Juan is a Filipino citizen residing in
1. His capacity to contract marriage in
2. His successional rights as regards his deceased Filipino father's properly in
3. The extrinsic validity of the last will and testament which Juan executed while sojourning in
4. The intrinsic validity of said will. [1%|
Francis Albert, a citizen and resident of
1. Will the suit prosper? [3%]
2. Suppose XYZ Corporation is impleaded as a co-defendant, what would be the basis of its liability if any? [2%]
Jaime, who is 65 and his son, Willy, who is 25, died in a plane crash. There proof is no proof as to who died first. Jaime's only surviving heir is his wife, Julia, who is also Willy's mother. Willy's surviving heirs are his mother, Julia and his wife. Wilma.
1. In the settlement of Jaime's estate, can Wilma successfully claim that her late husband, Willy had a hereditary share since he was much younger than his father and, therefore, should be presumed to have survived longer? [3%]
2. Suppose Jaime had a life insurance policy with his wife, Julia, and his son, Willy, as the beneficiaries. Can Wilma successfully claim that one-half of the proceeds should belong to Willy's estate? [2%|
Using a falsified manager’s check, Justine, as the buyer, was able to take delivery of a second hand car which she had just bought from United Car Sales, Inc. The sale was registered with the Land Transportation Office. A week later, the seller learned that the check had been dishonored, but by that time, Justine was nowhere to be seen, it turned out that Justine had sold the car to Jerico, the present possessor who knew nothing about the falsified check. In a suit by United Car Sales, Inc. against Jerico for recovery of the car, plaintiff alleges it had been unlawfully deprived of its property through fraud and should, consequently, be allowed to recover it without having to reimburse the defendant for the price the latter had paid. Should the suit prosper? [5%]
In 1973, Mauricio, a Filipino pensioner of the U.S. Government, contracted a bigamous marriage with Erlinda, despite the fact that his first wife, Carol, was still living. In 1975, Mauricio and Erlinda jointly bought a parcel of Riceland, with the title being placed jointly in their names. Shortly thereafter, they purchased another property (a house and lot) which was placed in her name alone as the buyer. In 1981, Mauricio died, and Carol promptly filed an action against Erlinda to recover both the Riceland and the house and lot, claiming them to be conjugal property of the first marriage. Erlinda contends that she and the late Mauricio were co-owners of the Riceland; and the respect to the house and lot, she claims she is the exclusive owner. Assuming she fails to prove that she had actually used her own money in either purchase, how do you decide the case? [5%]
In 1970, Bob and Issa got married without executing a marriage settlement. In 1975, Bob inherited from his father a residential lot upon which, in 1981, he constructed a two-room bungalow with savings from his own earnings. At that time, the lot was worth P800, 000.00 while the house, when finished cost P600, 000.00. In 1989, Bob died, survived only by his wife, Issa and his mother, Sofia. Assuming that the relative values of both assets remained at the same proportion:
Juan and his sister Juana inherited from their mother two parcels of farmland with exactly the same areas. For convenience, the
On July 27, 1997, Pedro mailed in
2. Will your answer be the same if Jose did mail his acceptance letter but it received by Pedro in
Ernesto donated in a public instrument a parcel of land to Demetrio who accepted it in the same document. It is there declared that the donation shall take effect immediately, with the donee having the right to lake possession of the land and receive its fruits but not to dispose of the land while Ernesto is alive as well as for ten years following his death. Moreover, Ernesto also reserved in the same deed his right to sell the property should he decide to dispose of it at any time a right which he did not exercise at all. After his death, Ernesto's heirs seasonably brought an action to recover the property, alleging that the donation was void as it did not comply with the formalities of a will. Will the suit prosper? [5%]
In a 20-year lease contract over a building, the lessee is expressly granted a right of first refusal should the lessor decide to sell both the land and building. However, the lessor sold the property to a third person who knew about the lease and in fact agreed to respect it. Consequently, the lessee brings an action against both the lessor-seller and the buyer (a) to rescind the sale and (b) to compel specific performance of his right of first refusal in the sense that the lessor should be ordered to execute a deed of absolute sale in favor of the lessee at the same price. The defendants contend that the plaintiff can neither seek rescission of the sale nor compel specific performance of a "mere" right of first refusal. Decide the case. [5%]
