2010 CIVIL LAW

I True or False. 1. Under Article 26 of the Family Code, when a foreign spouse divorces his/her Filipino spouse, the latter may re-marry by proving only that the foreign spouse has obtained a divorce against her or him abroad. (1%) 2. X, a widower, died leaving a will stating that the house and lot where he lived cannot be partitioned for as long as the youngest of his four children desires to stay there. As coheirs and co-owners, the other three may demand partition anytime. (1%) a. True b. False a. false b. false a. false (decree of divorce must be offered and prove as a fact) b. false. (valid limitation made by testator provided it does not exceed 20 yrs)

a. False. (Proof of foreign decree of divorce must be presented to the court first.) b. False. (Under the law, the testator has the right to forbid a partition which shall not exceed 20 years.) I assume offering the same is part of proving the fact of divorce. Stated differently, implied in the word "proving" is the requisite offer of proof of fact. Am i making dangerous assumptions?

the word "proving" is a catch in the question but i will answer in the affirmative, since proving requires presenting it to court and adjudged as such. A. false. It must also be proven that the divorce decree obtained abroad capicitates the spouse (the one who obtained divorce) to remarry.

It seems that I was one of the few who did not explain their answers. As there was no instruction to explain, I just answered False on both numbers. But, in the first question, aside from the requirement that a valid foreign divorce must be duly proven in the Philippine court; it is also important to prove that the foreign spouse was given the capacity by the foreign court to remarry. If no capacity was given to the former foreign spouse, the Filipino spouse shall likewise be disqualified from entering a subsequent marriage.

A is false, because you have to prove also that the divorce was in conformity with a foreign law. Such foreign law must be alleged and proved.

noesos, i didn't make any explaining either. the instructions are clear...the explanations here are only for argument's sake, that's why, they're enclosed by parentheses.

False. See Rep. vs. Orbecido.(Oct. 5, 2005) H_trek wrote: A is false, because you have to prove also that the divorce was in conformity with a foreign law. Such foreign law must be alleged and proved.

I agree. It is not safe also to assume that the Filipino spouse can automatically remarry.

A. Under Article 26 of the Family Code, when a foreign spouse divorces his/her Filipino spouse, the latter may re-marry by proving only that the foreign spouse has obtained a divorce against her or him abroad. (1%) False. Under A26FC, a Filipino spouse regains her right to remarry, if the alien spouse has obtained an absolute divorce decree valid under his own national law. However, the foreign law recognizing the validity of the divorce decree obtained in the foreign country of which such alien spouse is a national, following the doctrine of processual presumption, must first be especially pleaded and proved as matter of fact, otherwise our courts will presume that such foreign law is the same as our law. Consequently, the Filipino spouse cannot remarry. From the Orbecido case which is instructive: Accordingly, for his plea to prosper, respondent herein must prove his allegation that his wife was naturalized as an American citizen. Likewise, before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our own courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it.[14] Such foreign law must also be

proved as our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Like any other fact, such laws must be alleged and proved.[15] Furthermore, respondent must also show that the divorce decree allows his former wife to remarry as specifically required in Article 26. Otherwise, there would be no evidence sufficient to declare that he is capacitated to enter into another marriage. From the Orbecido case which is instructive: Accordingly, for his plea to prosper, respondent herein must prove his allegation that his wife was naturalized as an American citizen. Likewise, before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our own courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it.[14] Such foreign law must also be proved as our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Like any other fact, such laws must be alleged and proved.[15] Furthermore, respondent must also show that the divorce decree allows his former wife to remarry as specifically required in Article 26. Otherwise, there would be no evidence sufficient to declare that he is capacitated to enter into another marriage. A. False B. True A. TRUE. There is no need for the Filipino spouse to obtain or file for the declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage. Proving here entails that the matter has been submitted before the court of law. 1. true 2. False II Multiple choice. A had a 4-storey building which was constructed by Engineer B. After five years, the building developed cracks and its stairway eventually gave way and collapsed, resulting to injuries to some lessees. Who should the lessees sue for damages? (1%) 1. A, the owner 2. B, the engineer 3. both A & B O, owner of Lot A, learning that Japanese soldiers may have buried gold and other treasures at the adjoining vacant Lot B belonging to spouses X & Y, excavated in Lot B where she succeeded in unearthing gold and precious stones. How will the treasures found by O be divided? (1%) 1. 100% to O as finder 2. 50% to O and 50% to the spouses X and Y 3. 50% to O and 50% to the state 4. None of the above A executed a Deed of Donation in favor of B, a bachelor, covering a parcel of land valued at P1 million. B was, however, out of the country at the time. For the donation to be valid, (1%)

1. B may e-mail A accepting the donation. 2. The donation may be accepted by Bs father with whom he lives. 3. B can accept the donation anytime convenient to him. 4. Bs mother who has a general power of attorney may accept the donation for him. 5. None of the above is sufficient to make Bs acceptance valid A executed a 5-page notarial will before a notary public and three witnesses. All of them signed each and every page of the will. One of the witnesses was B, the father of one of the legatees to the will. What is the effect of B being a witness to the will? (1%) 1. The will is invalidated 2. The will is valid and effective 3. The legacy given to Bs child is not valid A. 1 B. 3 C. 5 D. 3 1, 4, 5, 3 1 4 5 3 too 1,3,5,3 A. 3 (Both A & B) two separate cases of tort that may be joined. B. 4 (None of the above). O, an intruder or trespasser, gets nothing by express provision of the Civil Code. C. 4 D. 3 - by express provision of the Civil Code letter C: #4 ako hahah hnd ko sure pero ung number 1 kc hnd pd kase the law provides that the acceptance must be in writing and in the same deed. number 2. ung father not authorized number 3 cannot be kase it must be accepted DURING the lifetime of the donor number 4 ART745 states that " the donee must accept the donation personally, or THROUGH an AUTHORIZE person with a SPECIAL POWER for the purpose, or with GENERAL and sufficient power; OTHERWISE, the donation shall be void." therefore ung sa father hnd pd. number 5. may sagot ako eh ung 4 I notice wala pa yung remedial and ethics questions. Gusto ko sana i-post dun sa allocated threads nila, kaso it brings me to the link which says, "You do not have the required permissions to read topics within this forum."

the mailman wrote: I notice wala pa yung remedial and ethics questions. Gusto ko sana i-post dun sa allocated threads nila, kaso it brings me to the link which says, "You do not have the required permissions to read topics within this forum." nah, kasi gusto ni manresa lahat ng bar questions nakadikit yung profile pix nya hehe. peace

III Define, Enumerate or Explain. (2% each) What is the difference between "guaranty" and "suretyship"? Define quasi tort. Who are the persons liable under quasi torts and what are the defenses available to them? Give at least two reasons why a court may assume jurisdiction over a conflict of laws case. A. in guaranty, the liability of guarantor is subsidiary; in suretyship, liability of surety is direct and primary in guaranty, guarantor guarantees the principal's solvency; in suretyship, surety guarantees the debt.

