Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 14




Sidley and Sol were married with one (1) daughter, Solenn. Sedfrey and Sonia were another couple with
one son, Sonny. Sol and Sedfrey both perished in the same plane accident. Sidley and Sonia met when the
families of those who died sued the airlines and went through grief-counseling sessions. Years later,
Sidley and Sonia got married. At that time, Solenn was four (4) years old and Sonny was five (5) years
old. These two (2) were then brought up in the same household. Fifteen (15) years later, Solenn and
Sonny developed romantic feelings towards each other, and eventually eloped. On their own and against
their parents' wishes, they procured a marriage license and got married in church.

a. Is the marriage of Solen and Sonny valid, voidable or void?

The Marriage is voidable. Under Article 45 of the Family Code, a marriage may be annulled when, at the
time of the marriage, the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was eighteen
years of age or over but below twenty-one, and the marriage was solemnized without the consent of the
parents, guardian or person having substitute parental authority over the party, in that order.

Here, since Solen is 19 years old and Sonny is 20 years old, they should have sought the consent of their
parents, guardians, or persons having substitute parental authority over them. Failing to do that, their
marriage is voidable.

b. If the marriage is defective, can the marriage be ratified by the free cohabitation of the spouses?

Yes. Under Article 45 of the Family Code, such marriage may ratified by the cohabitation of the

Contracting parties after attaining the age of twenty-oneas husband and wife.


After finding out that his girlfriend Sandy was four (4) months pregnant, Sancho married Sandy. Both
were single and had never been in any serious relationship in the past. Prior to the marriage, they agreed
in a marriage settlement that the regime of conjugal partnership of gains shall govern their property
relations during marriage. Shortly after the marriage, their daughter, Shalimar, was born.

Before they met and got married, Sancho purchased a parcel of land on installment, under a Contract of
Sale, with the full purchase price payable in equal annual amortizations over a period of ten (10) years,
with no down payment, and secured by a mortgage on the land. The full purchase price was PhP1 million,
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. After paying the fourth (4th) annual installment, Sancho and
Sandy got married, and Sancho completed the payments in the subsequent years from his salary as an
accountant. The previous payments were also paid out of his salary. During their marriage, Sandy also
won PhP1 million in the lottery and used it to purchase jewelry. When things didn't work out for the
couple, they filed an action for declaration of nullity of their marriage based on the psychological
incapacity of both of them. When the petition was granted, the parcel of land and the jewelry bought by
Sandy were found to be the only properties of the couple.

1 of 14
a) What is the filiation status of Shalimar?

Shalimar is a legitimate child of Sancho and Sandy. Under Art. 164 of the Family Code (FC), children
conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are legitimate. Since Sancho and Sandy had been
married when Shalimar was born, Shalimar is a legitimate child.

b) What system of property relationship will be liquidated following declaration of nullity of their

The regime of conjugal partnership of gains is the system of property relationship that governed the
marriage of Sancho and Sandy. Art. 75 of the FC provides that the future spouses may, in the marriage
settlements, agree upon the regime of conjugal partnership of gains. Here, Sancho and Sandy agreed in
their marriage settlement, which they executed prior to their marriage, that the regime of conjugal
partnership of gains shall govern their property relations. Therefore, the conjugal partnership of gains is
the property regime that will be liquidated upon the declaration of nullity of their marriage.

c) In the liquidation, who should get the parcel of land? The jewelry?

The parcel of land is a conjugal property of Sancho and Sandy. Art. 118 of the FC states that property
bought on installments paid partly from exclusive funds of either or both spouses and partly from
conjugal funds belongs to the conjugal partnership if such ownership was vested during the marriage. Any
amount advanced by either spouse shall be reimbursed by the owners upon the liquidation of the
partnership. In the present case, the parcel of land was bought by Sancho on installment prior to his
marriage with Sandy. As full payment was completed during their marriage, the ownership of the land
was vested during their marriage. Hence, the parcel of land is a conjugal property subject to Sancho’s
right of reimbursement for what he has paid prior to the marriage.

The jewelry is also a conjugal property. According to Art. 117(1) of the FC, those which are acquired by
onerous title during the marriage at the expense of the common fund, whether the acquisition be for the
partnership or for only one of the spouses are conjugal properties. In the case at bar, what was used by
Sandy to purchase the jewelry is the Php1 million that she won from the lottery which as provided by par.
7 of the same article is part of the conjugal properties. Since the common fund was used to acquire the
jewelry, the latter is a conjugal property.

