulatan sa Pag-aalis ng
Mana. The document reads:
Ako, si Abe, may asawa,
naninirahan sa 465-A Flores St.,
Ermita, Manila, at nagtataglay ng
maliwanag na pag iisip at disposisyon,
ay tahasan at hayagang inaalisan ko ng
lahat at anumang mana ang panganay
kong anak na si Rey dahil siya ay
naging lapastangan sa akin at ilang
beses syang nagsalita ng masama sa
harapan ko at kapatid niya na si Mimi
na labis kong ikinasama ng loob ko.
Rey opposes the will on grounds that it does
not contain any disposition of estate and
therefore does not meet the definition of a
will under Article 783 of the Civil Code. Rey
claims that the will only shows an alleged act
of disinheritance by Abe of his son, Rey, and
nothing else; that all other compulsory heirs
were not named nor instituted either as heirs,
as legatees or as devisees, hence; there is
preterition which would result in intestacy.
1. Is the document a valid holographic will?
Yes. A holographic will, as provided under
Article 810 of the Civil Code, must be entirely
written, dated, and signed by the hand of the
testator. It is subject to no other form, and
may be made in or out of the Philippines, and
need not be witnessed. An intent to dispose
mortis causa can be clearly deduced from the
terms of the instrument, and while it does not
make an affirmative disposition of the
testators property, the disinheritance results in
the disposition of the property of the testator
in favor of those who would succeed in the
absence of Abe.
It is a fundamental principle that the intent or
the will of the testator, expressed in the form
Page 61 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
and within the limits prescribed by law, must
be recognized as the supreme law in
succession. Accordingly, the document, even if
captioned as Kasulatan sa Pag-aalis ng Mana,
was intended by Abe to be his last
testamentary act and was executed by him in
accordance with law in the form of a
holographic will. Unless the will is probated,
the disinheritance of Rey cannot be given
effect.
2. Is there a valid disinheritance of Rey?
Yes. For disinheritance to be valid, Article 916
of the Civil Code requires that the same must
be effected through a will wherein the legal
cause therefore shall be specified. With regard
to the reason for disinheritance that was stated
by Juan in his document, the same can be
considered a form of maltreatment of Abe by
his son, Rey, and that the matter presents a
sufficient cause for the disinheritance of a child
or descendant under Article 919 of the Civil
Code.
3. Is there preterition of compulsory heirs in
the will?
No. Abes holographic will was his last
expression to bequeath his entire estate to all
his compulsory heirs, with the sole exception
of Rey. Also, Abe did not institute an heir to
the exclusion of his other compulsory heirs.
The mere mention of the name of Abes
daughter did not operate to institute her as a
universal heir. Her name was included plainly
as a witness to the alteration between Abe and
his son, Rey.
Since the document is Abes holographic will,
and that the law favors testacy over intestacy,
the probate of the will cannot be dispensed
with. Thus, unless the will is probated, the
rights of a person to dispose of his property
may be rendered nugatory. (Seangio v. Reyes,
508 SCRA 177 [2006])
QUESTION NO. 220
The testators will contains the following
disposition: I institute my brother, Juan, as
my universal heir because he had killed my
political rival. The testator himself had
nothing to do with the crime. Is the institution
valid?
The institution is valid. The mere statement of
a cause contrary to law will not invalidate a