B. Quasi-tort means whoever by an act or omission causes damage to another, either willfully or negligently, shall indemnify the latter for the same. C. 1. when the local forum has substantial connection with the case involving a foreign element 2. when the local forum has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. the definition above on letter b is quasi-delict. Quasi-tort is different. when you ask for moral damages for acts which caused you distress, you are claiming under quasi-tort. remember that tort or quasi-delict, as causes of action, entitles the injured party to actual or compensatory damages (proven by receipts). this does not necessarily imply that the injured party is also entitled to moral and exemplary damages. the mental anguish, stress etc, are causes of action falling under quasi-tort-- a legal duty which is not personal nor contractual between the two parties. I don't think this was ever discussed in any jurisprudence in the philippines. but I remember reading about it in one of those foreign books about torts and damages.

Licia wrote: the definition above on letter b is quasi-delict. Quasi-tort is different. when you ask for moral damages for acts which caused you distress, you are claiming under quasi-tort. remember that tort or quasi-delict, as causes of action, entitles the injured party to actual or compensatory damages (proven by receipts). this does not necessarily imply that the injured party is also entitled to moral and exemplary damages. the mental anguish, stress etc, are causes of action falling under quasi-tort-- a legal duty which is not personal nor contractual between the two parties. I don't think this was ever discussed in any jurisprudence in the philippines. but I remember reading about it in one of those foreign books about torts and damages.

I actually didn't know the meaning. but isn't it that tort also means delict? Quasi-tort is from foreign source. It has no jurisprudence yet though, it's just a theory, an idea. You can find its meaning from wikipedia.org.

IV Spouses B and G begot two offsprings. Albeit they had serious personality differences, the spouses continued to live under one roof. B begot a son by another woman. G also begot a daughter by another man. If G gives the surname of B to her daughter by another man, what can B do to protect their legitimate children's interests? Explain. (5%) If B acquiesces to the use of his surname by Gs daughter by another man, what is/are the consequence/s? Explain. (5%) A. B may impugn the legitimacy of the child. (not so sure) B. the daughter will be considered as the legitimate child of B in which case the former will be entitled to all the rights accorded to legitimate child under the law. Consenting to the use of the surname is not equivalent to acknowledging that the daughter is his and the same was not expressly stated in the problem. really? what's the best way to guess when someone carries the surname of his father as reflected on his/her record of birth? note that the father acquiesces to the use of his surname...what would be the effect? is it not a mode whereby the child can acquire the status of a legitimate child?

using a circular reasoning, when a child carries the father's surname, there arises a presumption of paternity. whether or not the child is a child by blood is immaterial, of course, until and unless the father dispute the child's legitimacy. Spouses B and G begot two offsprings. Albeit they had serious personality differences, the spouses continued to live under one roof. B begot a son by another woman. G also begot a daughter by another man. A. If G gives the surname of B to her daughter by another man, what can B do to protect their legitimate children's interests? Explain. (5%) Answer: B may impugn the filiation of the child under A166 of the FC thru DNA testing which is a conclusive proof of non-paternity subject to the Vallejo Standards. B. If B acquiesces to the use of his surname by Gs daughter by another man, what is/are the consequence/s? Explain. (5%) Answer: The presumption of legitimacy will operate for children conceived or born inside a valid marriage are legitimate under the FC. Thereby, the child shall have the right to use the surname of the father, right to receive support, and has a right to succession as a compulsory heir with a right to legitime protected by law. How can he be the legitimate father where the child was begot by another man with the former's wife? is that rule absolute? it's not only by blood relation that a child can be considered a legitimate one. whatever happened to the effects of adoption. Because children conceived or born inside a valid marriage is legitimate. This is where the presumption of legitimacy operates because the law favors legitimacy. Unless the filiation of the child is successfully impugned by the putative father within the prescriptive period allowed by law. A. B can impugn the legitimacy of G's daughter within the period prescribed by the Civil Code (within 1, 2 or 3 years, depending on the circumstance) and then file for voluntary or involuntary dissolution of their property regime. If G doesn't agree to voluntary dissolution, B may go the long route of filing for legal separation (since he has a ground) and, thereafter, cause the involuntary dissolution of their property regime. In either case, the objective is to distribute the presumptive legitime of their legitimate children and shield the future properties of B. B. G's daughter will acquire the conclusive presumption of legitimacy and thus entitled to support from B and to succeed to his properties.

V G filed on July 8, 2000 a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to B. During the pendency of the case, the couple entered into a compromise agreement to dissolve their absolute community of property. B ceded his right to their house and lot and all his shares in two business firms to G and their two children, aged 18 and 19. B also opened a bank account in the amount of P3 million in the name of the two children to answer for their educational expenses until they finish their college degrees. For her part, G undertook to shoulder the day-to-day living expenses and upkeep of the children. The Court approved the spouses agreement on September 8, 2000. Suppose the business firms suffered reverses, rendering G unable to support herself and the children. Can G still ask for support pendente lite from B? Explain. (3%) Suppose in late 2004 the two children had squandered the P3 million fund for their education before they could obtain their college degrees, can they ask for more support from B? Explain. (3%) A. Yes, support pendente lite, which is immediately executory, is never final. the amount support may be adjusted as the needs of the person entitled to support warrant according to the financial capacity of the person liable for support. B. Yes. but the amount of support may be tempered with by the court (not so sure din dito) a. Yes. Under the law, contractual support shall be subject to adjustment whenever modification is necessary due to the changes in the circumstances of the parties beyond their contemplation at the time it is agreed. b. Yes. The law provides that the support for the education of the children includes schooling for some profession even beyond the age of majority. The fact that the children had squandered their educational fund can be considered as changes in the circumstances of the parties beyond their contemplation, in which case, B is still obliged to provide support upon demand as in the instant case. I agree with the answers of mailman and darkangel.

