1. Noel is the son of spouses Marie and Benedict. Benedict has passed away.

For Noel's 7th birthday, his paternal

grandparents offered to organize and pay for his birthday party. In coordination with Marie, the grandparents booked
the party venue, signed the contracts with the caterer and the entertainers, finalized the guest list, and paid all amounts
due. Marie promised to them to bring Noel to the party.

A week before the scheduled birthday party, Marie decided that she would not bring Noel to the party, and that she
would instead take him on an out-of-town trip on the day of the party. Marie could not forget that her parents-in-law
initially opposed Benedict's marriage to her because she was a former burlesque dancer.

Marie did not notify the grandparents of her plan to skip the birthday party. During the party, the grandparents kept
trying to get in touch with her but she ignored all their calls. The grandparents and the guests who went to the party
were very dismayed that Noel was not present. When the grandparents asked Marie why she did not bring Noel to the
party, she simply replied, "I am his mother, and I decide where he goes! " To which, Noel's grandmother retorted, "Anak
mo lang s 'ya! Hindi mo s 'ya pag-aari! "

The grandparents seek your advice on whether there is legal basis to hold Marie liable for the damages that they have
suffered as a result of her acts.

What is your advice? Explain briefly. (5 points)

-Yes, there is legal basis to hold Marie liable for damages.

Under the Civil Code, there is an abuse of right when a right, although legal, is exercised in a malicious, wanton and
unjust manner. When the act is contrary to law or morals, an action for damages is proper.

In this case, Marie may have the right to decide for her son, Noel, including whether to attend the birthday party.
However, Marie had already promised to bring Noel to the party which his paternal grandparents organized ang paid
for. Instead of bringing Noel as promised, she took Noel on an out of town trip impelled by her grudge against her
parents in law for initially opposing their son's marriage to her.

Thus, Marie abused her right and should be liable for damages to the grandparents.

2. Razna and Junsi got married in 2015 and were blessed with two children. Zarah and Mica. In 2020. because of the
COVID-19 pandemic. the entire family had to spend 24 hours together every day in their small house. Razna observed
that although Junsi continued to work from home to support the family, he began to exhibit paranoia. and constantly
kept making sure that they always washed their hands and rubbed them with alcohol ten times before eating. Junsi also
always wore a face mask, face shield and hazmat in the house, except when he was alone in the room. Junsi began
sleeping separately from Razna and their children. He believed that other people who wanted to meet him in person
were actively trying to harm him by exposing him to the virus.

In early 2022, Razna filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Junsi on the ground of psychological
incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code, citing his atypical behavior. She presented the testimony of a doctor, who
proved that Junsi was suffering from psychotic paranoia due to intense stress. which accounted for his belief in things
that are not real.

Should Razna's petition be granted? Explain briefly. (5 points)

-No, Razna's petition should not be granted.

According to law and jurisprudence, for psychological incapacity to be a ground for nullity of marriage, it must be of such
character that it is grave, incurable and must have juridical antecedence. It must also render the concerned spouse
utterly incapable of comprehending and performing essential marital obligations.

In this case, Junzi's condition may be considered erratic or atypical. But it does not relate to his marital obligations. In
fact, despite of his mental state, he is still able to work from home to support his family.

Hence, the petition should be denied.

3. Before they married in 2000, Nonoy and Daday signed a marriage settlement wherein they agreed that their property
relations as husband and wife would be governed by the conjugal partnership of gains. While the marriage was
subsisting, they acquired a parcel of land using conjugal funds. The Register of Deeds issued a transfer certificate of title
over the said land in the name of "Nonoy, married to Daday.”

Nonoy sold the parcel of land to Barby without Daday's consent. Daday was not aware of the sale and did not sign the
contract of sale. A year after Nonoy and Barby signed the contract of sale, Daday died. When the children of Nonoy and
Daday learned about the sale to Barby, they questioned its validity since Daday had not consented to the sale. Nonoy's
position is that Daday's consent was not required because the property was registered in his name.

Is the sale to Barby valid? Explain briefly. (5 points)

-No, the sale to Barby is invalid.

Under the Family Code, in a conjugal partnership of gains, all property acquired during the marriage, whether contracted
or registered in the name of one or both spouses, shall be presumed to be conjugal unless the contrary is proved.
Furthermore, the phrase "married to" in the certificate of title indicates the civil status of the registered owner. When
the property is conjugal, any disposition or encumbrance without the written consent of the other spouse (or
authority of the court) shall be void.

In this case, the title to the land indicates that the owner is married. Moreover, the property was acquired using conjugal
funds. The sale should have been with Dadavs written consent.

