1.

a. The marriage of Solenn and Sonny is voidable due to lack of parental consent being only
19 years old and 20 years old respectively when the marriage was solemnized. Art. 45 of the
Family Code provides that a marriage may be annulled where the party in whose behalf it is
sought to have the marriage annulled was 18 yrs. old or over but below 21 and the marriage
was solemnized without the consent of the parents, guardian or person having substitute
parental authority.

b. Yes, the marriage can be ratified by free cohabitation of the parties. Art. 45(1) provides that
after attaining the age of 21 of the party and such party freely cohabited with the other and
both lived together as husband and wife, then the marriage may no longer by annulled.

2. a. Shalimar is a legitimate child being born during the marriage of the parents as provided
in Art. 164 of the Family Code. Also, the declaration of nullity of Shalimar’s parents does not
affect his legitimacy as he was born before the judgment of absolute nullity of the marriage
under Art. 36 has become final and executory provided in Art. 54 of the Family Code.

b. Rules on co-ownership would be the system of property relationship. Art. 147 of the
Family Code provides that 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-ownership.

c. Sancho should get the parcel of land because even if the completion of payments for such
was already during marriage, full ownership of the land was vested before the marriage.
Sancho’s Contract of Sale was secured by a mortgage on the land which indicates that he was
already the full owner of the land because Art. 2085 of the Civil code requires a mortgagor to
be the absolute owner of the thing mortgaged.

As to the jewelry, Sandy should get it because she acquired it during marriage by gratuitous
title. Such was not acquired by both of them through their work or industry and thus rules on
co-ownership will not apply.

d.

3.
a. There is no any legal bases for the court to approve Silverio’s petition for correction of
entries in his birth certificate. Petition must be denied as it has been decided in Silverio v
Republic that a person’s first name or any entry in the birth certificate cannot be changed on
the ground of sex reassignment.

b. My answer will not be the same in the case of Sharon’s petition because the facts are not
similar. Petition should be granted as it has been decided in Republic v Cagandahan that
where the person is biologically or naturally intersex, the determining factor in his gender
classification would be what the individual, like Sharon, having reached the age of majority,
with good reason thinks of his/her sex. Unlike in Silverio’s case, Sharon has simply let nature
take its course and has not taken unnatural steps to arrest or interfere with what he was born
with.

c. The marriage of Silverio and Sharon can be recognized as valid in the Philippines because
by law, Silverio and Sharon are still considered male and female respectively. Even though
the petition of Sharon should be granted, it was not stated in the facts that her petition
changing her gender from female to male was already granted. If the petition of Sharon was
granted at the time of marriage, then such marriage is not valid in the Philippines because it
would be a marriage between two males. Being Filipino citizens, Art. 15 of the Civil Code
states that laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal
capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.
Thus Philippine law applies to the couple which prohibits marriage between same sex
couples.

4.
a. The first sale to Dr. Santos and the subsequent repurchase were valid but only as to the
corresponding shares of the older siblings to the property. This is supported by Art. 1612 of
the Civil Code wherein if several persons, jointly and in the same contract, should sell an
undivided immovable with a right of repurchase, none of them may exercise this right for
more than his respective shares.

b. The second sale to Dr. Sazon was valid as to the siblings and the mother’s respective
shares. As to the share of the minor twins, the sale is unenforceable because the mother failed
to ask permission from the court to sell as provided in Art. 1403(1) of the Civil Code. The
twins may redeem their share after they reach the age of majority.

5. The two legitimate children are entitled to their legitime which is half of the 8M and thus
each of them will get 2 million. Santino will inherit even if he attempted to kill her mother
before because in order to be incapable of succeeding by reason of unworthiness under Art.
1032, there must be conviction on the attempt against the life of the testator which was not so
in this case. Sara will also inherit even if she acted as an attesting witness to the will. Art.
1027(4) will not make her incapable of succeeding because she is a compulsory heir. Such
law applies to testamentary heirs.

The legacy is valid as there is no legitime affected. The priest will get his share of 1M from
the free portion. The prohibition in Art. 1027(1) of the Civil Code applies to priest who heard
the confession of the testator during his last illness only.