VI Gigolo entered into an agreement with Majorette for her to carry in her womb his baby via in vitro fertilization. Gigolo undertook to underwrite Majorettes pre-natal expenses as well as those attendant to her delivery. Gigolo would thereafter pay Majorette P2 million and, in return, she would give custody of the baby to him. After Majorette gives birth and delivers the baby to Gigolo following her receipt of P2 million, she engages your services as her lawyer to regain custody of the baby. What legal action can you file on behalf of Majorette? Explain. (2.5%) Can Gigolo demand from Majorette the return of the P2 million if he returns the baby? Explain. (2.5%) Who of the two can exercise parental authority over the child? Explain. (2.5%) Is the child entitled to support and inheritance from Gigolo? Explain. (2.5%)

A. habeas corpus (?) B. yes, a case for solutio indebiti. C. the biological mother. the execution of the agreement is against law and public policy. it is not also one of the causes for the termination of parental authority under the law. c. Only Marjorette. Under the law, the mother has the sole parental authority over the illegitimate child. The contract between Gigolo and Marjorette is void or inexistent because the object of the contract, which is the child, is contrary to law, morals and public policy. d. Yes. Under the law, the parents are obliged to support their illegitimate children. Gigolo, being the biological father, is naturally duty-bound to give support to the child.

a.) If I were the lawyer, I will advise my client to file either a special proceeding for Guardianship and Custody of Children or Adoption in order to recover the custody and care of the minor.

b.) Since the contract is void or inexistent, the cause and object being contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order; then the one of the contracting parties may not recover what he has given by virtue of the contract, or demand the performance of the other's undertaking. Gigolo entered into an agreement with Majorette for her to carry in her womb his baby via in vitro fertilization. Gigolo undertook to underwrite Majorettes pre-natal expenses as well as those attendant to her delivery. Gigolo would thereafter pay Majorette P2 million and, in return, she would give custody of the baby to him. After Majorette gives birth and delivers the baby to Gigolo following her receipt of P2 million, she engages your services as her lawyer to regain custody of the baby. A. What legal action can you file on behalf of Majorette? Explain. (2.5%) File a civil action for custody. B. Can Gigolo demand from Majorette the return of the P2 million if he returns the baby? Explain. (2.5%) Yes under the principle of accion in rem verso of the Civil Code. Solution indebiti will not lie since there was no mistake in payment. C. Who of the two can exercise parental authority over the child? Explain. (2.5%) Since the child is illegitimate and a product of a surrogate-mother contract which is against public policy and does not find support in law thereby null and void and shall not produce legal effect, the parental authority shall be vested with the biological mother. D. Is the child entitled to support and inheritance from Gigolo? Explain. (2.5%) The child being an illegitimate child is entitled to support from the putative father. Moreover,

the illegitimate child shall be entitled to succession rights but the share shall be 50% of the share of a legitimate child.

VII G and B were married on July 3, 1989. On March 4, 2001, the marriage, which bore no offspring, was declared void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code. At the time of the dissolution of the marriage, the couple possessed the following properties: a house and lot acquired by B on August 3, 1988, one third (1/3) of the purchase price (representing downpayment) of which he paid; one third (1/3) was paid by G on February 14, 1990 out of a cash gift given to her by her parents on her graduation on April 6, 1989; and the balance was paid out of the spouses joint income; and an apartment unit donated to B by an uncle on June 19, 1987. Who owns the foregoing properties? Explain. (5%) If G and B had married on July 3, 1987 and their marriage was dissolved in 2007, who owns the properties? Explain. (5%) I was really confused with my answers here, so pls call my attention na lang. A. house and lot: 1/3 B's capital property 1/3 G's paraphernal property 1/3 belongs to absolute community property apartment unit is B's capital property G and B were married on July 3, 1989. On March 4, 2001, the marriage, which bore no offspring, was declared void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code. At the time of the dissolution of the marriage, the couple possessed the following properties: a house and lot acquired by B on August 3, 1988, one third (1/3) of the purchase price (representing downpayment) of which he paid; one third (1/3) was paid by G on February 14, 1990 out of a cash gift given to her by her parents on her graduation on April 6, 1989; and the balance was paid out of the spouses joint income; and an apartment unit donated to B by an uncle on June 19, 1987. A. Who owns the foregoing properties? Explain. (5%) Since the marriage was declared void ab initio by reason of psychological incapacity under A36FC, their property regime shall be governed by co-ownership under A147FC which provides among others that, in the absence of proof to the contrary properties acquired while they lived together shall be owned in common. Therefore: of the value of the house and lot shall be capital property since it was acquired prior to the celebration of marriage on July 3, 1989 by B. 1/3 of the value of the property shall be paraphernal property since the proceeds used to pay the 1/3 value of the house and lot was a gratuitously acquired by G.

 The balance paid out of the spouses joint income shall be owned in common therefore divided equally. an apartment unit donated to B by an uncle on June 19, 1987 shall be capital property since it was acquired prior to marriage. B. If G and B had married on July 3, 1987 and their marriage was dissolved in 2007, who owns the properties? Explain. (5%) It will still be the same since the regime of conjugal partnership of gains shall not apply to marriages terminated by reason of psychological incapacity under A36FC. Therefore, still A147FC shall apply with the distribution above-mentioned.

VIII Spouses Rex and Lea bore two children now aged 14 and 8. During the subsistence of their marriage, Rex begot a child by another woman. He is now 10 years of age. On Leas discovery of Rexs fathering a child by another woman, she filed a petition for legal separation which was granted. Rex now wants to adopt his illegitimate child. Whose consent is needed for Rexs adoption of his illegitimate child? (2.5%) If there was no legal separation, can Rex still adopt his illegitimate child? Explain. (2.5%) A. None. No consent is needed. (?) B. Yes, the spouses must now jointly adopt.