will nor invalidate an institution, so long as it
does not appear in the will that such illegal
cause is the only motivating factor for the
institution. The principle underlying the rule
on the statement of a false cause under Article
850 of the Civil Code should also apply in the
case of an illegal cause, if the true cause is the
generosity of the testator, and the disposition
is essentially based on the affection of the
testator, the mere statement of an illegal cause
should not impair the institution. But if it
clearly appears from the will itself that the
testators only reason for making the
disposition is the illegal cause, then the
disposition should be void.
QUESTION NO. 221
Abe donated to his nephew, Rey, a house and
lot valued at P1 million. Due to business
reverses, Abe died poor ten years later. Larry,
Abes son, immediately commenced an action
to recover the donated property on grounds
that his legitime has been impaired. The
property is now valued at P5 million. Decide.
The action, insofar as it seeks to reduce the
donation, will prosper because Larrys legitime
has been impaired. Larrys legitime is half of
Abes estate. However, what is to be collated
to the estate is the value of the property at the
time of the donation and not the value at the
time of the donors death. Accordingly, Larry is
not entitled to half of the present value of the
property (Php5 million), but only to half of its
value of Php500,000 which Rey may pay in
cash.
QUESTION NO. 222
Abe died in 1999. Before his death, he left a
notarial will instituting his five sons, Ben,
Charlie, Dante, Enrico and Fidel as his sole
heirs. Ben died in 1997 in a vehicular accident.
He left two children, Greg and Homer.
Charlie, who has been convicted of an attempt
against the life of Abe, has a son Inigo. Dante
was disinherited for a cause not recognized by
law. He is the father of John, Karl, Lito and
Manuel. Enrico repudiated his inheritance
because his father never accepted his wife.
They have two children, Nomer and Orly. The
net value of Abes hereditary estate is P1
million. Distribute the estate.
Since Ben predeceased Abe, the testator, his
legitimate children Greg and Homer shall
represent him in the succession. The same is
Page 62 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
true in the case of Charlie, since he is
incapacitated to inherit from his father because
of an act of unworthiness. His legitimate child,
Inigo, shall represent him in the succession.
Also, John, Karl, Lito and Manuel shall inherit
by right of representation because their father,
Dante, was disinherited. It is different in the
case of Enrico. An heir who repudiates his
inheritance cannot be represented. (Art 977,
Civil Code) The legitime of Enrico shall be
distributed in accordance with the rules on
intestate succession, while his share as a
voluntary heir shall accrue to his co-heirs, Ben,
Charlie, Dante and Fidel. But Ben is already
dead, Charlie is incapacitated, and Dante was
disinherited. The only living and capacitated
heir is Fidel. Thus:
Fidel 100,000 as compulsory heir
100,000 as voluntary heir
100,000 by right of accretion from B
100,000 by right of accretion from C
100,000 by right of accretion from D
100,000 by right of accretion from E
25,000 as legal heir
Greg 50,000 by right of representation
12,500 as legal heir
Homer 50,000 by right of representation
12,000 as legal heir
Inigo 100,000 by right of representation
25,000 as legal heir
John 25,000 by right of representation
6, 250 as legal heir
Karl 25,000 by right of representation
6,250 as legal heir
Lito 25,000 by right of representation
6,250 as legal heir
Manuel 25,000 by right of representation
6,250 as legal heir
QUESTION NO. 223
Judge Abe, a municipal trial court judge of
Naguilian, La Union, performed a marriage in
Tuba, Benguet, upon written request of the
parties. Is the marriage valid?
Yes. The solemnization by a judge of a
marriage outside his courts jurisdiction is
merely a resultant irregularity in a formal