Hence, there being no written consent from Daday, Nonoy's sale of the parcel of land to Barby is void.

4. In 2013, Agaton, then 70 years old, executed a will wherein he bequeathed his entire estate to his acknowledged
illegitimate son Karl. Agaton entrusted the original copy of the 2013 will to Karl. In 2014, Karl joined a group of
mercenaries to fight in Crimea alongside the Russians. After Russia's annexation of Crimea, Karl did not return to the
Philippines and was never heard of. Five years later, in 2019, Agaton executed a codicil which provided the following:
"Because of the death of Karl, I revoke my 2013 will. I hereby recognize Gian as my other illegitimate son, and hereby
bequeath to him my entire estate. " Agaton died in 2020.

During the probate of Agaton's 2019 codicil, Karl appeared in court, presented the 2013 will, contested the validity of its
revocation, opposed the probate of the 2019 codicil, and sought the probate of the 2013 will. Both the 2013 will and
2019 codicil were immaculate as to form.

(a) Did the 2019 codicil revoke the 2013 will? Explain briefly.
-Yes, the 2019 codicil revoked the 2013 will.

As a rule, the revocation of a will must be based on a true cause and if the revocation is based on a false or illegal cause,
the revocation shall be null and void. Moreover, as a rule, a person may be presumed dead after an absence of four
years if he or she is a member of the armed forces who has taken part in war.

In this case, Agaton revoked the will due to his belief that Karl was already dead because he had been absent for more
than five years since participating in the war in Crimea. Agaton's belief that Karl was already dead is valid and legal. Karl's
subsequent reappearance did not make Agaton's cause for revoking the will false or illegal.

Hence, the 2019 will should prevail over the 2013 will.

(b)Distribute the estate of Agaton. Explain briefly.

-The estate should be divided equally between Karl and Gian.

Under the Civil Code, the preterition or omission of a compulsory heir in the direct line shall annul the institution of
heirs. If there are no devisees and legacies, full intestacy shall apply.

In this case, Karl is a compulsory heir in the direct line, being an illegitimate child Of Agaton. Gian's institution as
voluntary heir to the entire estate shall be annulled and the estate will be distributed by intestacy. Here, Karl and Gian
are the only compulsory heirs.

Hence, Agaton's entire estate (free portion and legitime) shall be divided equally between Karl and Gian.

5. Joey was the legitimate son of Ron and May. Joey died intestate and was survived by his wife Kathy and their two
legitimate children, Luis and Clarisse. Several months after Joey died, Ron also died intestate. Ron was survived by his
wife May, daughter Mercy (full-sibling of Joey), and the children of Joey (Luis and Clarisse).

Distribute the estate of Ron. Explain briefly. (5 points)

-Ron's estate shall be divided among his wife May, Mercy and Joey's children Luis and Clarisse.
Under the Civil Code, by intestacy, the compulsory heirs are the wife and the legitimate children. In case of predecease
of any of the compulsory heirs, the children of said heirs shall be raised and shall inherit by way of representation. The
wife of a deceased compulsory heir cannot represent.

In this case, Ron was survived by his wife May and his daughter Mercy. His son Joey had predeceased Ron but is survived
by his two children Luis and Clarisee. Luis and Clarisse shall equally divide what Joey would have received.

Hence, Ron's estate shall be divided by three: one portion for May, another portion for Mercy and the last portion to
Luis and Clarisse per stirpes.

6. Jungkook, who owns a building, leases the same to Gel with the following terms: (i) the lease is for a period of ten
years; (ii) the yearly rental is Php 1,200,000.00 payable within the first ten days of the current year; and (iii) in case of
breach of any of the provisions of the lease, Gel is liable to pay Jungkook five monthly rentals and attorney's fees. Five
years into the lease, Gel sends a notice to terminate the lease and offers to pay five monthly rentals. Despite Jungkook's
objections, Gel vacates the premises. Jungkook sues Gel for the rentals due for the remaining five years of the lease. Gel
takes the position that her liability should only be limited to five monthly rentals and attorney's fees.

(a) Is there a penalty clause in the lease agreement? Explain briefly.

-Yes, there is a penalty clause in the lease agreement.

Under the Civil Code, a penalty is a stipulation for damages in case of breach of the contract. It may be claimed by the
creditor without need of proof of actual and other damages.

In this case, Jungkook and Gel stipulated in their contract that in case of breach of any provision of the lease, Gel is liable
to pay Jungkook five monthly rentals and attorney's fees.

Thus, a penalty clause was agreed by the parties.