A. Rex should obtain the written consent of the following: 1. The person to be adopted, if ten years of age or over; 2. The biological mother of the child to be adopted; and 3. The legitimate children of Rex, ten years of age or over B. Yes, Rex can do so. The consent of Lea is not necessary because Rex is adopting his own illegitimate child, which he can do so independently.

a.) There is a need for an affidavit of consent from Rex's 14 year old child, from the child himself who is 10 years old already, and from the biological mother, if known, or the legal guardian of the child. b.) Adoption is still an option provided that there is consent from Lea. The requirement for affidavits of consent from the above-mentioned persons are still applicable.

The consent of Lea is still required because Rex is adopting his illegitimate child. I disagree. Article 185 of the Family Code clearly provides: Husband and wife must jointly adopt, except in the following cases: 1) When one spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child; or 2) When one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the other. Spouses Rex and Lea bore two children now aged 14 and 8. During the subsistence of their marriage, Rex begot a child by another woman. He is now 10 years of age. On Leas discovery of Rexs fathering a child by another woman, she filed a petition for legal separation which was granted. Rex now wants to adopt his illegitimate child. A. Whose consent is needed for Rexs adoption of his illegitimate child? (2.5%) The consent of the following is required in order for Rex to adopt his illegitimate child. His legitimate child aged 14, the illegitimate child aged 10, the biological mother of the illegitimate child. B. If there was no legal separation, can Rex still adopt his illegitimate child? Explain. (2.5%) Yes as long as the consent of the persons required above are obtained. The consent of Lea is not required for it will be adding insult to injury. A. Whose consent is needed for Rexs adoption of his illegitimate child? (2.5%) The written consent of the following is required: illegitimate child of Rex who is 10 years old, Rex's 14-year old legitimate child and the mother of his illegitimate child. Lea's consent is no longer necessary on account of their legal separation decree. (Section 7 (last par.) & Section 9, Republic Act 8552 Domestic Adoption Act) The written consent of the following is needed: 1. The adoptee, if 10 years old or over; 2. The legitimate children of the adopter, if 10 years old or over; 3. The biological parent or legal guardian of the adopter; and 4. Spouse, if any, of the person adopting except when the spouses are legally separated from each other. B. If there was no legal separation, can Rex still adopt his illegitimate child? Explain. (2.5%) Yes, only if Lea consents because the law provides that spouses should jointly adopt. noeseos wrote: I disagree. Article 185 of the Family Code clearly provides: Husband and wife must jointly adopt, except in the following cases:

1) When one spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child; or 2) When one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the other.

Hi. I think this provision should be correlated to Section 7 last paragraph of RA 8552 which states that: Husband and wife shall jointly adopt, except in the following cases: (i) if one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate son/daughter of the other; or (ii) if one spouse seeks to adopt his/her own illegitimate son/daughter: Provided, However, that the other spouse has signified his/her consent thereto; or (iii) if the spouses are legally separated from each other. In case husband and wife jointly adopt, or one spouse adopts the illegitimate son/daughter of the other, joint parental authority shall be exercised by the spouses.

IX Eighteen-year old Filipina Patrice had a daughter out of wedlock whom she named Laurie. At 26, Patrice married American citizen John who brought her to live with him in the United States of America. John at once signified his willingness to adopt Laurie. Can John file the petition for adoption? If yes, what are the requirements? If no, why? (5%) Yes, John can adopt under the inter-country adoption law. Yes. The 3-year continuous residency requirement reckoned from the filing of the application are not applicable in the case at bar. Same with the supervised trial custody and 14 years age gap between the adopter and adoptee.

X In 1997, B and G started living together without the benefit of marriage. The relationship produced one offspring, Venus. The couple acquired a residential lot in Paraaque. After four (4) years or in 2001, G having completed her 4-year college degree as a fulltime student, she and B contracted marriage without a license. The marriage of B and G was, two years later, declared null and void due to the absence of a marriage license. If you were the judge who declared the nullity of the marriage, to whom would you award the lot? Explain briefly. (3%) Is Venus legitimate, illegitimate, or legitimated? Explain briefly. (3%) A. the lot shall be awarded to either spouse as may be agreed upon in the marriage settlement. if there was no such agreement, then to the spouse with venus chooses to remain. B. venus is illegitimate since she was born out of wedlock of his parents. she cannot be considered legitimated since the subsequent marriage between her parents was null and void.

A. If you were the judge who declared the nullity of the marriage, to whom would you award the lot? Explain briefly. (3%) Since the marriage was declared null and void due to absence of marriage license, the property regime of the spouses shall be governed by A147FC where in the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be owned in common. B. Is Venus legitimate, illegitimate, or legitimated? Explain briefly. (3%) Venus is illegitimate for being conceived and born out of wedlock. The subsequent marriage will not lift her status from illegitimate to legitimate since legitimation will only take place thru a valid subsequent marriage. In the case at bar, there is no valid subsequent marriage the same being declared a nullity due to want of marriage license.

A. the property should be awarded to B. Co-ownership shall govern the property relations since the marriage was void. The presumption that the property was acquired by them by their joint effort will not apply because the problem clearly stated that G was studying as a full-time student during their marriage. Therefore, it is safe to presume that the properties acquired during their marriage was made through the effort of B alone. B. Illegitimate. The subsequent marriage was void.

A. If I were the judge, I will award the properties to both of them subject to the rules on coownership. The Family Code is very clear on the matter. When two individuals, who have no legal impediment to marry, enter into common-law relationships, the regime governing their properties is co-ownership. Since such is the case here, B and G are co-owners of the lot. B. Venus is illegitimate. The facts clearly state that she was born outside of a valid marriage, which according to the Family Code, makes her illegitimate. She cannot be legitimated because no valid subsequent marriage took place between her parents, a requirement for legitimization under the Code.

a. to the spouse who will have custody of venus.

b. legitimated. the subsequent declaration of nullity of the marriage of her parents will not affect her legitimated status. tulad nung mga anak of marriages declared void under Art 53 of FC

A.The Lot should be divided equally by both parties. Under partnership gains provided in the civil code.

B. Venus is illegitimate, no marriage ab initio. but can be legitimated for the reason that both spouses have live together for more than five years. Its a Common law marriage.