Upon dissolution of the conjugal partnership regime, the net remainder of the conjugal properties shall
constitute the profits which shall be divided equally between Sandy and Sancho, unless a different
proportion or division was agreed upon the marriage settlement or unless there has been a voluntary
waiver or forfeiture of such share (Art. 129, par. 7 FC).

d) Is Shalimar entitled to payment of presumptive legitime? If yes, how much should be her share
and from where should this be taken?

Yes, Shalimar is entitled to the payment of presumptive legitime amounting to one-half her parents’ estate
as their legitimate child. Under Art. 888 of the NCC, the legitime of legitimate children consists of one-
half of the estate of the parents. This presumptive legitime will then be taken from the net estate of the
parents during the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses pursuant to Art.
51 of the FC.

2 of 14

Silverio was a woman trapped in a man's body. He was born male and his birth certificate indicated his
gender as male, and his name as Silverio Stalon. When he reached the age of 21, he had a sex
reassignment surgery in Bangkok, and, from then on, he lived as a female. On the basis of his sex
reassignment, he filed an action to have his first name changed to Shelley, and his gender, to female.
While he was following up his case with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, he met Sharon Stan, who
also filed a similar action to change her first name to Shariff, and her gender, from female to male.

Sharon was registered as a female upon birth. While growing up, she developed male characteristics and
was diagnosed to have congenital adrenal hyperplasia ("CAH") which is a condition where a person
possesses both male and female characteristics. At puberty, tests revealed that her ovarian structures had
greatly minimized, and she had no breast or menstrual development. Alleging that for all intents and
appearances, as well as mind and emotion, she had become a male, she prayed that her birth certificate be
corrected such that her gender should be changed from female to male, and that her first name should be
changed from Sharon to Shariff.

Silverio and Sharon fell in love and decided to marry. Realizing that their marriage will be frowned upon
in the Philippines, they travelled to Las Vegas, USA where they got married based on the law of the place
of celebration of the marriage. They, however, kept their Philippine citizenship.

(a) Is there any legal bases for the court to approve Silverio's petition for correction of entries in his
birth certificate?

(b) Will your answer be the same in the case of Sharon's petition?

(c) Can the marriage of Silverio (Shelley) and Sharon (Shariff) be legally recognized as valid in the

a. In both instances, No.A person’s first name cannot be changed on the ground of sex reassignmentsince
it is not among the grounds stated under R.A 9048. Likewise, with respect to the change of sex from male
to female, there is no law which allows the change of entry in the birth certificate as to sex on the same
ground, the determination of a person’s sex is that which appears in his birth certificate. (SILVERIO VS

b. No, where the person is afflicted with CAH or is biologically or naturally intersex the determining
factor in his gender classification would be what the individualhaving reached the age of majority, with
good reason thinks of his/her sex. (REPUBLIC VS CAGANDAHAN)

c. No, Since Silverio is still a man and Sharon, upon approval of her petition is now considered as a
man,the marriage between them shall be void ab initio as it is classified as same sex marriage violating
Arts. 15 and 17 par. 3 of the new civil code, as well as Art. 1 and 2 of the Family Code.


Severino died intestate, survived by his wife Saturnina, and legitimate children Soler, Sulpicio, Segundo
and the twins Sandro and Sandra. At the time of his death, the twins were only 11 years of age, while all
the older children were of age. He left only one property: a 5,000 sq. m. parcel of land. After his death,

3 of 14
the older siblings Soler, Sulpicio, and Segundo sold the land to Dr. Santos for PhP500,000 with a right to
repurchase, at the same price, within five (5) years from the date of the sale. The deed of sale was signed
only by the three (3) older siblings, and covered the entire property. Before the five (5) years expired,
Sole and Sulpicio tendered their respective shares of PhP166,666 each to redeem the property. Since
Segundo did not have the means because he was still unemployed, Saturnina paid the remaining
PhP166,666 to redeem the property. After the property was redeemed from Dr. Santos, the three (3) older
children and Saturnina, for herself and on behalf of the twins who were still minors, sold the property to
Dr. Sazon, in an absolute sale, for PhP1 million. In representing the twins, Saturnina relied on the fact that
she was the natural guardian of her minor children.

