2018 BAR EXAMINATIONS

POLITICAL LAW

November 11, 2018 8:00 A.M. - 12:00 N.N.

INSTRUCTIONS

1. This questionnaire contains ten (10) pages including this page. Check the number of pages
and their proper sequencing. You may write notes on this questionnaire.

Read each question very carefully and write your answers in your Bar Examination Notebook in
the same order as the questions. Write your answers only on the front page of every sheet. Note
well the allocated percentage points for each question or sub-question. In your answers, use the
numbering system in the questionnaire.

2. Answer the questions legibly, clearly, and concisely. Start each answer on a separate page. An
answer to a sub-question under the same number may be written continuously on the same page
and the immediately succeeding pages until completed.

3. Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts, apply the pertinent laws and
jurisprudence, and arrive at a sound or logical conclusion. Always support your answer with the
pertinent laws, rules, and/or jurisprudence.

A MERE "YES" OR "NO" ANSWER WITHOUT ANY CORRESPONDING EXPLANATION

OR DISCUSSION WILL NOT BE GIVEN FULL CREDIT. THUS, ALWAYS BRIEFLY BUT
FULLY EXPLAIN YOUR ANSWERS ALTHOUGH THE QUESTION DOES NOT
EXPRESSLY ASK FOR AN EXPLANATION. DO NOT REWRITE OR REPEAT THE
QUESTION ON YOUR NOTEBOOK.

4. Do not write your name or any extraneous note/s or distinctive marking/s on your Notebook
that can serve as an identifying mark/s (such as names that are not in the given questions,
prayers, or private notes to the Examiner). Writing, leaving, or making any distinguishing or
identifying mark in the Notebook is considered cheating and can disqualify you.

YOU CAN BRING HOME THE QUESTIONNAIRE.

JUSTICE MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Chairperson
2018 Bar Examinations

Sidley and Sol were married with one (1) daughter, Solenn. Sedfrey and Sonia were another
couple with one son, Sonny. Sol and Sedfrey both perished in the same plane accident. Sidley
and Sonia met when the families of those who died sued the airlines and went through grief-
counseling sessions. Years later, Sidley and Sonia got married. At that time, Solenn was four (4)
years old and Sonny was five (5) years old. These two (2) were then brought up in the same
household. Fifteen (15) years later, Solenn and Sonny developed romantic feelings towards each
other, and eventually eloped. On their own and against their parents' wishes, they procured a
marriage license and got married in church.

(a) Is the marriage of Solenn and Sonny valid, voidable, or void? (2.5%)

(b) If the marriage is defective, can the marriage be ratified by free cohabitation of the
parties? (2.5%)

ANSWER:

A. The marriage is voidable, under Article 45 of the Family Code, a marriage may be
annulled when at the time of the marriage the party in those behalf it is sought to have
marriage annulled was 18 years of age or over but below 21
B. Yes, under Article 45

II

After finding out that his girlfriend Sandy was four (4) months pregnant, Sancho married Sandy.
Both were single and had never been in any serious relationship in the past. Prior to the
marriage, they agreed in a marriage settlement that the regime of conjugal partnership of gains
shall govern their property relations during marriage. Shortly after the marriage, their daughter,
Shalimar, was born.

Before they met and got married, Sancho purchased a parcel of land on installment, under a
Contract of Sale, with the full purchase price payable in equal annual amortizations over a period
of ten (10) years, with no down payment, and secured by a mortgage on the land. The full
purchase price was PhP1 million, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. After paying the
fourth (4th) annual installment, Sancho and Sandy got married, and Sancho completed the
payments in the subsequent years from his salary as an accountant. The previous payments were
also paid out of his salary. During their marriage, Sandy also won PhP1 million in the lottery and
used it to purchase jewelry. When things didn't work out for the couple, they filed an action for
declaration of nullity of their marriage based on the psychological incapacity of both of them.
When the petition was granted, the parcel of land and the jewelry bought by Sandy were found
to be the only properties of the couple.