(b) As between Jungkook and Gel, who is correct? Explain briefly.

-Gel is correct.

Under the law, when a contract is breached, the creditor is entitled to sue for performance or rescission, with damages
in either case. The damages may be that which may be proved or that which may be agreed upon by the parties as
penalty or liquidated damages.

In this case, there was a breach of the contract, particularly the term of the contract, as Gel had pre-terminated it.
Jungkook's options were limited to the penalty clause of their contract. Instead of the right to sue on the full rental for a
year, the agreement restricted him to recover and Gel to pay five monthly rentals only and attorney's fees.

Thus. Gel is correct that her liability should be limited to five monthly rentals and attorney’s fees only.
7. Brenda saw the online advertisement of Evelyn, who sells limited edition sneakers. Through an exchange of text
messages, Evelyn and Brenda agreed that: (i) Evelyn will sell to Brenda a pair of brand-new sneakers for Php 25,000.00;
(ii) Brenda will deposit the purchase price in Evelyn's bank account; and (iii) Evelyn will deliver the sneakers within ten
days from deposit. Brenda deposited the purchase price and Evelyn acknowledged receipt thereof.

Before the delivery of the sneakers, Evelyn received an offer from Rosela to buy the same sneakers for Php 35,000.00.
Evelyn candidly tells Brenda that she is selling the sneakers at a higher price to another buyer, and sends this text
message to Brenda: "Sizt, may iba pala akong buyer na mas malaki yung offer, sorry! Balik ko nalang bayad mo, keri?"
Evelyn claims that since the sneakers have not yet been delivered to Brenda, she can still withdraw the offer.

Is Evelyn's contention tenable? Explain briefly. (5 points)

-No, Evelyn's contention is not tenable.

Under the Civil Code, upon the perfection of the contract there arise reciprocal obligations of the parties. In a contract of
sale, the seller is bound to deliver and transfer ownership of the thing, while the buyer is bound to pay the price.

In this case, Evelyn and Brenda had a perfected contract when they had a meeting of minds over the sale of a brand new
sneakers for P25, OOO.OO. Brenda had deposited the purchase price as agreed. Evelyn was bound to deliver the item.
She could no longer withdraw the offer as it was already accepted by Brenda and, more importantly, Brenda had already
performed her end of the contract.
Thus, Evelyn should deliver the sneakers to Brenda.

8. In 2017, Alma orally sold a parcel of unregistered land to the spouses Ray and Shane for Php 500,000.00. Upon receipt
of the initial payment of Php 350,000.00, Alma delivered possession of the land to the spouses. Shortly thereafter, Alma
died. In order to formalize the sale, Ray and Shane convinced Josie, one of Alma's children, to sign a notarized deed of
confirmation of sale. In consideration thereof, Josie received Php 150,000.00 representing the balance of the purchase
price. On the strength of the notarized confirmation of sale, the spouses were able to transfer
the tax declaration of the property in their names. Later, Josie died.

In 2020, the surviving children of Alma discovered the oral sale of the land to Ray and Shane. They demanded the return
of the property on the following grounds: (i) the oral contract of sale is void because it does not appear in a public
instrument; and (ii) assuming the sale is not void, it is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. Ray and Shane insisted
that the sale of the land to them was both valid and enforceable.

Are the contentions of the heirs of Alma tenable? Explain briefly. (5 points)
-No, the contentions of the heirs of Alma are not tenable.

Indeed, under the Civil Code, the sale of real property should not only be in writing but must also be in a public
instrument. However, these rules are only for convenience and enforceability. An oral sale of real property is valid and
may be enforced if it is partly or fully consummated.

In this case, the sale was originally made between Alma and the Spouses Ray and Shane. A portion of the purchase price
was already paid by the buyers. The balance was paid to Josie, one of Alma's children, because Alma had already died.
Although it was only Josie, and not all the heirs, who executed the notarized deed of sale, this is an issue between the
heirs which did not render the original oral sale invalid or unenforceable.

Hence, the other heirs of Alma cannot assail the sale.

9. Aida, for the consideration of Php 5,000,000.00, sold her parcel of land to Lorna, as evidenced by a notarized Deed of
Sale. Lorna, however, failed to deliver the amount in full, paying only Php 500,000.00 as down payment. Because of the
non-payment of the balance, Aida simply sold the same parcel of land to Fe with the intention of returning to Lorna the
Php 500,000.00 down payment.

Who among Aida, Lorna, and Fe owns the property? Explain briefly. (5 points)
-Lorna owns the property.