XI The spouses Peter and Paula had three (3) children. Paula later obtained a judgment of nullity of marriage. Their absolute community of property having been dissolved, they delivered P1 million to each of their 3 children as their presumptive legitimes. Peter later re-married and had two (2) children by his second wife Marie. Peter and Marie, having successfully engaged in business, acquired real properties. Peter later died intestate. Who are Peters legal heirs and how will his estate be divided among them? (5%) What is the effect of the receipt by Peters 3 children by his first marriage of their presumptive legitimes on their right to inherit following Peters death? (5%) A. legal heirs: children of peter during the first marriage, his children during the second marriage and marie. one half of the estate shall go to all the children in equal shares, the other half goes to marie. B. the receipt shall be considered as advances on their legitimes which shall be imputable on their legitime on the estate of peter. A. Who are Peters legal heirs and how will his estate be divided among them? (5%) Peter's legal heirs are as follows: Marie and his two children with her, his three illegitimate children of the former marriage. Marie shall inherit 50% as surviving spouse, the two legitimate children with Marie will have 37.50%, and the three illegitimate children of former marriage shall have 12.50%. B. What is the effect of the receipt by Peters 3 children by his first marriage of their presumptive legitimes on their right to inherit following Peters death? (5%) The receipt of the presumptive legitimes of the children of the former marriage declared a nullity are advances only of their future legitimes. They remain to be a compulsory heir of Peter. A. Peter's legal heirs are as follows: (1) Marie, the surviving spouse. (2) Peter's 2 legitimate children from his marriage to Marie. (3) Peter's 3 legitimate children from his former marriage to Paula. The children are legitimate since the marriage was declared an absolute nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity. This can be deduced from the fact that the regime of absolute community was given legal effect and dissolved. Psychological incapacity is the only ground for declaring the absolute nullity of a marriage where the marriage, although void, may still produce legal consequences (Tenebro vs. CA, 423 SCRA 272). As such, the absolute community and the legitimacy of the children born prior to the declaration of nullity are both given legal effect. If a widow and legitimate children are left, the surviving spouse has in the succession the same

share as that of each of the children (Art. 996-Civil Code).Therefore, the estate will be divided equally among all of the legal heirs. Bakit mag inherit si marie, eh invalid yung kasal nila, hindi sumunod sa art. 54 or 53 ata yun.kailangan i rehistro yung judgment of nullity, partition and didtribution properties at saka yung delivery of presumptive legitimes sa local civil and appropriate registry. Ang maginherit dito eh yong mga bata lang.

You're right Drake11, thanks! Arts. 52-53 of Family Code provides that non-registration voids the subsequent marriage. The answer should be: Legal Heirs: 3 legitimate children from Paula, 2 legitimate children from Marie, they are still legitimate despite the marriage being null and void under art. 54. Division of estate: All legitimate children inherit the entire estate in equal shares. Tanong ko lang, was this quoted from the said case? Second, there is nothing in the facts that state that the marriage was declared a nullity due to A36FC. So why presume? Third, the legal effect of a marriage declared a nullity under A36FC is that the children remain legitimate despite nullity of marriage under A54FC. The case is about bigamy, I just paraphrased the line about psychological incapacity having legal consequences despite being void ab initio, thus making the presumption valid. If it were any other case of a marriage that is void ab initio, the property regime would be governed by Art. 147 or 148 of the FC, no Absolute community property would be recognized and dissolved. So it follows that if the Absolute Community was recognized, the legitimacy of the children are also given legal effect. These legal consequences is unique to Art. 36. And yes you're right about Art. 54; edited my second post already. Thanks! I see but with respect, I would like to argue a little more. A marriage declared a nullity under A36FC is to be governed by the property regime under A147FC for there was no marriage to speak of in the first place, therefore, there can never be a regime of absolute community property. It is submitted that A50FC, in relation to the effect of termination of marriage under A43FC and A44FC, shall apply to marriages declared void ab initio or annulled under A40FC and A45FC. In the said articles, there exist an absolute community property to be liquidated. On the other hand, A50FC made no mention that the same shall apply to marriages declared a nullity under A36FC. I concede, your points are correct. I just realized I misinterpreted the term "judgment of nullity of the marriage" in the problem to be a Judicial Declaration of Absolute Nullity because of the similarity in wording, when it is really just an Annulment of a voidable marriage. Psychological incapacity should not have entered the picture at all, my apologies. Thanks for the correction =)

Given that, the legal heirs remain to be all of the 5 legitimate children with the estate divided equally among all of them. A. Peter's legal heirs are the following: 1. His two legitimate children with Marie; 2. Marie, his surviving spouse; and 3. His 3 illegitimate children with Paula. These children are illegitimate by express provision of the Family Code since this marriage was null and void. His properties would be divided as follows: a. The two legitimate children and Marie get 1/4 each of the estate as their legitime. b. The three illegitimate children have to share the remaining 1/4 of the estate among themselves. B. By express provision of the Civil Code, their presumptive legitimes are deemed advances of their inheritance, subject to collation during the settlement of Peter's estate. Talagang cerebral yung exam sa Civil. Akala nila madali lang. It must be qualified actually. Pero an sagot ko sa exam eh dahil sa madalian na yung first marriage void ab initio pero hindi sinabi sa facts kong anong grounds. Material ito dahil kong PI o psychological incapacity, legitimate young children at kong d naman illegitimate. Yong 2nd marriage naman void yun dahil hindi inirehistro yung judgment of nullity at partition and distribution of properties at yong delivery ng presumptive legitime sa proper local civil registrar and registry of properties. So, yong mga bata sa unang asawa ang hindi klaro kong legitimate o illegitimate, pero ung sa pangalawa sure yun na illegitimate dahil void yong kasal. So, yong mga bata lang talaga ang sure na mag inherit. Yong asawa sa 2nd marriage na si marie, hindi talaga yun mag-iinherit. Siguro naman klaro na kay Lex jurat ito. With all due respect to you man, the examiner i believe wants us to explain deeper. However, i never explained that profoundly. I believe the examiner will give credit to our answers because of the time limit.