Tessie died survived by her husband Mario, and two nieces, Michelle and Jorelle, who are the legitimate children of an elder sister who had predeceased her. The only property she left behind was a house and lot worth two million pesos, which Tessie and her husband had acquired with the use of Mario’s savings from his income as a doctor. How much of the property or its value, if any, may Michelle and Jorelle claim as their hereditary shares? [5%]
Enrique died, leaving a net hereditary estate of P1.2 million. He is survived by his widow, three legitimate children, two legitimate grandchildren sired by a legitimate child who predeceased him, and two recognized illegitimate children. Distribute the estate in intestacy. [5%]
A Galant driven by John and owned by Art, and a Corolla driven by its owner, Gina collided somewhere along
1. Define compensation as a mode of extinguishing an obligation, and distinguish it from payment. [2%]
2. X, who has a savings deposit with Y Bank in the sum of P 1,000,000.00, incurs a loan obligation with the said Bank in the sum of P800, 000.00 which has become due. When X tries to withdraw his deposit. Y Bank allows only P200, 000.00 to be withdrawn, less service charges, claiming that compensation has extinguished its obligation under the savings account to the concurrent amount of X's debt. X contends that compensation is improper when one of the debts, as here, arises from a contract of deposit. Assuming that the promissory note signed by X to evidence the loan does not provide for compensation between said loan and his savings deposit, who is correct? [3%]
Joey, Jovy and Jojo are solidary debtors under a loan obligation of P300, 000.00 which has fallen due. The creditor has, however, condoned Jojo's entire share in the debt. Since Jovy has become insolvent, the creditor makes a demand on Joey to pay the debt.
1. How much, if any, may Joey be compelled to pay? [2%]
2. To what extent, if at all, can Jojo be compelled by Joey to contribute to such payment? [3%]
Distinguish between:
1. Continuous and discontinuous easements; [2%]
2. Apparent and non-apparent easements; and [2%]
3. Positive and negative easements. [l%]
Dielle, Karlo and Una are general partners in a merchandising firm. Having contributed equal amounts to the capital, they also agree on equal distribution of whatever net profit is realized per fiscal period. After two years of operation, however, Una conveys her whole interest in the partnership to Justine, without the knowledge and consent of Dielle and Karlo,
2. What are the rights of Justine, if any, should she desire to participate in the management of the partnership and in the distribution of a net profit of P360.000. 00 which was realized after her purchase of Una's interest? [3%]
1. Distinguish usufruct from commodatum and state whether these may be constituted over consumable goods.[2%]
Section 70 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, concerning adverse claims on registered land, provides a 30-day period of effectivity of an adverse claim, counted from the date of its registration. Supposes notice of adverse claim based upon a contract to sell was registered on March 1, 1997 at the instance of the BUYER, but on June 1, 1997, or after the lapse of the 30-day period, a notice of levy on execution in favor of a JUDGMENT CREDITOR was also registered to enforce a final judgment for money against the registered owner. Then on June 15, 1997 there having been no formal cancellation of his notice of adverse claim, the BUYER pays to the seller-owner the agreed purchase price in full and registers the corresponding deed of sale. Because the annotation of the notice of levy is carried over to the new title in his name, the BUYER brings an action against the JUDGMENT CREDITOR to cancel such annotation, but the latter claims that his lien is superior because It was annotated after the adverse claim of the BUYER had ipso facto ceased to be effective. Will the suit prosper? [5%]
In 1965, Renren bought from Robyn a parcel of registered land evidenced by a duly executed deed of sale. The owner presented the deed of sale and the owner's certificate of title to the Register of Deeds. The entry was made in the day book and corresponding fees were paid as evidenced by official receipt. However, no transfer of certificate of title was issued to Renren because the original certificate of title in Robyn's name was temporarily misplaced after fire partly gutted the Office of the Register of Deeds. Meanwhile, the land had been possessed by Robyn's distant cousin, Mikaelo, openly, adversely and continuously in the concept of owner since 1960. It was only in April 1998 that Renren sued Mikaelo to recover possession. Mikaelo invoked a) acquisitive prescription and b) laches, asking that he be declared owner of the land. Decide the case by evaluating these defenses. [5%]