Under the Civil Code, in sales, ownership is transferred to the buyer either by actual or constructive delivery. The
execution of a public instrument such as a notarized deed of sale is a mode of constructive delivery. The failure of the
buyer to pay the price simply gives the seller the right either to demand payment or to rescind the sale.

In this case, Aida sold the property to Lorna, and they executed a notarized deed of sale. Ownership has already
transferred to Lorna. Lorna's failure to pay the balance of the purchase price did not revert ownership to Aida. Aida
should first either demand payment of the price or properly rescind the sale.

Thus, no longer the owner of the property, Aida could not sell it to Fe.

10. Laica and Jessica, who are best friends, are both engaged in moneylending at predatory interest rates. Running out
of funds, Laica borrows Php 2,000,000.00 from Jessica for two months at a monthly interest rate of 10%. Jessica releases
the borrowed amount after Laica signs a promissory note. Laica then relends to Monica the borrowed amount of Php
2,000,000.00 for two months, at an interest rate of 30%. After two months, Laica fails to pay Jessica, prompting Jessica
to file a collection suit against the former, for the Php 2,000,000.00 principal and 10% interest per month pursuant to
their agreement. Laica counters that the monthly interest rate of 10% is exorbitant and should be reduced to the legal
rate of interest at 6% per annum.

Which between the positions of Laica and Jessica is tenable? Explain briefly. (5 points)
-Laica's position is tenable.
Under the law and jurisprudence, exorbitant, excessive and unconscionable interest on loans is void. The willingness of
the parties to stipulate on such void interest is inconsequential.

In this case, the monthly interest rate of 10% is highly excessive, exorbitant and unconscionable. This monthly interest
rate would make the interest rate at 120% per annum. There is no estoppel here. Even though the parties voluntarily
agreed on the said interest rate, it does not make it valid.

Hence, Laica is correct and the interest rate should be reduced to the legal rate of interest at 6% per annum.

11. Leon is the owner of a condominium unit located directly above the condominium unit owned by Anj. In 2014, Leon
undertook renovations in his unit's bathroom, which caused water to leak from his bathroom down to Anj's unit, and
caused extensive damage to Anj's belongings. As Anj had obtained property insurance on her unit and its contents from
Proverbial Insurance Co. (PIC), Anj was able to recover the value of the damage in September 2016.

In October 2022, PIC, as subrogee of Anj, sued Leon to recover the insurance proceeds it paid to Anj. Leon interposed
prescription to dismiss the suit of PIC. PIC counters that the payment of the insurance proceeds in 2016 created, by way
of legal subrogation, a 10-year period within which to file the suit against Leon.

Is PIC correct? Explain briefly. (5 points)

-No, PIC is incorrect.

Under the Civil Code, the prescriptive period to recover based on quasi-delict is four years, counted from the occurrence
of the negligent act resulting in damage. This limitation applies even to the subrogee who assumes the legal right to
collect a claim of another.

In this case, the subject incident happened in 2014. PIC paid Anj in 2016. But PIC, as subrogee of Anj, only sued Leon, the
negligent third party, in 2022, or eight years after the incident.

Hence, PIC's action has already prescribed.

12. Gio, single, joined a marathon organized by Takbo Co. For lack of alternative routes, the marathon course included a
public road which was not blocked-off from vehicles. Takbo Co. solicited the sponsorship of Kotse Corp. for added
financial
support. Gio was hit by a jeepney driven by JD on the public road and died. The parents of Gio sued Takbo Co. and Kotse
Corp. for damages. The court ruled that Kotse Corp. is solidarily liable for damages with Takbo Co. for being one of the
principal movers of the event due to its sponsorship.

Is the court correct? Explain briefly. (5 points)

-No, the court is not correct.

Under the civil code, solidarity is not presumed. There is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states,
or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity.

In this case, neither law nor contract requires solidarity. The marathon was organized by Takbo Co. Kotse Corp. only
added financial support. It did not have a hand in the preparation and conduct of the marathon. On the contrary, Takbo
Co., as organizer, was solely responsible for the safety of the marathoners.

Thus, the complaint against Kotse Corp. should have been dismissed.

13. Eka, a Filipina, and Du-guil, a Korean, married in the Philippines. Thereafter, they moved to Seoul, South Korea. While
there, Du-guil began to ignore Eka. He was always out with his friends and usually came home drunk. When Eka could
not
take their marital situation anymore, she asked for a divorce. Du-guil agreed on the condition that Eka would be the one
to file for divorce, and that the ground should be "no fault", meaning, neither of them is at fault or neither would be
accused of any wrongdoing. After the divorce, Eka went back to the Philippines and filed a case to have the judgment of
divorce recognized. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied Eka's petition because she alone filed for divorce, in violation
of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code. According to the RTC, Article 26 requires that either the
foreign spouse alone initiates the filing of the divorce or, at the very least, Eka and Du-guil should have filed for divorce
jointly.
Is the R TC correct? Explain briefly. (5 points)
-No, the R TC is not correct.