If this were not the Bar exam, I would have to agree with you Drake 11. Indeed, the points you raised are material, but if there's something I learned from mock bars, regular exams in school, and our review lecturers, especially Dean Sarmiento, who ranked No. 10 in 1997, one should avoid adding to the facts given. If the question does not call for a qualification, avoid giving one. You have to trust the assurance of Justice Carpio-Morales that only general principles of law will be asked. Applying that to this question, it is very clear that what is being asked is the "general" effect on the legitimacy of children when a marriage is declared void as well as the application of the principles of succession when that is so. Adding qualifications, when none is being asked, is very dangerous for purposes of the Bar. Peace.

dean sarmiento, nehyer23 & lexjurat, parang isa lang kayo ah hehe. nice. always praising himself hehe

That's an unfair comment about Dean Sarmiento, xyckriz. You couldn't find a more humble person than this guy and I can assure you he's not narcissistic. As for the identity of nehyer23, he is not I and I am not he. Nehyer23 is already a lawyer based in Manila and a graduate of San Beda while I, on the other hand, is a bar candidate from a little known school in Cebu. God bless. A. The five children and Marie are his heirs. All six shall be entitled to equal shares. (Second marriage is presumed to be valid since the facts did not show otherwise). B. The presumptive legitimes received by the three children shall be collated with their actual legitimes. It shall be reduced or increased depending on the amount of their actual legitimes. If only the general principles of law are to be used as basis, I submit that the three children by prior marriage, two children of present marriage and marie will inherit ab intestato. Never mind the procedural matters provided under Art. 54, FC, unless it was specifically stated in the facts that "there was no compliance with Art. 54, FC." Its safe never to assume (i.e. that Art. 54 was not complied. [who said it was not complied? did the facts said it was not complied with?]) because to do so would be, in effect, adding facts to the problem. STICK WITH THE FACTS.

I'm on the facts Sir Aaron, kayo nga ang nag-assume ng facts na valid yong 2nd marriage eh. I'm just saying that the 2nd marriage is void for failure to comply with the provisions of the Family Code. I'm just explaining, yong nga ang mabuti sa ganitong format ng exam dahil we are allowed to explain. Hindi kagaya nitong proposed format ng 2011 exam where you cannnot anymore explain what we know about the law. Hindi naman siguro masama yong maglagay ako ng explanation which is relevant to the issue at bar. sabi kasi nila psychological itong bar exam. At least we, the examinee, can show to the examiner na me alam tayo sa Family Code. Peace! Sir Drake, I am not ASSUMING that the second marriage ay valid, i just applied the presumptions created by law. The fact is, the 1st marriage was VALIDLY annulled, therefore there will be no more legal impediment for the 2nd marriage (substantially speaking). . . on defending the validity of the second marriage, if the facts are silent about any defect/legal impediment, it is safe to PRESUME that the 2nd marriage is valid, because after all, presumption (under the law) support the validity of marriages, instead of the otherwise. in civil law, the rule is GOOD FAITH is always presumed (ART. 527, NCC), of course, unless the contrary is proven. Thus, i believe, that if the facts are silent about anything which will render the situation/case violative of the law, it is best to support the validity of the acts rather than its invalidity.

PEACE also Sir Drake. (n_n)

XII On May 5, 1989, 16-year old Rozanno, who was issued a student permit, drove to school a car, a gift from his parents. On even date, as his class was scheduled to go on a field trip, his teacher requested him to accommodate in his car, as he did, four (4) of his classmates because the van rented by the school was too crowded. On the way to a museum which the students were scheduled to visit, Rozanno made a wrong maneuver, causing a collision with a jeepney. One of his classmates died. He and the three (3) others were badly injured. Who is liable for the death of Rozannos classmate and the injuries suffered by Rozanno and his 3 other classmates? Explain. (2%) How about the damage to the jeepney? Explain. (2%) Under the same facts, except the date of occurrence of the incident, this time in mid-1994, what would be your answer? Explain. (2%) A. the teacher and the school are solidarily liable for the death and injuries since they are exercising special parental authority. B. the damages to the jeepney shall be borne by rozanno's parents. (under what provision of law, that i do not know) C. This question left me wondering. What does the examiner supposed to convey? in the end, i said, my answers remain the same. In subsection C, it asks the question as to who shall be liable under the same facts, if Rozano's already a 21-year old adult. Yes. I agree that the examiner wanted to ask if the same liability on the parents apply even if Rozano was already 21 years-old. (Yes. Parents are still liable.) However, the problem lies in how the question was phrased. He/she should have just asked the question directly.

C. Under the same facts, except the date of occurrence of the incident, this time in mid-1994, what would be your answer? Explain. (2%) issues about this question: Rozanno is already 21 at this time and no longer a minor. does the age of the student diminish the responsibility of the teachers or school in the situation? Rozanno's act of making a wrong maneuver which caused the collision was the proximate cause of the death and injuries. at this time he is now 21 years old, is he liable? The field trip is a school-related activity wherein the special parental authority of the teachers/school is extended. Can Rozanno still avail of the special parental authority of the teacher/school to the situation?

On May 5, 1989, 16-year old Rozanno, who was issued a student permit, drove to school a car, a gift from his parents. On even date, as his class was scheduled to go on a field trip, his teacher requested him to accommodate in his car, as he did, four (4) of his classmates because the van rented by the school was too crowded. On the way to a museum which the students were scheduled to visit, Rozanno made a wrong maneuver, causing a collision with a jeepney. One of his classmates died. He and the three (3) others were badly injured. A. Who is liable for the death of Rozannos classmate and the injuries suffered by Rozanno and his 3 other classmates? Explain. (2%) Under the FC and following the doctrine of imputed negligence, the teacher, exercising special parental authority is vicariously liable for damage or injuries caused by the unemancipated minor in their custody and in an authorized school activity. B. How about the damage to the jeepney? Explain. (2%) Under A2180 of the CC, the father, in the event of death of the latter, the mother shall be primarily liable for the acts and omission of their unemancipated child. C. Under the same facts, except the date of occurrence of the incident, this time in mid-1994, what would be your answer? Explain. (2%) The child being 21 years of age, A2180 of the CC shall apply. The father, in his absence, the mother shall be primarily liable for the damage or injury caused by the acts and omission of their unemancipated child. A. The teacher and school (solidarily) and separately Rozanno's parents are liable for the death and injuries of his classmates. The facts clearly show that this was a school-sanctioned activity and this being the case, the teacher and the school are liable solidarily by virtue of their special parental authority, which they failed to exercise. They knew or should have known that Rozanno was a student driver, who must be accompanied by a licensed driver when operating a motor vehicle. By letting students ride with Rozanno, the teacher, and by extension the school, failed to exercise diligence of one given by the Civil Code special parental authority. As for Rozanno's parents, they are also liable not only because Rozanno is a minor and living with them, but more importantly for not ensuring that Rozanno is accompanied by a licensed driver, a failure on their part to exercise diligence of a good father of a family -- a requirement also of the Code. B. The damage to the jeepney shall be borne by Rozanno's parents alone again for the reason that he is a minor and living with them. Under the Code, any damage caused by a minor is the liability of his parents. C. The liability is Rozanno's alone. This time, he is already an adult and therefore it is no longer negligent on the part of the teacher to assume that he can safely operate his vehicle.