requisite laid down in Article 3 of the Family
Code which, while it may not affect the
validity of the marriage, may subject the
officiating official to administrative liability.
(Navarro v. Domagtoy, 259 SCRA 137 [1996])
QUESTION NO. 224
Which voidable marriage is not susceptible of
ratification by cohabitation under the law?
Marriages which are voidable because of the
physical incapacity of a party to consummate
the marriage and those by reason of affliction
of a party with a serious and incurable
sexually-transmissible disease are not
susceptible of ratification by cohabitation. (Art.
45, Nos. 5 & 6, Family Code)
QUESTION NO. 225
Abe and Amy were married in 1978, or ten
years before the Family Code. After 15 years of
marriage, Abe obtained a decree of legal
separation after catching his wife having illicit
relations with their neighbor. In the decree,
the court forfeited Amys share in the net
profits earned by the conjugal partnership in
favor of her children pursuant to Article 63(2)
in relation to Article 129 of the Family Code.
Amy quickly assailed the ruing claiming that
the net assets of the conjugal partnership shall
be computed in accordance with Article 102 of
the Family Code, instead of Article 129. She
claimed that Article 102 applies because there
are no other provisions under the Family Code
which defines net profits subject of forfeiture
as a result of legal separation. She argued that
her vested right over half of the common
properties of the conjugal partnership is
violated when the forfeiture is to be made
pursuant to Article 129 in relation to Article
63(2) of the Family Code.
a. What law governs the property relations of
the spouses given that they were married
before the effectivity of the Family Code?
What law governs the dissolution of their
common properties since the decree of legal
separation was issued after the Family Code
is already in effect?
As to property relations, the spouses are
governed by the regime of conjugal
partnership of gains. This is so because they
were married when the operative law was the
Civil Code. But as to the liquidation of their
Page 63 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
conjugal partnership assets, the Family Code is
the law applicable because it is already the
operative law at the time of the dissolution of
their conjugal partnership.
The applicable law in so far as the liquidation
of the conjugal partnership assets and liabilities
of Abe and Amy is concerned is Article 129 of
the Family Code (provision on liquidation of
the conjugal partnership) in relation to Article
63 (effects of a decree of legal separation). The
latter provision is applicable because according
to Article 256 of the Family Code [t]his Code
shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does
not prejudice or impair vested or acquired
rights in accordance with the Civil Code or
other law.
Amys contention that her vested right over
half of the common properties of the conjugal
partnership is violated when her share in the
conjugal partnership is forfeited in favor of her
children pursuant to Article 63(2) and 129 of
the Family Code has no basis.
While it is true that the couple were married at
the time when the operative law was the Civil
Code, the Family Code should be given
retroactive application for purposes of
determining the net profits earned by the
conjugal partnership which is subject to
forfeiture. A spouses claim of a vested right is
not etched in stone. To be vested, a right must
have become a title legal or equitable to
the present or future enjoyment of property.
In one case, the Supreme Court reiterated its
long standing ruling that prior to the
liquidation of the conjugal partnership, the
interest of each spouse in the conjugal assets is
inchoate, a mere expectancy, which constitutes
neither a legal nor an equitable estate, and
does not ripen into title until it appears that
there are assets in the community as a result of
the liquidation and settlement. The interest of
each spouse is limited to the net remainder
resulting from the liquidation of the affairs of
the partnership after its dissolution. Thus, the
right of the husband or wife to one-half of the
conjugal assets does not vest until the
dissolution and liquidation of the conjugal
partnership, or after the dissolution of the
marriage, when it is finally determined that,
after settlement of conjugal obligations, there
are net assets left which can be divided
between the spouses or their respective heirs.
b. Is the computation of net profits earned in
the conjugal partnership of gains the same

