Answers:

The contract is not valid.

The Family Code provides that marriage is a special

contract entered into in accordance with the law and its
nature, consequences and incidents are governed by law
and not subject to stipulation except with regard to
property relations.

Here, what the couple have stipulated in their

marriage settlement is the term of their relationship and
not with regard to property relations. Hence, the contract
is not valid as the stipulation is against the Family Code.

No, the contention is untenable.

The law provides that a corporation has a juridical and

distinct personality that of which can sue and be sued.
Also, Jurisprudence provides that generally a hospital is
not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor
physician. However, a physician can be held vicariously
liable for the negligent acts of a physician, regardless of
whether the physician is an independent contractor,
unless the patient knows or should have known that the
physician is an independent contractor.

Here, the corporation owns a hospital and its

physician is sued with malpractice together with the
hospital. Thus, the owner of the hospital, as a juridical
person, can be sued together with the physician who is
accused of medical malpractice. Hence, the contention is
untenable.
 3

Yes, the husband’s reappearance shall automatically

terminate the second marriage by the recording of the
affidavit of reappearance of the absent spouse.

Under the Family Code, a sworn statement of the

facts and circumstances of reappearance by any person
shall be recorded in the civil registry of the residence of
the parties to the subsequent marriage.

Here, the husband’s reappearance shall automatically

terminate the second marriage from the moment the
affidavit of reappearance is already recorded in the civil
registry.

The position is untenable.

The Family Code provides that marriages may be

solemnized by any incumbent member of the judiciary
within the court’s jurisdiction. Also, the law provides that
the Supreme Court Justice’s jurisdiction is all over the
Philippines.

Here, the Supreme Court Justice serving as

solemnizing officer at a church does not make the
marriage void as long as the essential and formal
requisites of marriage are present regardless of the
venue. Hence. The position is untenable.

No, the motion to dismiss should not be granted.

 The Civil Code provides the principle of parental
liability under vicarious liability, or the doctrine of "imputed
negligence" where a person is not only liable for acts
committed by himself, but also for acts committed by
others with whom he has a relationship. Thus, parental
liability is made a consequence of the duties and
responsibilities of parents which includes the instructing,
controlling and disciplining of the child.

Here, the parents of the child who brought the gun are
the one responsible for their child’s actions even if they
are not the one who committed the acts because of their
responsibilities such as disciplining their child. Hence, the
motion to dismiss should not be granted.

No, the university is not liable.

The Civil Code provides that no person shall be liable

or responsible for those events which could not be
foreseen, or which though foreseen is inevitable provided
that there is no negligence on the part of the proprietor.

Here, the university shows no negligence in handling

its property specifically its tree. It caused harm beyond
the control of the university because of the typhoon.
Hence, the university is not liable.

Yes, the court should allow the partition.

The law provides that no co-owner shall be obliged to

remain in the co-ownership. Each co-owner may demand
for the partition at any time the partition of the thing
owned in common, in so far as his share is concerned.

Here, the three siblings may alienate or sell the

property in so far as his share is concerned thus selling it
to a large retail conglomerate is valid. The conglomerate,
being the new co-owner of the property may ask the court
for partition as they shall not be obliged to remain in the
co-ownership if they do not want to. Hence, the court
should allow the partition.

Yes, the farmer have legal ground to demand

payment because he is a builder in good faith.

The Civil Code provides that necessary expenses

shall be refunded to every possessor or builder in good
faith. A builder in good faith is a person who believes that
he owns the land or he believes that he has a claim on
the land.

Here, the farmer believes that the land is of public

land thus he believes that he can have it for no one owns
it. Hence, he is a builder in good faith.

Yes, by clicking on Ägree,” there will be a “meeting of

the minds” between the user and the app provider.

The Civil Code provides that a contract is a meeting of

minds between two persons whereby one binds himself,
with respect to the other, to give something or to render
some service. “Meeting of the minds” refers to a mutual
agreement between two or more parties.
 Here, clicking on “Agree” means agreeing to the terms
as stated in the contract. Hence, by clicking on “Agree,”
there will be a “meeting of the minds” between the user
and the app provider.

10

Yes, the Filipino wife can now avail of Article 26 of the

Family Code and then remarry.

The Family Code provides where a marriage between

a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and
a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien
spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino
spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine
law.

Here, the Japanese National was able to obtain a

divorce decree concerning his marriage with his Filipino
wife. Hence, the Filipino wife can remarry as the divorce
decree is valid under the alien’s spouse, it is also valid
here in the Philippines.

11

Yes, the suit will prosper.

The Civil Code provides that any person who willfully

causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals or good customs shall compensate the
latter for damages.

Here, the parties already set the wedding day and

have it publicized and suddenly will one party will
abandon it, thus it is against public customs. Hence,
moral damages may be awarded.
 12

Yes, the Bar candidate’s position is legally sound.

The Civil Code provides that those who in the

performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud are
liable for damages.

Here, what the seller offered while selling the item is

different from what actually it is which caused the buyer
to agree with the contract of sale. Hence, there shows
and employment of fraud. Hence, the Bar candidate’s
position is legally sound.