The remaining 3M will be divided by the two legitimate children of the testator. Thus, to sum
up, 2M from their own shares plus 1.5M from free portion which is equal to 3.5M for each
child.
6. Santi may successfully require demolition through legal action as both parties were in bad
faith. Sammy was in bad faith when he knew of the encroachment but did not tell his cousin
and there was also bad faith on the part of the landowner Santi as he did not object even if he
knew of such encroachment. Under Art. 453, if both parties are in bad faith, the rights of one
and the other shall be the same as though both had acted in good faith.

Being both in good faith, Art. 448 applies which gives the landowner the option to
appropriate the works as his own with indemnity due to the builder or to oblige the one who
built to pay the price of the land or the one who sowed to pay the proper rent. Santi may
demolish the improvement if he appropriates the same for himself but is subject to retention
by the builder under Art. 456 of the Civil Code.

7.
a. Yes, the doctrine of dependent relative revocation applies in this case. The doctrine applies
when a testator cancels or destroys a will or executes an instrument intended to revoke a will
with the intention to make a new testamentary disposition as substitute for the old and the
new disposition fails or effect for some reason as explained in Molo v Molo. It is presumed
that the testator prefers the old will rather than intestacy.

b. No because Art. 832 is an exception to such doctrine which provides that a revocation
made in a subsequent will shall take effect even if the new will should become inoperative by
reason of xxx renunciation” of the heirs, devisees or legatees designated therein.
8. Yes, the usufruct will continue even after the house has burned down. Art. 607 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. It will not continue after Sinforoso’s death because
the exception in Art. 606 applies where the usufruct has been expressly granted only in
consideration of the existence of such person. In this case, the grandfather gave the mother
usufructuary rights over one of his properties specifically in consideration of his grandson til
he reaches the age of majority.

9.
a. No, the doctrine of proximate cause will not apply in this case because such doctrine does
not apply to actions involving breach of contract. It only applies to actions for quasi-delicts
and is a device for imputing liability to a person where there is no relation between him and
another party as decided in Sps. Guanio v Shangrila.

b. Yes, the Banquet and Meeting Services Contract was a contract of adhesion as there was a
ready-made form of contract which the other party may accept or reject but which the latter
cannot modify. This is not void. It is not entirely against the law and is binding as ordinary
contracts because the party who adheres to such is free to reject it entirely.

10.
a. Sabina was an illegitimate child as she was conceived and born outside a valid marriage.
Also, Sabina could not be legitimated under Art. 177 of the Family Code because her parents,
at the time of her conception, were disqualified by an impediment to marry each other
because the father was validly married to another.

b. Yes, Sinclair is legally required to finance Sabina’s law education because Art. 194 of the
Family Code requires support which includes schooling or training for some profession even
beyond the age of majority. Also, Art. 195(4) obliges the parents and their illegitimate
children to support each other.

11.
a. The payment made by Sergio is valid even if without knowledge and consent of Samantha
because there is legal subrogation. Art. 1302 (3) presumes legal subrogation when even
without the knowledge of the debtor, a person interested in the fulfillment of the obligation
pays. In this case, Sergio is interested in the fulfillment of the obligation because he could not
operate the business without electricity. Since Sergio is legally subrogated, he is entitled to
reimbursement of the amount he paid (50K) from Samantha.

b. Yes, Samantha is guilty of mora accipiendi. It is the delay of the creditor to accept the
delivery of the thing which is the object of the obligation. All the elements of such are
present:
1. offer of performance by the debtor
2. offer must be to comply with the prestation as it should be performed
3. creditor refuses performance without just cause

12.
a. Contract of simple loan or mutuum. Under Art. 1980 of the Civil Code, fixed, savings, and
current deposits of money in banks and similar institutions shall be governed by the
provisions concerning simple loan. Also in Serrano v Central Bank of the Philippines, bank
deposits were defined as loans because they earn interest.
b. The bank did not have the right to take over Saachi’s bank deposit because the criminal
case of estafa against Saachi was still pending with the Prosecutor’s office. Saachi then did
not have any obligation under any law, contract, quasi-contract, delict or quasi-delict. The
Hold-out Agreement only applies if there is a valid and existing obligation arising from any
of the sources of the obligation under Art. 1157 which was not so in this case.