(a) Was the first sale to Dr. Santos, and the subsequent repurchase, valid?

(b) Was the second sale to Dr. Sazon valid? May the twins redeem their share after they reach the
age of majority?

a. Yes, the first sale is valid but only insofar as the share of the older siblings. Article 777 of the NCC
provides that the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent.
The heirs can convey their rights to third persons even before the settlement of the estate of the deceased.
However, the effect of the alienation is limited to what is ultimately adjudicated to the heir who made the
alienation. In this case, the sale by the older siblings affects only their respective shares.

Also, the subsequent repurchase is valid. Article 1088 of the NCC provides that should any of the heirs
sell his hereditary rights to a stranger before the partition, any or all of the co-heirs may be subrogated to
the rights of the purchaser by reimbursing him for the price of the sale, provided they do so within one
month from notice.

b. Yes, the second sale is valid in so far as the sale of the shares of the older siblings and their mother.
The twins may redeem their share at the age of majority.

Article 412 of the NCC provides that the father and the mother shall jointly exercise legal guardianship
over the property of the unemancipated common child without the necessity of court appointment.
Saturnina, being the mother of the twins indeed had legal guardianship over the property of the twins
while they are still minors.

However, the Supreme Court held in the case of Neri vs Heirs of Uy ( GR No. 194366, October 10, 2012),
the parents’ authority is only for acts of administration and does not include acts of ownership. A father or
a mother, as natural guardian of the minor under parental authority, does not have the power to dispose or
encumber the property of the latter. Such power is granted by law only to a judicial guardian of the ward’s
property and even then only eith the court’s prior approval secured in accordance with the proceedings set
by the Rules of Court.

Therefore, the mother having no judicial authority to sell the property of the twins, the sale as to does not
include the share of the twins.

4 of 14

Sol Soldivino, widow, passed away, leaving two (2) legitimate children: a 25- year old son, Santino
(whom she had not spoken to for five [5] years prior to her death since he attempted to kill her at that
time), and a 20-year-old daughter, Sara. She left an estate worth PhP8 million and a will containing only
one provision: that PhP1 million should be given to "the priest who officiated at my wedding to my
children's late father." Sara, together with two (2) of her friends, acted as an attesting witness to the will.

On the assumption that the will is admitted for probate and that there are no debts, divide the
estate and indicate the heirs/legatees entitled to inherit, the amount that each of them will inherit,
and where (i.e., legitime/free portion/intestate share) their shares should be charged.

Santino and Sara shall be entitled to half of the estate as their legitime. Thus, they are entitled to 4M
collectively, or 2M each. The legitime of legitimate children and descendants consists of one-half of the
hereditary estate of the father and of the mother (Art. 888).

The priest, being a legatee, is entitled to his 1M as provided by the decedent’s last will and testament.
This share is chargable to the Free Portion of the hereditary estate.

The remaining 3M shall be subjected to the rules of intestate succession. Sara is incapacitated to inherit
since she was an attesting witness.


Sammy and Santi are cousins who separately inherited two (2) adjoining lots from their grandfather.
Sammy is based overseas but wants to earn income from his inherited land, so he asked a local contractor
to build a row of apartments on his property which he could rent out. The contractor sent him the plans
and Sammy noticed that the construction encroached on a part of Santi's land but he said nothing and
gave approval to construct based on the plans submitted by the local contractor. Santi, based locally, and
who loved his cousin dearly, did not object even if he knew of the encroachment since he was privy to the
plans and visited the property regularly. Later, the cousins had a falling out and Santi demanded that the
portion of the apartments that encroached on his land be demolished.

Can Santi successfully file legal action to require demolition?

No, Santi cannot successfully file a legal action to require demolition. Art. 453 of the NCC provides that
if there was bad faith, not only on the part of the person who built on the land of another, but also on the
part of the owner of such land, the rights of one and the other shall be the same as though both had acted
in good faith. There is bad faith on the part of the landowner whenever the act was done with his
knowledge and without the opposition on his part.