XIII Franz was the owner of Lot E which was surrounded by four (4) lots one of which Lot C he also owned. He promised Ava that if she bought Lot E, he would give her a right of way in Lot C. Convinced, Ava bought Lot E and, as promised, Franz gave her a right of way in Lot C. Ava cultivated Lot E and used the right of way granted by Franz. Ava later found gainful employment abroad. On her return after more than 10 years, the right of way was no longer available to her because Franz had in the meantime sold Lot C to Julia who had it fenced. Does Ava have a right to demand from Julia the activation of her right of way? Explain. (2.5%) Assuming Ava opts to demand a right of way from any of the owners of Lots A, B, and D, can she do that? Explain. (2.5%) A. i think got a wrong answer here. I answered ava cannot demand her right of way due to non-user of the easement for more than 10 yrs. B. yes, she can demand, provided it is the way least prejudicial to the rights of the surrounding lot owners and provided it is of a shorter distance.

shorter distance or ADEQUATE

A. Yes, easement is an encumbrance over an immovable property. When Ava bought the property from Franz with the agreement to give the former the right of way, such easement was voluntarily constituted by the parties as part of the contract. The easement therefore attaches to the property and the same can be demanded whoever the owner of the property. B. No. Since, easement of right of was already constituted, Ava cannot demand anymore from the surrounding lot for the right of way.

Manresa wrote: A. Does Ava have a right to demand from Julia the activation of her right of way? Explain. (2.5%) No, Ava has no right to demand the activation of her right of way. It is true that an easement is perpetual and intransmissible; however, since the same has been extinguished by non-user for 10 years from the time it ceased to be used, Ava has no longer the right. Nevertheless, Ava can demand from Julia another outlet after payment of the proper indemnity provided that among the Lots of A, B, and D, Julias's estate is the least prejudicial to establish the easement. This time, the necessity arises not because of the contract, but because of the necessity itself. Manresa wrote: B. Assuming Ava opts to demand a right of way from any of the owners of Lots A, B, and D, can she do that? Explain. (2.5%)

She can only do that if the surrounding estates, Lots A, B and D, are the least prejudicial to establish the easement.

XIV Primo owns a pet iguana which he keeps in a man-made pond enclosed by a fence situated in his residential lot. A typhoon knocked down the fence of the pond and the iguana crawled out of the gate of Primos residence. N, a neighbor who was passing by, started throwing stones at the iguana, drawing the iguana to move toward him. N panicked and ran but tripped on something and suffered a broken leg. Is anyone liable for Ns injuries? Explain. (4%) Primo is liable because of his negligence. he should have constructed a concrete fence enclosing the pond considering that he is keeping an iguana therein. the contributory negligence here of N is of no moment. the latter's negligence comes appreciably later than primo's negligence. This is a classic case for "damnum absque injuria" to apply.

N shall suffer the consequences of his own acts. He cannot impute to Primo any liability because the injury he sustained was not due to Primo's pet iguana; rather through his own thoughtless and reckless act. In any case, no liability can set in on the owner or possessor of the escaped pet because it escaped its enclosure as a result of force majeure.

what is the proximate cause of N's injury? Can the typhoon be considered a fortuitious event which caused the fence being knocked down, thereby freeing loose the iguana? N should be liable for his own injury as its proximate cause was his alarm over the iguana, in that he panicked and tripped over. The typhoon which knocked down the iguana's fence was a fortuitious event. Primo was not negligent because he did not foresee this. Under the law, the owner or possessor of an animal is responsible for the damage which it may cause although it may escape or be lost. But this responsibility ends only when the damage results from a fortuitous event or from the person who suffered the damage as in the instant case. I agree. "Damnum Absque Injuria" Damage without Injury should apply. Damnum absque injuria. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is responsible for the damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. this responsibility shall cease

only in case the damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the person who has suffered damage. (Article 2183, Civil Code) N is liable for his own injury. Reason: First, the injury he suffered is his own contributory negligence. Second, the collapse of the fence was due to fortuitous event (such as typhoon in this case). Is it not under the doctrine of Volenti Non Fit Injuria? He who exposes himself to unnecessary risk shall bore any damage caused. (Not sure which CC article) XV A, B, and C entered into a partnership to operate a restaurant business. When the restaurant had gone past break-even stage and started to garner considerable profits, C died. A and B continued the business without dissolving the partnership. They in fact opened a branch of the restaurant, incurring obligations in the process. Creditors started demanding for the payment of their obligations. Who are liable for the settlement of the partnerships obligations? Explain? (3%) What are the creditors recourse/s? Explain. (3%) A. A and B are liable. upon the termination of the partnership on C's death and A and B continued the business by themselves, they become partners by estoppel. consequently, they alone are liable for partnership obligations contracted by them. B. the creditors may resort to the ff: 1. file an action for collection of sum of money to recover the unpaid obligations of A and B with a prayer for preliminary attachment in order to reach the latter's personal and individual properties. 2. file a petition before the court for the issuance of a charging lien to charge the properties of A and B in the partnership against the creditors' liens.

XVI X was the owner of an unregistered parcel of land in Cabanatuan City. As she was abroad, she advised her sister Y via overseas call to sell the land and sign a contract of sale on her behalf. Y thus sold the land to B1 on March 31, 2001 and executed a deed of absolute sale on behalf of X. B1 fully paid the purchase price. B2, unaware of the sale of the land to B1, signified to Y his interest to buy it but asked Y for her authority from X. Without informing X that she had sold the land to B1, Y sought X for a written authority to sell.