with the computation of net profits earned
in the absolute community?
The term net profits is defined in Article 102(4)
of the Family Code. Under this provision, the
term net profits shall be the increase in value
between the market value of the community
property at the time of the celebration of the
marriage and the market value at the time of
its dissolution. Without any doubt, Article
102(4) applies to both the dissolution of the
absolute community regime under Article 102
of the Family Code, and the dissolution of the
conjugal partnership regime under Article 129
of the Family Code. The difference lies in the
processes used under the dissolution of the
absolute community regime under Article 102
of the Family Code, and in the processes used
under the dissolution of the conjugal
partnership regime under Article 129 of the
Family Code.
ABSOLUTE COMMUNITY REGIME: Applying
Article 102 of the Family Code, the net
profits requires a prior determination of the
market value of the properties at the time of
the communitys dissolution. From the totality
of the market value of all the properties, the
debts and obligations of the absolute
community are to be deducted and this will
result to the net assets or net remainder of the
properties of the absolute community, from
which the value of the properties at the time
of marriage is to be deducted, which then
results to the net profits.
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP REGIME: Applying
Article 129 of the Family Code, the net
profits requires a prior determination of the
separate properties and debts of the spouses
under the following procedure a) an inventory
shall be prepared, listing separately all the
properties of the conjugal partnership and the
exclusive properties of each spouse; b)
amounts advanced by the conjugal partnership
in payments of personal debts and obligations
of either spouse shall be credited to the
conjugal partnership as an asset thereof; c)
each spouse shall be reimbursed for the use of
his or her exclusive funds in the acquisition of
property or for the value of his or her
exclusive property, the ownership of which has
been vested by law in the conjugal
partnership; d) the debts and obligations of the
conjugal partnership shall be paid out of the
conjugal assets. In case of insufficiency of said
assets, the spouses shall be solidarily liable for
the unpaid balance with their separate
Page 64 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
properties, in accordance with the provisions
of paragraph 2 of Article 121; e) whatever
remains of the exclusive properties of the
spouses shall thereafter be delivered to each of
them; f) unless the owner had been
indemnified from whatever source, the loss or
deterioration of movables used for the benefit
of the family, belonging to either spouse, even
due to fortuitous event, shall be paid to said
spouse from the conjugal funds, if any; and
g)the net remainder of the conjugal
partnership shall constitute the profits, which
shall be divided equally between husband and
wife, unless a different proportion or division
was agreed upon in the marriage settlements
or unless there has been a voluntary waiver or
forfeiture of such share as provided in the
Family Code.
c. Suppose that Article 102 of the Family Code
(which is a provision under the regime of
absolute community of property) is to
apply in the instant case, is Amy entitled to
receive anything from the absolute
community?
If Abe and Amy have no separate properties,
the remaining properties of the couple are all
part of the absolute community. And its
market value at the time of the dissolution of
the absolute community constitutes the
market value at dissolution. When Abe and
Amy were legally separated, all the properties
which remained will be liable for the debts
and obligations of the community. Such debts
and obligations will be subtracted from the
market value at dissolution. What remains
after the debts and obligations have been paid
from the total assets of the absolute
community constitutes the net remainder or
net asset. And from such net asset or net
remainder of the couples remaining
properties, the market value at the time of the
marriage will be subtracted and the resulting
totality constitutes the net profits. Since Abe
and Amy have no separate properties, and
nothing would be returned to each of them,
what will be divided equally between them is
simply the net profits. However, the trial court
forfeited the half-share of Amy in favor of her
children. Thus, if Article 102 is used in the
instant case (which should not be the case),
nothing is left to Amy since both parties
entered into their marriage without bringing
with them any property.
4. Given that Article 129 of the Family Code
applies to the liquidation of the conjugal