13.
a. Yes, SEP can legally recover the deficiency because the remedy it chose was collection suit
and not foreclosure of chattel mortgage. Each remedy has different effects. Choosing
foreclosure of chattel mortgage would bar SEP from pursuing further remedies on the
deficiencies.

b. Yes, SEP can commence extrajudicial proceedings to foreclose the mortgage on Stan’s
house and lot in order to recover the deficiency as this is an alternative valid remedy.

14.
a. Yes, legal easement exists which is an easement of subjacent and lateral support. Art. 684
of the Civil Code provides that no proprietor shall make such excavation upon his land as to
deprive any adjacent land or building of sufficient lateral or subjacent support.

b. No, annotation of an adverse claim on the title of the servient estate is not proper because
Segunda does not have a claim of ownership of the land. Annotation of an adverse claim over
registered land requires a claim on the title of the disputed land as provided in Sec 70 of P.D.
1529. What Segunda really wants is judicial recognition of the existence of the easement of
subjacent and lateral support which cannot be achieved thru annotation.

15.
a. Yes, Simon can compel Shannon to reduce the lease agreement into writing as provided for
in Art. 1357. 1357 provides that if the law requires a document or other special form, the
contracting parties may compel each other to observe that form. A lease with a period of
greater than 1 year which in this case was 3 years, needs to be in writing to be enforceable as
required in Art. 1403. Thus, Simon can compel Shannon as the law requires such to be
enforceable.

b. No. The sublease was not a ground for terminating the lease as it was not expressly
prohibited. Art. 1650 of the Civil code states that where there is no express prohibition, the
lessee may sublet the thing leased in whole or in part without prejudice to his responsibility
for the performance of the contract toward the lessor.

16. No, Sam’s parents are not correct. Inter-country Adoption Act is not applicable and thus
the requisite age gap doesn’t apply. Only a legally free child who is committed to the DWSD
or other authorized child-caring agency and released from parental authority of his biological
parents may be the subject of such Act. In this case, the child is under the custody of the
parents. Domestic adoption act is applicable and thus the adoption is valid. Also the age gap
requirement doesn’t apply as Sam is the spouse of the adoptee’s parent.

17.
a. Art. 147 of FC. The properties should be partitioned between Sofia and Semuel in
equal shares. As a stay-at-home mother, Sofia shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in
the acquisition of properties as her efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family
and of the household in accordance with Art. 147 of FC.
b. Yes, Semuel should be required to support the minor children even if they are
illegitimate children provided the children have been recognized by the father. If
unrecognized, the relationship between the children and the father must first be proved. Once
paternity has been proven, only then the children are entitled and can ask for child support
from the father. The support of illegitimate children shall be governed by the provisions on
Support (art. 94 of FC). The provision on Support under Art. 195 provides that parents and
illegitimate children are obliged to support each other.

18.
a. Both SAL and SMA can be held liable for damages that Sasha suffered. The
contract of transportation is between the ticket issuing airline and the passenger and
the carrying agent is liable for its acts that has cause damages to the passenger. As
decided in China Airlines Royal v Chiok, 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.

b. Yes, the agency is coupled with interest under Art. 1927 of the Civil Code which
states that an agency cannot be revoked if a bilateral contract depends upon it, or if it is the
means of fulfilling an obligation already contracted, or if a partner is appointed manager of a
partnership in the contract of partnership and his removal from the management is
unjustifiable.

19. Yes, Sebastian can legally refuse to pay SSC because SSC has not yet paid BIR so there is no basis
for its recovery from Sebastian.

20.
a. The liability for actual and moral damages would depend on the basis. If the source of obligation is
contract of carriage, SBL is liable for actual damages and defense of diligence in the selection of
employees will not prosper. Also, SBL will not be liable for moral damages because Art. 2220 requires
fraud or bad faith which was not present in this case. If it is quasi-delict, may be liable for actual
damages if not diligent in the selection and supervision of employees and may be liable for moral
damages under Art. 2219(2) which is moral damages for quasi-delicts causing physical injuries.

b. Yes, SBL may be liable to pay interest. In a contract, interest may in the discretion of the court be
allowed upon damages awarded for breach of contract under Art. 2210 of the Civil Code and in quasi-
delict, interest as part of damages may be adjudicated in the discretion of the court under Art. 2211.