Here, Sammy acted in bad faith when he approved the construction despite knowing that it encroached
upon Santi’s land. Santi also acted in bad faith for he did not object even if he knew of the encroachment.
Therefore, both of them is deemed to have acted in good faith. Demolition, consequently, cannot be had.
The only remedy herein, as provided under Art. 448 of the NCC, would be the appropriation by Santi of
the construction built on his land after payment of indemnity or to oblige Sammy to pay the price of the

5 of 14

Sydney, during her lifetime, was a successful lawyer. By her own choice, she remained unmarried and
devoted all her time to taking care of her nephew and two (2) nieces: Socrates, Saffinia, and Sophia. She
wrote a will giving all her properties remaining upon her death to the three (3) of them. The will was
admitted to probate during her lifetime. Later, she decided to make a new will giving all her remaining
properties only to the two (2) girls, Saffinia and Sophia. She then tore up the previously probated will.
The second will was presented for probate only after her death. However, the probate court found the
second will to be void for failure to comply with formal requirements.

(a) Will the doctrine of dependent relative revocation apply?

(b) Will your answer be the same if the second will was found to be valid but both Saffinia and
Sophia renounce their inheritance?

a. Yes, the doctrine of relative revocation will apply.

Under this doctrine, when a first will is revoked to connect with the making of the new will so as to fairly
raise the inference that the testator meant the revocation of the old will to depend upon the efficacy of the
new disposition, if for any reason the new will becomes inoperative, the old will shall remain in force and
the prior revocation is deemed void.

b. No, even if the instituted heirs in the second will renounced their rights to the inheritance, it does not
have the effect of revocation of the will as would permit the application of the doctrine of dependent
relative revocation . The effect will just pave the way for intestate succession and not the revival of the
previously revoked will.


Sofronio was a married father of two when he had a brief fling with Sabrina, resulting in her pregnancy
and the birth of their son Sinforoso. Though his wife knew nothing of the affair, Sofronio regretted it, but
secretly provided child support for Sinforoso. Unfortunately, when Sinforoso was 10 years old, Sofronio
died. Only Sofronio's father, Salumbides, knew of Sabrina and Sinforoso. For the purpose of providing
support to Sinforoso, Salumbides gave Sabrina usufructruary · rights over one of his properties - a house
and lot - to last until Sinforoso reaches the age of majority. Sabrina was given possession of the property
on the basis of caucion juratoria. Two (2) years after the creation of the usufruct, the house accidentally
burned down, and three (3) years thereafter, Sinforoso died before he could reach the age of 18.

Will the usufruct continue after the house has burned down? If yes, will it continue after
Sinforoso's death?

Suggested Answers

1. Yes, the usufructuary will continue even after the house has burned down. Article 607 of the NCC
provides that if the usufruct is constituted on immovable property of which a building forms part, and
the latter should be destroyed in any manner whatsoever, the usufructuary shall have a right to make
use of the land and the materials.

6 of 14
In this case, since the usufruct was constituted on the house and lot, the usufructuary eill continue even
after the house has burned down.

2. No, the usufructuary will not continue after the death of Sinforoso. Article 603 of the NCC provides
that a usufruct is extinguished, among others, by the termination of the right of the person constituting the

In this case, it is clear from the agreement that the usufruct was instituted for the benefit of the minor until
he reaches the age of majority. Since the minor died before reaching the age of majority, the usufruct is
extinguished because the purpose for which it was constituted was already extinguished.


Newlyweds Sam and Sienna had contracted with Sangria Hotel for their wedding reception. The couple
was so unhappy with the service, claiming, among other things, that there was an unreasonable delay in
the service of dinner and that certain items promised were unavailable. The hotel claims that, while there
was a delay in the service of the meals, the same was occasioned by the sudden increase of guests to 450
from the guaranteed expected number of 350, as stated in the Banquet and Meeting Services Contract. In
the action for damages for breach of contract instituted by the couple, they claimed that the Banquet and
Meeting Services Contract was a contract of adhesion since they only provided the number of guests and
chose the menu. On the other hand, the hotel's defense was that the proximate cause of the complainant's
injury was the unexpected increase in their guests, and this was what set the chain of events that resulted
in the alleged inconveniences.

a. Does the doctrine if proximate cause apply?