assets of Abe and Amy, is the latter entitled
to receive any property from the conjugal
partnership?
No. What remains in the conjugal properties
of Abe and Amy (after payment of all debts
and obligations) should be divided equally
between them. However, since Amy is the
guilty party, her share from the net profits of
the conjugal partnership is forfeited in favor of
the common children pursuant to Article 63(2)
of the Family Code. Nothing will be returned
to Amy because in the conjugal partnership
regime, there is no separate property which
may be accounted for in the guilty partys
favor. (Quiao v. Quiao, G.R. No. 176556, July
4, 2012)
QUESTION NO. 226
Abe is the owner of a farm which he leased to
a married couple. When the couple failed to
pay rent, Abe sued for payment of their rental
arrears. The wife promptly moved to dismiss
the complaint on grounds that her husband is
already dead, and that therefore Abes claim
must be filed in the proceedings for the
settlement of her husbands estate. May Abe
sue the wife alone for collection of a debt
which is owed by the conjugal partnership?
No. A creditor cannot sue the surviving spouse
of a deceased person in an ordinary
proceeding for the collection of a sum of
money chargeable against the conjugal
partnership. The proper remedy is for the
creditor to file a claim in the settlement of the
estate of the deceased spouse. This is so
because upon the death of one spouse, the
powers of administration of the surviving
spouse ceases and are passed to the
administrator appointed by the court having
jurisdiction over the settlement of estate
proceedings. For marriages governed by the
rules on conjugal partnership of gains, an
obligation entered into by the spouses is
chargeable against their conjugal partnership
and it is the partnership which is primarily
bound for its repayment. Thus, when the
spouses are sued for the enforcement of an
obligation entered into by them, they are
joined in their capacity as representatives of
the conjugal partnership and not as
independent debtors such that the concept of
joint or solidary liability, as between them,
does not apply. (Alipio v. Court of Appeals,
341 SCRA 441 [2000])
Page 65 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
QUESTION NO. 227
Can there be an easement over another
easement? An easement over a usufruct? A
usufruct over an easement?
As to the first question: Yes, there can be an
easement over another easement. Article 629
of the Civil Code provides that the owner of
the servient estate must abstain from anything
that will render the use of the easement more
inconvenient to the owner of the dominant
estate. This is a negative easement which
requires the owner of the servient estate not to
impair in any manner whatsoever the use of
the easement (such as a right of way).
As to the second question: No, there cannot
be an easement over a usufruct, but there can
be an easement over a property held in
usufruct.
As to the third question: No, there cannot be
a usufruct over an easement, but a usufruct
may be established in a property burdened by
an easement.
QUESTION NO. 228
In 1977, Amy donated to her sons (Art, Ben,
and Cal) a parcel of land under the following
conditions: a) the donation shall be
irrevocable; b) the land shall remain in the
possession of the donor during her lifetime; c)
the land shall not be sold or mortgaged during
the lifetime of the donor; and d) the donation
shall take effect only upon the donors death.
Amys sons accepted the donation in the same
public instrument.
Two years later, or in 1979, Amy sold the land
to her eldest son, Art. The sale resulted in the
issuance of a certificate of title in the name of
Art.
In 1985, Ben and Cal brought an action to
annul the sale and for reconveyance of the
property. Art defended on the ground of
prescription. He argued that more than four
years have passed since the sale and
registration of the property and issuance of his
title. He insisted that an action for
reconveyance of property on the ground of
fraud must be filed within four years from the
discovery of the fraud which is from the date
of registration of the sale in 1977; and that the
same prescriptive period also applies to an
action predicated on a trust relationship that is
rooted on fraud or breach of trust.

1. Was the donation to Art, Ben and Cal inter
vivos or mortis causa?
The donation was inter vivos. The express
irrevocability of the donation is the distinctive
standard that identifies the donation as inter
vivos. The other provisions which seemingly
make the donation mortis causa do not go
against the irrevocable character of the subject
donation. The provisions which state that the
donation will only take effect upon the death
of the donor and the prohibition to alienate,
encumber, dispose or sell the property
donated are provisions which should be
harmonized with its irrevocability. Suffice it to
say that these provisions are only necessary
assurances that during the donors lifetime, the
latter would still enjoy the right of possession
over the property; but his naked title has been
passed on to the donees; and that upon the
donors death, the donees would get all the
right to use and possess the same.
Another indication that the donation is inter
vivos is the acceptance of the donation by the
donees. An acceptance is a mark that the
donation is inter vivos. On the other hand,
donations mortis causa, being in the form of a
will, are not required to be accepted by the
donees during the donors lifetime.
2. Has the action prescribed?
The action has not yet prescribed. When ones
property is registered in another persons name
without the formers consent, an implied trust
is created by law in favor of the true owner.
Article 1144 of the Civil Code provides for a
ten-year prescriptive period from the time the
right of action accrues in case of a) a written
contract; b) an obligation created by law; and
c) a judgment. Thus, an action for
reconveyance prescribes in ten years from the
issuance of the title. It is only when fraud has
been committed that the action will be barred
after four years.
However, the four-year prescriptive period is
not applicable to the instant case because there
is no fraud. The records do not show that
Amy, the donor, and Art, the donee, ever
intended to defraud Ben and Cal with respect
to the sale and ownership of the subject
property. On the other hand, the sale was
grounded upon their honest but erroneous
interpretation of the deed of donation that it is
mortis causa, not inter vivos, and that the
donor still had the right to sell or dispose of
the donated property and to revoke the
Page 66 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
donation. There being no fraud, the trust
relationship between the donor and the
donees, including the buyer Art, the action for
recoveyance prescribes in ten years.
Considering that the certificate of title in the
name of Art covering the subject property was
issued only in 1977, the filing of the action in
1985 was well within the ten-year prescriptive
period.
c. Is the sale by Amy to Art a valid act of
revocation of the donation?
The sale to Art cannot be considered as a valid
act of revocation of the donation because a
formal complaint to revoke the donation must
be filed pursuant to Article 764 of the Civil
Code which speaks of an action that has a
prescriptive period of four years from the non-
compliance with the condition stated in the
deed of donation. The rule that there can be
automatic revocation without benefit of a
court action does not apply to the case at bar
because the subject deed of donation is devoid
of any provision providing for automatic
revocation in the event of non-compliance of
the condition violated. (Austria-Magat v.
Court of Appeals 375 [2002])
QUESTION NO. 229
Abe executes in favor of Amy a document
denominated as Deed of Donation Inter
Vivos involving a parcel of land. The deed of
donation contains a provision that it becomes
effective only upon the death of the donor,
and that in the event the donee should die
before the donor, the donation shall be
deemed automatically rescinded and of no
further force and effect.
Shortly after Abes death, his heirs promptly
filed an action seeking to annul the donation.
They contend that the donation is mortis causa
and not inter vivos and therefore void for
failure to comply with the formalities of wills.
Is the donation inter vivos or mortis causa?
The donation is mortis causa. In a donation
mortis causa, the right of disposition is not
transferred to the donee while the donor is still
alive. In determining whether a donation is
one of mortis causa, the following
characteristics must be taken into account: a) it
conveys no title or ownership to the transferee
before the death of the transferor, or what
amounts to the same thing; b) the transferor
should retain the full or naked ownership and