(a) What is the filiation status of Shalimar? (2.5%)

(b) What system of property relationship will be liquidated following the declaration of
nullity of their marriage? (2.5%)

(c) In the liquidation, who should get the parcel of land? The jewelry? (2.5%)

(d) Is Shalimar entitled to payment of presumptive legitime? If yes, how much should be
 her share and from where should this be taken? (2.5%)

ANSWER:

A. Shalimar is a legitimate child of Sancho and Sandy under Article 164 of the Family
Code, children that are conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are
legitimate, since Sancho and Sandy had been legally married when Shalimar was
born, Shalimar is a legitimate child.
B. The regime of conjugal partnership of gains is the system of property relationship
that govern

Ill

Silverio was a woman trapped in a man's body. He was born male and his birth certificate
indicated his gender as male, and his name as Silverio Stalon. When he reached the age of 21, he
had a sex reassignment surgery in Bangkok, and, from then on, he lived as a female. On the
basis of his sex reassignment, he filed an action to have his first name changed to Shelley, and
his gender, to female. While he was following up his case with the Regional Trial Court of
Manila, he met Sharon Stan, who also filed a similar action to change her first name to Shariff,
and her gender, from female to male.

Sharon was registered as a female upon birth. While growing up, she developed male
characteristics and was diagnosed to have congenital adrenal hyperplasia ("CAH") which is a
condition where a person possesses both male and female characteristics. At puberty, tests
revealed that her ovarian structures had greatly minimized, and she had no breast or menstrual
development. Alleging that for all intents and appearances, as well as mind and emotion, she had
become a male, she prayed that her birth certificate be corrected such that her gender should be
changed from female to male, and that her first name should be changed from Sharon to Shariff.

Silverio and Sharon fell in love and decided to marry. Realizing that their marriage will be
frowned upon in the Philippines, they travelled to Las Vegas, USA where they got married based
on the law of the place of celebration of the marriage. They, however, kept their Philippine
citizenship.

(a) Is there any legal bases for the court to approve Silverio's petition for correction of
entries in his birth certificate? (2.5%) (Republic Vs. Silverio)

ANSWER: No, in both instances a person’s first name cannot be change on the ground
of sex reassignment since it is not among the ground stated under RA 9048, likewise
with respect to the change of sex from male to female, there is no law which allows the
change of entry in the birth certificate as to sex on the same ground, the determination of
a person’s sex is that which appears in his birth certificate. (Silverio vs. Republic)
 (b) Will your answer be the same in the case of Sharon's petition? (2.5%) (Republic vs.
Cagandahan)

ANSWER: No. When a person is afflicted with CAH or is biologically or naturally

intersex, the determining factor in his gender classification would be what the individual
having reached with the age of majority, with good reason thinks of his/her sex.

(c)Can the marriage of Silverio (Shelley) and Sharon (Shariff) be legally recognized as
valid in the Philippines? (2.5%)

No. Since Silverio is still a man and Sharon upon approval of her petition is now
considered as a man the marriage between them shall be void ab initio as it is classified
as same sex marriage violating Article 15 and 17 Paragraph 3 of the NCC as well as
Article 1 and 2 of the Family Code.

IV

Severino died intestate, survived by his wife Saturnina, and legitimate children Soler, Sulpicio,
Segundo and the twins Sandro and Sandra. At the time of his death, the twins were only 11 years
of age, while all the older children were of age. He left only one property: a 5,000 sq. m. parcel
of land. After his death, the older siblings Soler, Sulpicio, and Segundo sold the land to Dr.
Santos for PhP500,000 with a right to repurchase, at the same price, within five (5) years from
the date of the sale. The deed of sale was signed only by the three (3) older siblings, and covered
the entire property. Before the five (5) years expired, Sole and Sulpicio tendered their respective
shares of PhP166,666 each to redeem the property. Since Segundo did not have the means
because he was still unemployed, Saturnina paid the remaining PhP166,666 to redeem the
property. After the property was redeemed from Dr. Santos, the three (3) older children and
Saturnina, for herself and on behalf of the twins who were still minors, sold the property to Dr.
Sazon, in an absolute sale, for PhP1 million. In representing the twins, Saturnina relied on the
fact that she was the natural guardian of her minor children.

