How would you compare the Civil Law system in its governance and trend with that of the Common Law system?
01. Compare Civil Law system and Common Law
02. Divorce of marriage
In 1977, Mario and Clara, both Filipino citizens, were married in the
In 1990, Mario returned to the
(a) Is the marriage between Mario and Juana valid?
(b) Would the renvoi doctrine have any relevance to the case?
03. In Civil Law, state the concept; requisites; consequences of a prejudicial question
In the context that the term is used in Civil Law, state the (a) concept, (b) requisites and (c) consequences of a prejudicial question.
04. Cohabitation Without the Benefit of Marriage
Luis and Rizza, both 26 years of age and single, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. Luis is gainfully employed. Rizza is not employed, stays at home, and takes charge of the household chores.
After living together for a little over twenty years. Luis was able to save from his salary earnings during that period the amount of P200,000.00 presently deposited in a bank. A house and lot worth P500,000.00 was recently purchased for the same amount by the couple. Of the P5000,000.00 used by the common-law spouses to purchase the property, P200,000.00 had come from the sale of palay harvested from the hacienda owned by Luis and P300,000.00 from the rentals of a building belonging to Rizza. In fine, the sum of P500,000.00 had been part of the fruits received during the period of cohabitation from their separate property. A car worth P100,000,00, being used by the common-law spouses, was donated just months ago to Rizza by her parents.
Luis and Rizza now decide to terminate their cohabitation, and they ask you to give them your legal advice on the following:
(a) How, under the law, should the bank deposit of P200,000.00, the house and lot valued at P500,000.00 the car worth P100,000.00 be allocated to them?
(b) What would your answer be (to the above question) had Luis and Rizza been living together all the time, i.e. since twenty years ago, under a valid marriage?
05. Nullity of Marriage
Under what conditions, respectively, may drug addiction be a ground, if at all, (a) for a declaration of nullity of marriage. (b) for an annulment of the marriage contract, and (c) for legal separation between the spouses?
06. Amended Deed of Sale
Pedro is the registered owner of a parcel of land situated in Malolos, Bulacan. In 1973, he mortgaged the land to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) to secure a loan of P100,000.00. For Pedro's failure to pay the loan, the PNB foreclosed on the mortgage in 1980, and the land was sold at public auction to PNB for being the highest bidder. PNB secured title thereto in 1987.
In the meanwhile, Pedro, who was still in possession of the land, constructed a warehouse on the property. In 1986, the PNB sold the land to Pablo. The Deed of Sale was amended in 1989 to include the warehouse.
Pedro, claiming ownership of the warehouse, files a complaint to annul the amended Deed of Sale before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, where he resides, against both the PNB and Pablo. The PNB filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for improper venue contending that the warehouse is real property under Article 415(1) of the Civil Code and therefore the action should have instead been filed in Malolos. Bulacan. Pedro claims otherwise. The question arose as to whether the warehouse should be considered as real or as personal property.
If consulted, what would your legal advice be?
07. Land Owner
Marcelino, a treasure hunter a just a hobby, has found a map which appears to indicate the location of hidden treasure. He has an idea of the land where the treasure might possibly be found. Upon inquiry, Marcelino learns that the owner of the land, Leopoldo, is a permanent resident of
Leopoldo, learning of Marcelino “find", seeks to recover the treasure from Marcelino but the latter is not willing to part with it. Falling to reach an agreement, Leopoldo sues Marcelino for the recovery of the property, Marcelino contests the action.
How would you decide the case?
08. Usufruct
On 1 January 198O. Minerva, the owner of a building, granted Petronila a usufruct over the property until 01 June 1998 when Manuel, a son of Petronila. would have reached his 30th birthday. Manuel, however, died on 1 June 1990 when he was only 26 years old.
Minerva notified Petronila that the usufruct had been extinguished by the death of Manuel and demanded that the latter vacate the premises and deliver the same to the former. Petronila refused to vacate the place on the ground that the usufruct in her favor would expire only on 1 June 1998 when Manuel would have reached his 30th birthday and that the death of Manuel before his 30th birthday did not extinguish the usufruct.
Whose contention should be accepted?09. Distinguish Possession and Occupation
(a) Distinguish between "possession" and "occupation" as these terms are commonly used in Book II and Book III of the Civil Code.
(b) Are the effects of illegal and immoral conditions on simple donations the same as those effects that would follow when such conditions are imposed on donations con causa. oneroso?
10. Probated in Two Separate Petitions
Johnny, with no known living relatives, executed a notarial will giving all his estate to his sweetheart. One day, he had a serious altercation with his sweetheart. A few days later, he was introduced to a charming lady who later became a dear friend. Soon after, he executed a holographic will expressly revoking the notarial will and so designating his new friend as sole heir. One day when he was clearing up his desk. Johnny mistakenly burned, along with other papers, the only copy of his holographic will. His business associate, Eduardo, knew well the contents of the will which was shown to him by Johnny the day it was executed. A few days after the burning incident, Johnny died. Both wills were sought to be probated in two separate petitions.