X e-mailed Y an authority to sell the land. Y thereafter sold the land on May 1, 2001 to B2 on monthly installment basis for two years, the first installment to be paid at the end of May 2001. Who between B1 and B2 has a better right over the land? Explain. (5%) B2, who is in good faith of the prior sale has a better right. the sale of the land to him was by virtue of a special power of attorney. B1 has no right inasmuch as the sale to him was void in point of law for lack of SPA. Under Article 1544 of the New Civil Code, in case of double sale of an immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property. Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. This isn't a case of double sale. In order for double sale to be appreciated, both sales must be made by the same vendor. This is to be appreciated as an "agency"-related problem, rather than a "double sale" problem.

Art. 1544 is the correct approach. RULE IN CASE OF DOUBLE SALE The priority of rights in case of double sale shall be governed by the following rules: The buyer who acquired it in good faith and was the first one to register (also in good faith) the sale have a better right. If none of the buyers registered the sale, the buyer who acquired it in good faith in possession shall have better right. DOUBLE SALE (Art. 1544) Requisites: two or more transactions must constitute valid sales; they must pertain exactly to the same subject matter; they must be bought from the same or immediate seller; and two or more buyers who are at odds over the rightful ownership of the subject matter must represent conflicting interests. Rules of preference: 1. if it is a Personal Property a. first possessor in good faith 2. if it is a Real Property a. first registrant in good faith b. first possessor in good faith c. person with oldest title in good faith

I agree with you Nehyer23...

I agree that this is not a double sale. For the rules of double sale to apply, there must be two valid sales of exactly the same property. In this case, the sale to B1 is void. Article 1874 of the Civil Code provides that the authority to sell the land must be in writing, otherwise the sale is void. From the facts, the authority of Y was only through an overseas call, thus the subsequent sale by virtue of such oral authority to sell is void. I have apprehensions also on giving B2 the better right. Y's authority to sell is made through an e-mail. I don't think that this is the one contemplated by law when it provides that special power of attorney is necessary to enter into any contract by which the ownership of an immovable is transmitted or acquired. In sum, however, I might answer: B2 has the better right provided that Y has a valid special power of attorney to sell the said property. For purposes of discussion only. i quote one of the requisites of a double sale above. it says that the two (or more) transactions must constitute valid sales. here, only the sale to B2 was valid because it was by virtue of a SPA. the sale to B1 is null and void because in agency the sale by the agent of a real property must be with a SPA. without over-emphasizing much, i believe rules on agency here shall govern and not on double sale.

Both Sales are valid. The sale to B1 is valid but unenforceable bec. it does not conform with Art. 1403 of the Statute of Frauds. Art. 1357. If the law requires a document or other special form, as in the acts and contracts enumerated in the following article, the contracting parties may compel each other to observe that form, once the contract has been perfected. This right may be exercised simultaneously with the action upon the contract. (1279a) Art. 1358. The following must appear in a public document: (1) Acts and contracts which have for their object the creation, transmission, modification or extinguishment of real rights over immovable property; sales of real property or of an interest therein a governed by Articles 1403, No. 2, and 1405 Art. 1403. The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are ratified: (1) Those entered into in the name of another person by one who has been given no authority or legal representation, or who has acted beyond his powers; (2) Those that do not comply with the Statute of Frauds as set forth in this number. In the following cases an agreement hereafter made shall be unenforceable by action, unless the same, or some note or memorandum, thereof, be in writing, and subscribed by the party charged, or by his agent; evidence, therefore, of the agreement cannot be received without the writing, or a secondary evidence of its contents (e) An agreement of the leasing for a longer period than one year, or for the sale of real property or of an interest therein Art. 1405. Contracts infringing the Statute of Frauds, referred to in No. 2 of Article 1403, are

ratified by the failure to object to the presentation of oral evidence to prove the same, or by the acceptance of benefit under them. Art. 1406. When a contract is enforceable under the Statute of Frauds, and a public document is necessary for its registration in the Registry of Deeds, the parties may avail themselves of the right under Article 1357. the answers above are plausible were it not for the presence of an AGENT. why are we ruling out the fact that the agent in this case has no valid authority to sell? when an agent sells the real property of the principal, the former needs a special power of attorney from the principal, otherwise, the sale is void. that there is AGENCY here is too plain to be unnoticed and mistaken. prius tempore, potior jure (first in time, stronger in right).

Whether or not the sale is valid is immaterial. the question is, who among B1 and B2 has the better right over the land. The examiner wants the examinee to choose between the two buyers and justify their answers why choose one rather than the other. That's why I think the answer lies on the principle prius tempore, potior jure (first in time, stronger in right).

Neither has a better right. B1 is not a buyer in good faith because she did not ascertain the true ownership of the land or the authority of Y to sell it before purchasing. Since one cannot convey what you don't own, B1 therefore did not acquire any right to the land. The principle of caveat emptor applies as to him. As for B2, he doesn't have any right to the land as well because the contract he entered with Y is unenforceable. The Civil Code expressly requires a special power of attorney, contained in a public instrument, when an agent sells a real property. X's email to Y fails to satisfy this requirement. Therefore, since Y lacked authority to sell, the contract with B2 is unenforceable, as expressly provided for under Art. 1403 par. 1 of the Code. The rule on double sale is not applicable to unregistered land:-)

I believe that both sales are void. Reasons: The authority of the AGENT TO sale the real property MUST be in writing, otherwise, the sale is void. The facts of the problem show that only verbal authority to sale the real property. The same is true with the sale made to B2 because it was made in installment. The agent exceeds his authority. Thus, neither of them have a better right to the real property in question.

the mailman wrote: the answers above are plausible were it not for the presence of an AGENT. why are we ruling out the fact that the agent in this case has no valid authority to sell? when an agent sells the real property of the principal, the former needs a special power of attorney from the principal, otherwise, the sale is void. that there is AGENCY here is too plain to be unnoticed and mistaken.

Same answer... Sale by agent governs the problem. B2 has a better right because Y, the agent, possesses a special power of attorney from X, the principal, when the sale was contracted with B2. i go with LexJurat.. neither has a better right. As to B1, no question about it. As to B2, there was no valid SPA. Email would not suffice. A signature of the principal is necessary; unless she can affix it though her email. The document needs to be printed. BTW, I heard that this Civil Law examiner loves extremely tricky questions and I've notice it.. grabe i realized it when i was reviewing the questions here and our suggested answers. I just hope my answers and justifications would somehow satisfy his/her expectations.. Bilib ako sa exminer nito, ang galing nyang magframe ng questions. Sabi c Atty. Sta. Maria daw. NOTHING FOLLOWS.