(a) Was the first sale to Dr. Santos, and the subsequent repurchase, valid? (2.5%)

(b) Was the second sale to Dr. Sazon valid? May the twins redeem their share after they
reach the age of majority? (2.5%)

Sol Soldivino, widow, passed away, leaving two (2) legitimate children: a 25- year old son,
Santino (whom she had not spoken to for five [5] years prior to her death since he attempted to
kill her at that time), and a 20-year-old daughter, Sara. She left an estate worth PhP8 million and
a will containing only one provision: that PhP1 million should be given to "the priest who
officiated at my wedding to my children's late father." Sara, together with two (2) of her friends,
acted as an attesting witness to the will.
On the assumption that the will is admitted for probate and that there are no debts, divide the
estate and indicate the heirs/legatees entitled to inherit, the amount that each of them will inherit,
and where (i.e., legitime/free portion/intestate share) their shares should be charged. (5%)

VI

Sammy and Santi are cousins who separately inherited two (2) adjoining lots from their
grandfather. Sammy is based overseas but wants to earn income from his inherited land, so he
asked a local contractor to build a row of apartments on his property which he could rent out.
The contractor sent him the plans and Sammy noticed that the construction encroached on a part
of Santi's land but he said nothing and gave approval to construct based on the plans submitted
by the local contractor. Santi, based locally, and who loved his cousin dearly, did not object even
if he knew of the encroachment since he was privy to the plans and visited the property
regularly. Later, the cousins had a falling out and Santi demanded that the portion of the
apartments that encroached on his land be demolished.

Can Santi successfully file legal action to require the demolition? (5%)

VII

Sydney, during her lifetime, was a successful lawyer. By her own choice, she remained
unmarried and devoted all her time to taking care of her nephew and two (2) nieces: Socrates,
Saffinia, and Sophia. She wrote a will giving all her properties remaining upon her death to the
three (3) of them. The will was admitted to probate during her lifetime. Later, she decided to
make a new will giving all her remaining properties only to the two (2) girls, Saffinia and
Sophia. She then tore up the previously probated will. The second will was presented for probate
only after her death. However, the probate court found the second will to be void for failure to
comply with formal requirements.

(a) Will the doctrine of dependent relative revocation apply? (2.5%)

(b) Will your answer be the same if the second will was found to be valid but both
Saffinia and Sophia renounce their inheritance? (2.5%)

VIII

Sofronio was a married father of two when he had a brief fling with Sabrina, resulting in her
pregnancy and the birth of their son Sinforoso. Though his wife knew nothing of the affair,
Sofronio regretted it, but secretly provided child support for Sinforoso. Unfortunately, when
Sinforoso was 10 years old, Sofronio died. Only Sofronio's father, Salumbides, knew of Sabrina
and Sinforoso. For the purpose of providing support to Sinforoso, Salumbides gave Sabrina
usufructruary · rights over one of his properties - a house and lot - to last until Sinforoso reaches
the age of majority. Sabrina was given possession of the property on the basis of caucion
juratoria. Two (2) years after the creation of the usufruct, the house accidentally burned down,
and three (3) years thereafter, Sinforoso died before he could reach the age of 18.

Will the usufruct continue after the house has burned down? If yes, will it continue after
Sinforoso's death? (2.5%)

IX

Newlyweds Sam and Sienna had contracted with Sangria Hotel for their wedding reception. The
couple was so unhappy with the service, claiming, among other things, that there was an
unreasonable delay in the service of dinner and that certain items promised were unavailable.
The hotel claims that, while there was a delay in the service of the meals, the same was
occasioned by the sudden increase of guests to 450 from the guaranteed expected number of 350,
as stated in the Banquet and Meeting Services Contract. In the action for damages for breach of
contract instituted by the couple, they claimed that the Banquet and Meeting Services Contract
was a contract of adhesion since they only provided the number of guests and chose the menu.
On the other hand, the hotel's defense was that the proximate cause of the complainant's injury
was the unexpected increase in their guests, and this was what set the chain of events that
resulted in the alleged inconveniences.

(a) Does the doctrine of proximate cause apply in this case? (2.5%)

(b) Was the Banquet and Meeting Services Contract a contract of adhesion? If yes, is the
contract void? (2.5%)

Sinclair and Steffi had an illicit relationship while Sinclair was married to another. The
relationship produced a daughter Sabina, who grew up with her mother. For most parts of
Sabina's youth, Steffi spent for her support and education. When Sabina was 21 years old,
Sinclair's wife of many years died. Sinclair and Steffi lost no time in legitimizing their
relationship. After the 40-day prayers for Sinclair's late wife, Sinclair and Steffi got married
without a marriage license, claiming that they have been cohabiting for the last 20 years.