No. The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in actions for quasi-delicts, not in actions
involving breach of contract. The doctrine is a device for imputing liability to a person where there is no
relation between him and another party. In such a case, the obligation is created by law itself. But, where
there is a pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, it is the parties themselves who create the
obligation, and the function of the law is merely to regulate the relation thus created. What applies in the
present case is Article 1170 of the Civil Code which reads: “Those who in the performance of their
obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor
thereof, are liable for damages.”

b. Was the Banquet and Meeting Services Contract a contract of adhesion? If yes, is the contract

Yes. A contract of adhesion is defined as one in which one of the parties imposes a ready-made form of
contract, which the other party may accept or reject, but which the latter cannot modify. One party
prepares the stipulation in the contract, while the other party merely affixes his signature or his
"adhesion" thereto, giving no room for negotiation and depriving the latter of the opportunity to bargain
on equal footing. However, contracts of adhesion are not invalid per se. Contracts of adhesion, where one
party imposes a ready-made form of contract on the other, are not entirely prohibited. The one who
adheres to the contract is, in reality, free to reject it entirely; if he adheres, he gives his consent.

7 of 14

Sinclair and Steffi had an illicit relationship while Sinclair was married to another. The relationship
produced a daughter Sabina, who grew up with her mother. For most parts of Sabina's youth, Steffi spent
for her support and education. When Sabina was 21 years old, Sinclair's wife of many years died. Sinclair
and Steffi lost no time in legitimizing their relationship. After the 40-day prayers for Sinclair's late wife,
Sinclair and Steffi got married without a marriage license, claiming that they have been cohabiting for the
last 20 years.

After graduating from college, Sabina decided to enroll in law school. Sinclair said that he was not
willing to pay for her school fees since she was no longer a minor. Sinclair claimed that, if Sabina wanted
to be a lawyer, she had to work and spend for her law education.

a) What is Sabina’s filiation status?

Sabina is an illegitimate child under Article 165 of the Family Code.Article 165 states that children who
are conceived and born outside a valid marriage are illegitimate.Sabina’s father Sinclair was married to
another woman at the time she was conceived and born. As no valid marriage could have existed between
her parents during her conception and birth, Sabina is clearly born outside of a valid wedlock. Hence,
Sabina is an illegitimate child.

Her parents’ subsequent marriage cannot accord to her legitimation. Under Article 177 of the Family
Code, only 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 may be legitimated.
At the time of Sabina’s conception her father Sinclair is married to another woman which means one of
her parents has as an impediment to marry the other. Hence, Sabina cannot be legitimated under Article

b) Is Sinclair legally required to finance Sabina’s law education?

No. Under Article 194 of the FC, the education of the person entitled to be supported shall include
schooling or training for some profession, trade or vocation even beyond the age of majority. The
obligation of the parent to provide support for the educational needs of the child is only up to tertiary
education. Since Sabina has necessarily finished obtaining a profession before entering law school,
Sinclair is no longer obliged to finance the former’s law education. Thus, Sabrina can no longer demand
support for her law education from her father.


Samantha sold all her business interest in a sole proprietorship to Sergio for the amount of PhP1 million.
Under the sale agreement, Samantha was supposed to pay for all prior unpaid utility bills incurred by the
sole proprietorship. A month after the Contract to Sell was executed, Samantha still had not paid the
PhP50,000 electricity bills incurred prior to the sale. Since Sergio could not operate the business without
electricity and the utility company refused to restore electricity services unless the unpaid bills were
settled in full, Sergio had to pay the unpaid electricity bills. When the date for payment arrived, Sergio
only tendered PhP950,000 representing the full purchase price, less the amount he paid for the unpaid
utility bills. Samantha refused to accept the tender on the ground that she was the one supposed to pay the
bills and Sergio did not have authorization to pay on her behalf.

8 of 14
(a) What is the effect of payment made by Sergio without the knowledge and consent of Samantha?

(b) Is Samantha guilty of mora accipiendi?

a. Under Art. 1236(2) of the Civil Code, whoever pays for another may demand from the debtor what he
has paid, except that if he has paid without the knowledge or against the will of the debtor, he can only
recover insofar as the payment has been beneficial to the debtor.

In the problem, Sergio paid the utility bills without the consent of Samantha. He cannot demand from the
latter what he has paid because the payment here cannot be said to have been beneficial to Samantha
because it can be inferred from the facts that she has the resources to do so.

b. Yes, Samantha is guilty of mora accipiendi.