control of the property while alive; c) before
his death, the transfer should be revocable by
the transferor at will; and d) the transferor
should be void if the transferor should survive
the transferee.
In the present case, the nature of the donation
as mortis causa is confirmed by the fact that
the donation does not contain any clear
provision that intends to pass proprietary
rights to Amy prior to Abes death. The phrase
to become effective upon the death of the
donor admits of no other interpretation but
that Abe did not transfer the ownership of the
property to Amy during his lifetime.
Considering that the disputed donation is a
donation mortis causa, the same partakes of
the nature of testamentary provisions and as
such, must be executed in accordance with the
requisites on solemnities of wills and
testaments under the Civil Code. (Maglasang
v. Heirs of Cabatingan, G. R. No. 131953, June
5, 2002)
QUESTION NO. 230
What are some of the prescriptive periods
under our laws?
The following are some of the prescriptive
periods under our laws:
40 days
Redhibitory action based on defects of
animals. (Art. 1577, CC)
6 months
Action for reduction of price or breach of sale
of real estate. (Arts. 1543 and 1539, CC)
Action for reduction of price against hidden
defects of thing sold. (Art. 1571, CC)
1 year
Action to impugn childs legitimacy, if husband
resides in the same place. (Art. 170, FC)
Action for revocation of donation for acts of
ingratitude. (Art. 769, CC)
Action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer.
(Art. 1147, CC)
Action for defamation. (Art. 1147, CC)
Page 67 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza
Action for rescission or for damages if
immovable sold is encumbered with non-
apparent burden. (Art. 1560, CC)
Action for warranty of solvency in assignment
of credits. (Art. 1629, CC)
Action for loss or damage to goods under
COGSA
2 years
Action to impugn childs legitimacy, if husband
is in the Philippines but not residing in the
same place (Art. 170, par. 2. FC)
3 years
Action to impugn childs legitimacy, if husband
is abroad or outside the Philippines (Art.170,
FC)
4 years
Action for revocation or reduction of donation
based on supervening birth, reappearance of a
child or adoption. (Art. 763, CC)
Action for revocation of donation due to non-
fulfilment of condition. (Art. 764, CC)
Action for recovery of movable (replevin) if
possessor is in good faith (Art. 1132, CC)
Action upon an injury to rights of plaintiff
(Art. 1146, CC)
Action upon a quasi-delict (Art. 1146, CC)
Action for rescission of rescissible contracts
(Art. 1389, CC)
Action to annul voidable contracts on the
ground of vitiated consent (Art. 1391, CC)
Action for rescission of partition of decedents
estate on account of lesion (Art. 1100, CC)
5 years
Action for legal separation (Art. 57, FC)
Action for annulment of marriage, except on
the ground of insanity (Art. 47, FC)
Action to claim legitimacy or illegitimacy if
child dies during minority or in a state of
insanity (Art. 173, FC)
 Green Notes 2015
Civil Law
Prepared by: Atty. Roney Jone P. Gandeza