After graduating from college, Sabina decided to enroll in law school. Sinclair said that he was
not willing to pay for her school fees since she was no longer a minor. Sinclair claimed that, if
Sabina wanted to be a lawyer, she had to work and spend for her law education.

(a) What is Sabina's filiation status? (2.5%)

(b) Is Sinclair legally required to finance Sabina's law education? (2.5%)

XI

Samantha sold all her business interest in a sole proprietorship to Sergio for the amount of PhP1
million. Under the sale agreement, Samantha was supposed to pay for all prior unpaid utility
bills incurred by the sole proprietorship. A month after the Contract to Sell was executed,
Samantha still had not paid the PhP50,000 electricity bills incurred prior to the sale. Since Sergio
could not operate the business without electricity and the utility company refused to restore
electricity services unless the unpaid bills were settled in full, Sergio had to pay the unpaid
electricity bills. When the date for payment arrived, Sergio only tendered PhP950,000
representing the full purchase price, less the amount he paid for the unpaid utility bills.
Samantha refused to accept the tender on the ground that she was the one supposed to pay the
bills and Sergio did not have authorization to pay on her behalf.

(a) What is the effect of payment made by Sergio without the knowledge and consent of
Samantha? (2.5%)

(b) Is Samantha guilty of mora accipiendi? (2.5%)

XII

Saachi opened a savings bank account with Shanghainese Bank. He made an initial deposit of
PhP100,000. Part of the bank opening forms that he was required to sign when he opened the
account was a Holdout Agreement which provided that, should he incur any liability or
obligation to the bank, the bank shall have the right to immediately and automatically take over
his savings account deposit. After he opened his deposit account, the Shanghainese Bank
discovered a scam wherein the funds in the account of another depositor in the bank was
withdrawn by an impostor. Shanghainese Bank suspected Saachi to be. the impostor, and filed a
criminal case of estafa against him. While the case was still pending with the Prosecutor's office,
the bank took over Saachi's savings deposit on the basis of the Holdout Agreement.

(a) What kind of contract is created when a depositor opens a deposit account with a
bank? (2.5%)

(b) In this case, did the bank have the right to take over Saachi's bank deposit? (2.5%)

XIV

Socorro is the registered owner of Lot A while Segunda is the registered owner of the adjoining
Lot B. Lot A is located at an elevated plateau of about 15 feet above the level of Lot B. Since
Socorro was allegedly removing portions of the land and cement that supported the adjoining
property, Segunda caused the annotation of an adverse claim against 50 sq. m. on Lot A's
Transfer Certificate of Title, asserting the existence of a legal easement.

(a) Does a legal easement in fact exist? If so, what kind? (2.5%)

(b) If a legal easement does in fact exist, is an annotation of an adverse claim on the title
of the servient estate proper? (2.5%)
 XV

Simon owned a townhouse that he rented out to Shannon, a flight attendant with Soleil
Philippine Airlines (SPA). They had no written contract but merely agreed on a three (3)-year
lease. Shannon had been using the townhouse as her base in Manila and had been paying rentals
for more than a year when she accepted a better job offer from Sing Airlines. This meant that
Singapore was going to be her new base and so she decided, without informing Simon, to
sublease the townhouse to Sylvia, an office clerk in SPA.

(a) Can Simon compel Shannon to reduce the lease agreement into writing? (2.5%)

(b) Does the sublease without Simon's knowledge and consent constitute a ground for
terminating the lease? (2.5%)

XVI

Selena was a single 18-year old when she got pregnant and gave birth to Suri. She then left to
work as a caregiver in Canada, leaving Suri with her parents in the Philippines. Selena, now 34
years old and a permanent resident in Canada, met and married Sam who is a 24-year old
Canadian citizen who works as a movie star in Canada. Sam's parents are of Filipino ancestry
but had become Canadian citizens before Sam was born. Wanting Suri to have all the advantages
of a legitimate child, Selena and Sam decided to adopt her. Sam's parents, already opposed to the
marriage of their son to someone significantly older, vehemently objected to the adoption. They
argued that Sam was not old enough and that the requisite age gap required by the Inter-Country
Adoption Act between Sam as adopter and Suri as adoptee was not met.