Article 26 of the Family Code provides that when a Filipino is married to a foreigner and a divorce is validly obtained
which capacitates the foreigner spouse to remarry may be recognized here in the Philippines and it capacitates the
Filipino spouse as well to remarry. This provision has been interpreted in Republic vs. Manalo as to recognize the foreign
divorce even if filed by the Filipino spouse.

In this case, Eka, a Filipina, was married to Du-guil, a Korean. They moved to South Korea and obtained a divorce there.
That divorce may be recognized here in the Philippines in a proper petition with proof of the foreign divorce, the law of
the country where the divorce was granted, and the national law of the foreigner spouse which allows divorce.

Thus, the RTC should not have denied the petition.

14. During Remy's pregnancy, her father Gavin executed a will bequeathing his rest house in Calatagan, Batangas to
Remy's unborn child. While Gavin and Remy, who was then seven months pregnant, were on their way to Calatagan,
they figured in a car accident on December I , 2021 which resulted in the instantaneous death of Gavin and the
premature delivery of Remy on the same day. At 8:30 a.m. on December 3, 2021, the newborn baby died.

Is the devise in favor of the baby valid? Explain briefly. (5 points)

-Yes, the devise in favor of the baby is valid.

Under the Civil Code, personality begins at conception. A conceived child shall be considered born for all purposes that
are favorable to it, provided it is born alive if it had an intra-uterine life of seven months or more, or born alive and
stayed alive for at least 24 hours if it had an intra-uterine life of less than seven months. Thus, an unborn child can be
the recipient of a donation, devise or legacy.

In this case, Gavin bequeathed through his will his rest house to Remy's unborn child. Gavin was aware and conscious of
Remy's soon to be born baby. The baby had an intrauterine line of seven months but was born alive and stayed alive for
two days, more than the time prescribed by law.

Thus, the devise is valid and may be received by the child's heirs.

15. Miguel, who died single and childless, was survived by his two legitimate brothers Romy and Rolly, and his nephews
Arno and Pabs, the legitimate sons of his predeceased legitimate brother Edgar. Before his death, Miguel executed a
one-page notarial will, inclusive of an attestation clause and a notarial acknowledgment, with only one testamentary
disposition bequeathing his entire estate to Romy and Rolly. The will was not paginated and was attested by four
witnesses: Uno, Dos, Tres, and Quatro. It was the eve of Quatro's 1 7th birthday when the will was executed. The will
was written in the Ilocano dialect which Miguel knew and understood, but the witnesses did not. Miguel and the
witnesses signed at the end of the testamentary disposition. The attestation was also written in the Ilocano dialect
which, when translated to the English language, reads as follows:

"This will of Miguel was written in ONE page. We, the attesting witnesses, signed at the end of the will and at the bottom
of this attestation in the presence of Miguel and of each of us."

Each of the four witnesses signed below the attestation clause. Because none of the witnesses knew and understood the
Ilocano dialect, the attestation was interpreted to them by Miguel 's lawyer who was present to notarize the will.

(a) Does the fact that the will was written in a dialect known only to Miguel invalidate the will? What about the
absence of the marginal signatures of the testator and the witnesses? Explain briefly.
-No, they did not invalidate the will.

As to the dialect or language in which the will is written, the Civil Code only requires that it be understood by the
testator. The law also provides that if the attestation clause is in a dialect or language not known to the witnesses, it
shall be interpreted to them. Finally, as to the signatures, the law requires that the will be signed on each and every
page thereof.
In this case, the will was in the Ilocano dialect or language known and understood by Miguel. Although the witnesses did
not understand it, the attestation clause was nevertheless interpreted to them. Lastly, the will complied with the
signature requirement. It was a one-page will and the testator and the witnesses signed at the end of the testamentary
disposition. There was no need to sign on the left margin.

Hence, the alleged defects are not fatal to the will.

(b) May the will nonetheless be admitted to probate? Explain briefly.

-Yes, the will may be probated.

It is settled that in probate of wills, the subject of inquiry is the testamentary capacity of the testator and the due
execution of the will. The intrinsic validity of the will is not a proper issue.

In this case, there is nothing to show that Miguel's capacity to execute a will was impaired. Also, the will had
substantially complied with the formal requirements of the law.

Thus, it may be allowed.