Action to impugn legitimacy (Art. 182, FC)
Action for declaration of incapacity of an heir
(Art. 1040, CC)
Action for warranty of solvency of debtor if
credit is assigned to a co-heir during partition
(Art. 1095, CC)
Action to claim legitimacy (lifetime of child)
(Art. 173, FC)
Action to claim illegitimacy (lifetime of child; If
by other means, only during lifetime of parent)
(Art. 175, par. 2, FC)
Action for legal support

All other actions whose periods are not fixed Action for reduction of donation due to failure
by law (Art. 1149, Civil Code) of donor to reserve property for his support
and support of others (during lifetime of
6 years donor or relatives) (Art. 750, CC)

Action upon an oral contract (Art. 1145, C ) No prescription

Action upon a quasi-contract (Art. 1146, CC ) Action to declare a contract as inexistent or

8 years
Action for recovery of movable (replevin) if
possessor is in bad faith (Art. 1132, par 2. and
Art. 1140, CC)
10 years
Action for recovery of possession of
immovables (accion publiciana) if real right is
lost (Arts. 555 and 1134, CC)
void.
Action to recover movable possessed thru a
crime (no prescription in favor of offender)
Action to demand a right of way under Article
649, Civil Code
Action to demand partition in co-ownership or
to enforce an express trust
Action to probate a will

Action for recovery of ownership of
immovables (reivindicatoria) if in good faith
(Art. 1134, CC)
Action upon a mortgage contract (Art. 1142,
CC)
Action to enforce a moral right (P.D. No. 49)
Action to recover possession of registered land
under the Land Registration Act by registered
owner or hereditary successors.

Action upon a written contract (Art. 1144, CC) -GOD BLESS-

Action upon an obligation created by law (Art.

1144, CC)

Action upon a judgment to enforce warranty

against eviction in partition (Art. 1094, CC)

30 years

Action for recovery of ownership of

immovables (reivindicatoria), if in bad faith
(Art. 1141, CC)

Lifetime

Action for annulment of marriage based on

insanity (Art. 47, par. 2, FC)

Action for declaration of nullity of marriage

(Art. 39, FC)

Page 68 of 69
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
 Green Notes 2015

THE BARRISTERS CLUB OFFICERS

Chancellor: REINA MAI R. RUIZ

Vice Chancellor: ALLAN PATRICK T. BASTO

Secretary: REBECCA S. ARROJO

Treasurer: RANJAN KALYL U. WANGET
PRO: KATHLEEN ALLYSA V. SALVADOR
PRO: JONA B. REYES
Business Manager: APRIL JACOB D. CASTRO
Business Manager: JILLIAN JEN T. DOTE
SSG Representative: LENIE S. LUCAS
SSG Representative BRIX PAUL B. CHAGUILE
Fourth Year Representative: ANNE LUCILLE B. RUIZ
Third Year Representative: AIZA P. BENCIO
Second Year Representative:: ANGELICA GRACE G. CALICA
First Year Representative: DENZ CHRITIAN RESENTES
Ex-Officio: LESLIE D. RAGUINDIN
Assistant Adviser: MILDRED P. AMBROS
Adviser: ATTY. SHERLYN P. PAQUIT
Dean, College of Law: ATTY. REYNALDO U. AGRANZAMENDEZ