Under the Civil Code, mora accipiendi is delay on the part of the creditor without justifiable reason to
accept performance of an obligation. In the problem, Samantha has the obligation, as a creditor in the sale
of business of sole proprietorship to accept the payment of Sergio representing P950,000. The fact that
Sergio paid her prior unpaid utility bills against her will will is not a justifiable reason to refuse
acceptance of compensation to their binding contract of sale.

The following are the requisites of Mora Accipiendi,(1) Offer of performance by the debtor who has the
required capacity; (2) Offer is to comply with the prestation as it should be performed; and (3) creditor
refuses the performance without just cause.


Saachi opened a savings bank account with Shanghainese Bank. He made an initial deposit of
PhP100,000. Part of the bank opening forms that he was required to sign when he opened the account was
a Holdout Agreement which provided that, should he incur any liability or obligation to the bank, the
bank shall have the right to immediately and automatically take over his savings account deposit. After he
opened his deposit account, the Shanghainese Bank discovered a scam wherein the funds in the account
of another depositor in the bank was withdrawn by an impostor. Shanghainese Bank suspected Saachi to
be. the impostor, and filed a criminal case of estafa against him. While the case was still pending with the
Prosecutor's office, the bank took over Saachi's savings deposit on the basis of the Holdout Agreement.

(a) What kind of contract is created when a depositor opens a deposit account with a bank?

(b) In this case, did the bank have the right to take over Saachi's bank deposit?

a.) The contract created when a depositor opens a deposit account with a bank is a simple loan or
mutuum. Article 1980 of the NCC provides fixed, savings, and current deposits of money in banks and
similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions of concerning simple loan or mutuum. When a
savings account is opened, a creditor-debtor relationship ensues with the depositor as the creditor and the
bank as the debtor.

b.) No, the bank had no right to take over Saachi’s bank deposit. The Hold over agreement states that the
right may be exercised by the bank only after the depositor incurs any liability to the bank. In this case,

9 of 14
the depositor is only suspected of estafa by another bank in the Prosecutor’s office. Absent a court order,
the bank cannot withhold the deposit of the depositor.

*Answer to Question XIII, to follow. It is under consultation with Civil Law Advisers. In any event, it is
under Civrev II.


Socorro is the registered owner of Lot A while Segunda is the registered owner of the adjoining Lot B.
Lot A is located at an elevated plateau of about 15 feet above the level of Lot B. Since Socorro was
allegedly removing portions of the land and cement that supported the adjoining property, Segunda
caused the annotation of an adverse claim against 50 sq. m. on Lot A's Transfer Certificate of Title,
asserting the existence of a legal easement.

a) Does a legal easement in fact exist? If so, what kind?

Yes. An easement for subjacent support exists. An easement for subjacent support exists when a
supported land is above and the supporting land is beneath. In this kind of easement, any stipulation or
testamentary provision allowing excavations that cause danger to an adjacent land or building shall be

b) If a legal easement does in fact exist, is an annotation of an adverse claim on the title of the
servient estate proper?

No, the annotation of an adverse claim on the title is not proper. It is well-settled in the case of Castro vs.
Monsod (G.R. 183719, February 2, 2011)that an annotation of the existence of the subjacent support is
no longer necessary. It exists whether or not it is annotated or registered in the registry of property. A
judicial recognition of the same already binds the property and the owner of the same, including his


Simon owned a townhouse that he rented out to Shannon, a flight attendant with Soleil Philippine Airlines
(SPA). They had no written contract but merely agreed on a three (3)-year lease. Shannon had been using
the townhouse as her base in Manila and had been paying rentals for more than a year when she accepted
a better job offer from Sing Airlines. This meant that Singapore was going to be her new base and so she
decided, without informing Simon, to sublease the townhouse to Sylvia, an office clerk in SPA.

(a) Can Simon compel Shannon to reduce the lease agreement into writing?

(b) Does the sublease without Simon's knowledge and consent constitute a ground for terminating
the lease?

a. Yes.

Under the Civil Code, an agreement for the leasing of real property for more than one year is covered
under the Statute of Frauds which requires that the same should be reduced into writing in order to be

10 of 14
In this problem, the lease agreement between Simon and Shannon over a townhouse is for a period of 3
years. This gives Simon the right to compel the lease agreement into writing because the same is within
the purview of Statute of Frauds.

b. Yes.