Are Sam's parents correct? (2.5%)

XVII

Sofia and Semuel, both unmarried, lived together for many years in the Philippines and begot
three children. While Sofia stayed in the Philippines with the children, Semuel went abroad to
work and became a naturalized German citizen. He met someone in Germany whom he wanted
to marry. Semuel thereafter came home and filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
for partition ofthe common properties acquired during his union with Sofia in the Philippines.
The properties acquired during the union consisted of a house and lot in Cavite worth PhP2
million, and some personal properties, including cash in bank amounting to PhP1 million. All
these properties were acquired using Samuel's salaries and wages since Sofia was a stay-at-home
mother. In retaliation, Sofia filed an action, on behalf of their minor children, for support.

(a) How should the properties be partitioned? (2.5%)

(b) Should Semuel be required to support the minor children? (2.5%)

 XVIII

Shasha purchased an airline ticket from Sea Airlines (SAL) covering Manila-Bangkok- Hanoi-
Manila. The ticket was exclusively endorsable to Siam Airlines (SMA). The contract of air
transportation was between Shasha and SAL, with the latter endorsing to SMA the Hanoi-
Manila segment of the journey. All her flights were confirmed by SAL before she left Manila.
Shasha took the flight from Manila to Bangkok on board SAL using the ticket. When she arrived
in Bangkok, she went to the SAL ticket counter and confirmed her return trip from Hanoi to
Manila on board SMA Flight No. SA 888. On the date of her return trip, she checked in for
SMA Flight No. SA 888, boarded the plane, and before she could even settle in on her assigned
seat, she was off-loaded and treated rudely by the crew. She lost her luggage and missed an
important business meeting. She thereafter filed a complaint solely against SAL and argued that
it was solidarily liable with SMA for the damages she suffered since the latter was only an agent
of the former.

(a) Should either, or both, SAL and SMA be held liable for damages that Shasha
suffered? (2.5%)

(b) Assuming that one is an agent of the other, is the agency coupled with interest?
(2.5%)

XIX

Sebastian, who has a pending assessment from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), was
required to post a bond. He entered into an agreement with Solid Surety Company (SSC) for
SSC to issue a bond in favor of the BIR to secure payment of his taxes, if found to be due. In
consideration of the issuance of the bond, he executed an Indemnity Agreement with SSC
whereby he agreed to indemnify the latter in the event that he was found liable to pay the tax.
The BIR eventually decided against Sebastian, and judicially commenced action against both
Sebastian and SSC to recover Sebastian's unpaid taxes. Simultaneously, BIR also initiated action
to foreclose on the bond. Even before paying the BIR, SSC sought indemnity from Sebastian on
the basis of the Indemnity Agreement. Sebastian refused to pay since SSC had not paid the BIR
anything yet, and alleged that the provision in the Indemnity Agreement which allowed SSC to
recover from him, by mere demand, even if it (SSC) had not yet paid the creditor, was void for
being contrary to law and public policy.

Can Sebastian legally refuse to pay SSC? (2.5%)

XX

Simeon was returning to Manila after spending a weekend with his parents in Sariaya, Quezon.
He boarded a bus operated by the Sabbit Bus Line (SBL) on August 30, 2013. In the middle of
the journey, the bus collided with a truck coming from the opposite direction, which was
overtaking the vehicle in front of the truck. Though the driver of the SBL bus tried to avoid the
truck, a mishap occurred as the truck hit the left side of the bus. As a result of the accident,
Simeon suffered a fractured leg and was unable to report for work for one week. He sued SBL
for actual and moral damages. SBL raised the defense that it was the driver of the truck who was
at fault, and that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and
supervision of its driver.

(a) Is SBL liable for actual damages? Moral damages? (2.5%)

(b) Will SBL be liable to pay interest if it is required to pay damages, and delays in the
payment of the judgment award? What is the rate of interest, and from when should the
interest start running? (2.5%)

-NOTHING FOLLOWS-