Will either or both petitions prosper?
11. Intestacy Among the Surviving Heirs
“T” died intestate on 1 September 1997. He was survived by M (his mother), W (his widow), A and B (his legitimate children), C (his grandson, being the legitimate son of B), D (his other grandson, being the son of E who was a legitimate son of, and who predeceased, “T”) and F (his grandson, being the son of G, a legitimate son who repudiated the inheritance from “T”). His distributable net estate is P120,000.00
How should this amount be shared in intestacy among the surviving heirs?
12. Respective Shares in the Distribution of the Estate
‘X', the decedent, was survived by W (his widow), A (his son), B (a granddaughter being the daughter of A) and C and D (the two acknowledged illegitimate children of the decedent). "X" died this year (1997) leaving a net estate of P180,000.00. All were willing to succeed, except A who repudiated the inheritance from his father, and they seek your legal advice on how much each can expect to receive as their respective shares in the distribution of the estate.
Give your answer.
13. Registered Parcel of Land
On 01 January 1980, Redentor and Remedios entered into an agreement by virtue of which the former was to register a parcel of land in the name of Remedios under the explicit covenant to reconvey the land to Remigio, son of Redentor, upon the son's graduation from college. In 1991, the land was registered in the name of Remedios.
Redentor died a year later or in 1982. In March 1983. Remigio graduated from college. In February 1992, Remigio accidentally found a copy of the document so constituting Remedios as the trustee of the land. In May 1994, Remtgio filed a case against Remedios for the reconveyance of the land to him. Remedios, in her answer, averred that the action already prescribed.
How should the mailer be decided?
14.
In two separate documents signed by him, Juan Valentino "obligated" himself each to Maria and to Perla, thus -
'To Maria, my true love. I obligate myself to give you my one and only horse when I feel like it."
- and -
"To Perla, my true sweetheart, I obligate myself to pay you the P500.00 I owe you when I feel like it."
Months passed but Juan never bothered to make good his promises. Maria and Perla came to consult you on whether or not they could recover on the basis of the foregoing settings.
What would your legal advice?
15. Contract to Sell and Contract of Sale
State the basic difference (only in their legal effects) -
(a) Between a contract to sell, on the one hand, and a contract of sale, on the other;
(b) Between a conditional sale, on the one hand, and an absolute sale, on the other hand.16. Chattel Mortgage
AB sold to CD a motor vehicle for and in consideration of P120,000.00, to be paid in twelve monthly equal installments of P10,000.00, each installment being due and payable on the 15th day of each month starting January 1997.
To secure the promissory note, CD (a) executed a chattel mortgage on the subject motor vehicle, and (b) furnished a surety bond issued by Philamlife. CD failed to pay more than two (2) installments.
AB went after the surety but he was only able to obtain three-fourths (3/4) of the total amount still due and owing from CD. AB seeks your advice on how he might if at all, recover the deficiency.
17. Lessee Extinguish the Lease Agreement
Stating briefly the thesis to support your answer to each of the following cases, will the death –
(b) of a partner terminate the partnership?
(c) of an agent end an agency?
18. Securing a Bank Loan
In order to secure a bank loan, XYZ Corporation surrendered us deposit certificate, with a maturity date of 01 September 1997 to the bank. The corporation defaulted on the due repayment of the loan, prompting the bank to encash the deposit certificate. XYZ Corporation questioned the above action taken by the bank as being a case of pactum commissorium. The bank disagrees.
What is your opinion?
19. Employer's Liability for Damage
(a) When would an employer's liability for damage, caused by an employee in the performance of his assigned tasks, be primary and when would it be subsidiary in nature?
20. Free Patent Covering the the Lots
On 10 September 1965, Melvin applied for a free patent covering two lots - Lot A and Lot B - situated in
On 7 September 1971, Percival filed a protest alleging that Lot B which he had been occupying and cultivating since 1947 was included in the Free Patent issued in the name of Melvin. The Director of Lands ordered the investigation of Percival's protest. The Special Investigator who conducted the Investigation found that Percival had been in actual cultivation of Lot B since 1947.
On 28 November 1986, the Solicitor General filed in behalf of the Republic of the
Melvin filed his answers interposing the sole defense In both cases that the Certificate of Title Issued in his name became incontrovertible and indefeasible upon the lapse of one year from the issuance of the free patent.
Given the circumstances, can the action of the Solicitor General and the case for reconveyance filed by Percival possibly prosper?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