Under Sec. 8 of RA 9653 or the Rent Control Act of 2009, subleasing a residential units in whole or in
part without the written consent of the lessor is prohibited. Accordingly, this gives the lessor a ground for
terminating the lease as well as a ground for ejectment.


Selena was a single 18-year old when she got pregnant and gave birth to Suri. She then left to work as a
caregiver in Canada, leaving Suri with her parents in the Philippines. Selena, now 34 years old and a
permanent resident in Canada, met and married Sam who is a 24-year old Canadian citizen who works as
a movie star in Canada. Sam's parents are of Filipino ancestry but had become Canadian citizens before
Sam was born. Wanting Suri to have all the advantages of a legitimate child, Selena and Sam decided to
adopt her. Sam's parents, already opposed to the marriage of their son to someone significantly older,
vehemently objected to the adoption. They argued that Sam was not old enough and that the requisite age
gap required by the Inter-Country Adoption Act between Sam as adopter and Suri as adoptee was not met.

Are Sam's parents correct?

No, the parents of Sam are not correct. As a general rule, the Inter-Country Asoption Act of 1995
provides that any alien or Filipino citizen permanently residing abroad may file an application for inter-
country adoption, if, the adopter is at least 27 years of age and at least 16 years older than the child to be
adopted, at the time of the application unless the adopter is the parent of the child to be adopted or the
spouse of such parent.


Sofia and Semuel, both unmarried, lived together for many years in the Philippines and begot three
children. While Sofia stayed in the Philippines with the children, Semuel went abroad to work and
became a naturalized German citizen. He met someone in Germany whom he wanted to marry. Semuel
thereafter came home and filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for partition ofthe common
properties acquired during his union with Sofia in the Philippines. The properties acquired during the
union consisted of a house and lot in Cavite worth PhP2 million, and some personal properties, including
cash in bank amounting to PhP1 million. All these properties were acquired using Samuel's salaries and
wages since Sofia was a stay-at-home mother. In retaliation, Sofia filed an action, on behalf of their minor
children, for support.

a. How should the properties be partitioned?

The property should be partitioned equally. Under Art. 147, FC, 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, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and
the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-

11 of 14
ownership.For purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other
party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former's
efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household.

b. Should Semuel be required to support minor children?

Yes. Parents and their illegitimate children and the legitimate and illegitimate children of the latter are
obliged to support each other to the whole extent set forth in Art. 194 of the FC (Article 195, FC).


Shasha purchased an airline ticket from Sea Airlines (SAL) covering Manila-Bangkok- Hanoi-Manila.
The ticket was exclusively endorsable to Siam Airlines (SMA). The contract of air transportation was
between Shasha and SAL, with the latter endorsing to SMA the Hanoi-Manila segment of the journey. All
her flights were confirmed by SAL before she left Manila. Shasha took the flight from Manila to Bangkok
on board SAL using the ticket. When she arrived in Bangkok, she went to the SAL ticket counter and
confirmed her return trip from Hanoi to Manila on board SMA Flight No. SA 888. On the date of her
return trip, she checked in for SMA Flight No. SA 888, boarded the plane, and before she could even
settle in on her assigned seat, she was off-loaded and treated rudely by the crew. She lost her luggage and
missed an important business meeting. She thereafter filed a complaint solely against SAL and argued
that it was solidarily liable with SMA for the damages she suffered since the latter was only an agent of
the former.

a) Should either, or both, SAL and SMA be held liable for damages that Shasha suffered?

SAL should be held liable for damages suffered by Shasha. Sea Airlines (SAL) as the ticket-issuing
airline is the principal in a contract of carriage, while Siam Airlines (SMA) as the endorsee-airline, is the
agent. Under Article 1910 of the Civil Code, the principal must comply with all the obligations which the
agent may have contracted within the scope of his authority.

The contract of air transportation was between Shasha and SAL with the latter endorsing to SMA the
Hanoi-Manila segment of the journey. Such contract of carriage has always been treated in our
jurisdiction as a single operation.

As the principal in the contract of carriage, SAL should be held liable, even when the breach of contract
had occurred, not on its own flight, but on that of SMA. The obligation of the ticket-issuing airline
remained and did not cease, regardless of the fact that another airline had undertaken to carry the
passengers to one of their destinations(China Airlines vs. Chiok; G.R. 152122, July 30, 2003).

b) Assuming that one is an agent of the other, is the agency coupled with interest?

Yes.Where an agency is for the mutual benefit of the principal and of the agent, the agency is deemed
coupled with an interest. The agent’s interest must be in the subject matter of the power conferred and not
merely an interest in the exercise of the power because it entitles him to compensation.

SMA, as the agent of SAL and as an endorsee-airline, has a personalinterest in the business. It had
assumed a personal obligation for the operation of the airline by undertaking to transport passengers from
Hanoi to Manila. Its interest extends to the very subject matter of the transportation of passengers as an
airline company for it undertakes to transport passengers from one destination to another(Sevilla v. Court
of Appeals; G.R. No. 139540. June 29, 2005) (Lim vs. Saban; G.R. No. 163720, December 16, 2004).

12 of 14

Sebastian, who has a pending assessment from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), was required to
post a bond. He entered into an agreement with Solid Surety Company (SSC) for SSC to issue a bond in
favor of the BIR to secure payment of his taxes, if found to be due. In consideration of the issuance of the
bond, he executed an Indemnity Agreement with SSC whereby he agreed to indemnify the latter in the
event that he was found liable to pay the tax. The BIR eventually decided against Sebastian, and judicially
commenced action against both Sebastian and SSC to recover Sebastian's unpaid taxes. Simultaneously,
BIR also initiated action to foreclose on the bond. Even before paying the BIR, SSC sought indemnity
from Sebastian on the basis of the Indemnity Agreement. Sebastian refused to pay since SSC had not paid
the BIR anything yet, and alleged that the provision in the Indemnity Agreement which allowed SSC to
recover from him, by mere demand, even if it (SSC) had not yet paid the creditor, was void for being
contrary to law and public policy.

Can Sebastian legally refuse to pay SSC?

No, Sebastian’s argument has no merit.

Under Art. 2073 of the Civil Code, when there are two or more guarantors for the same debtor for the
same debt, the one among them who has paid may demand each of the others the share which is
proportionately owing from him.

In the problem, SSC as guarantor who bound to be solidarity liable with Sebastian, its cause of action is
based on the surety bond that it posted to accommodate Sebastian pending assessment by the BIR.
Sebastian’s argument that SSC cannot recover from him because SSC has not paid anything from BIR is
wrong. Here, BIR’s foreclosure of the bond served as payment by SSC so as to allow him to recover
indemnity from Sebastian based on the indemnity agreement.


Simeon was returning to Manila after spending a weekend with his parents in Sariaya, Quezon. He
boarded a bus operated by the Sabbit Bus Line (SBL) on August 30, 2013. In the middle of the journey,
the bus collided with a truck coming from the opposite direction, which was overtaking the vehicle in
front of the truck. Though the driver of the SBL bus tried to avoid the truck, a mishap occurred as the
truck hit the left side of the bus. As a result of the accident, Simeon suffered a fractured leg and was
unable to report for work for one week. He sued SBL for actual and moral damages. SBL raised the
defense that it was the driver of the truck who was at fault, and that it exercised the diligence of a good
father of a family in the selection and supervision of its driver.

(a) Is SBL liable for actual damages? Moral damages?

(b) Will SBL be liable to pay interest if it is required to pay damages, and delays in the payment of
the judgment award? What is the rate of interest, and from when should the interest start running?

a.) Yes, SBL is liable to pay actual damages. Article 1759 of the NCC provides that common carriers are
liable for the death or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willfuk acts of the former’s
employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation

13 of 14
of the orders of the common carriers. The liability if the common carriers does not cease upon proof that
they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their

As to the actual damages, Article 2199 of the NCC provides that except as provided by law or by
stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he
has duly proved. In this case, the actual damages are luco cesante, or the Loss of a benefit that the
plaintiff failed to receive.

As to moral damages, the same may be recovered in breach of contract of carriage only if the defendant
acted fraudulently or in bad faith. In this case, since the accident was caused by the truck and not the
driver of the bus, SBL is not liable to pay moral damages.

b.) Yes, SBL will be liable to pay interest if a judgment to pay damages is given and it delays in the
payment of such damages. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and
executory, the rate of the legal interest, shall be 6% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction.

Special thanks to the Ad Hoc Committee composed of representatives from 4SBCE who came up with
the suggested answers for our benefit.

14 of 14