I.

A.

No, Abet’s action for annulment will not prosper.

On dealings with unregistered land, well-settled is the rule that registration of instruments must be done
in the proper registry in order to effect and bind the land.

Here, Sam owns an unregistered land which was sold to the first buyer, Abet, without the proper
registration of the sale.

Hence, the sale between Sam and Abet did not bind the land. Consequently, Abet’s action for
annulment will not prosper.

B.

Yes, my answer will be the same even if the land was registered under the Torrens System.

Jurisprudence provides that even if the land is covered by a Torrens title, the sale must still be
registered under the Land Registration Act in order to operate as a constructive notice to the whole
world.

Here, although the land is covered by a Torrens title, the sale was not registered.

Hence, Abet’s action will still not prosper.

A.

Tania’s defense is not valid that Bruce is not a buyer in good faith.

According to the Mirror Doctrine, a person can simply rely on the correctness of the certificate of title
of a registered land and there is no way that he is obliged to go beyond the face of the certificate to
determine the true condition of the property.

Here, Bruce simply relied on the correctness of the certificate of title. He found no encumbrance
annotated thereon.

Hence, Bruce is a buyer in good faith.

B.

Tania’s defense that she acquired ownership over the land by prescription has no merit.

Jurisprudence has held that prescription as well as laches do not apply to registered lands under PD
1529.

Here, the land was registered as well as the deed of sale between Selma and Bruce.

Hence, prescription does not lie in favor of Tania.

A.

The ground that the laws of Australia do not allow holographic will is with merit.

The rules on Succession provides that a will executed in accordance with the country where a person is
a subject or a citizen, and may be proved and probated there as such, shall have the same affect as if
executed according to the laws of the Philippines.

Here, John, the decedent, is an Australian national. His holographic will was not recognized as a valid
form in Australia.

Consequently, the same could not be recognized as valid in the Philippines.

B.

The ground that they were deprived of their legitimes under Philippine law should also be given due
course.

The rules on Succession states that legitimes are part of the decedent’s estate which he cannot freely
disposed of for the benefit of his compulsory heirs. The children of the decedent are compulsory heirs.

Here, the children of John, the decedent, are his compulsory heirs. They cannot be deprived of their
legitime reserved for them by the law.

Hence, the children of John are entitled to their legitimes and should not be deprived thereof.
IV.

A.

Real property. Rice crops remain to be real property until they are harvested or pulled out from the
ground.

B. Real property. The owner of the land permanently attached the same with the intention of using it for
his business.

C.
Real property. Government contracts are classified as real property.

D.

Real property. Rights over a property are considered real property.

E.

Personal property. Although the owner owns the cables, he does not own the sea where the cables are
attached.
V.

A.

Yes, Ambo may recover the book from Coco.

The principle of unjust enrichment applies. It states that no person shall enrich himself at the expense
of another.

Here, Botchok unjustly enriched himself at the expense of Ambo. Ambo has the right to recover the
property in the hands of Coco with damages against Botchok.

Hence, Coco is bound by law to return the book to Ambo.

B.

Yes, Ambo may still recover the book from Coco.

The Civil Code provides that any person who willfully or negligently causes damage to another must
indemnify the latter for the same.

Here, the issuance of a worthless check by Botchok to Ambo caused damage to both Coco and Ambo.

Hence, Ambo may still recover the book against Coco.

A.

No, the writ of execution cannot be enforced against Benito.

Well-settled is the rule that a certificate of title is indefeasible and not subject to a collateral attack.

Here, the notice of litis pendence is not a constructive notice to the whole world. Benito bought the
property in good faith in the belief that the title is free from any lien or encumbrance.

Hence, the writ of execution may not be enforced against Benito.

B.

Benito may file for the annulment of title against Pedro.

Jurisprudence has held that the title holder, who is in good faith, should not be made to bear the
unfavorable effect of the mistake or fault of the Register of Deeds.

Here, the issue occurred in the failure of the Register of Deeds in annotating the lis pendens in the
certificate of title causing Benito to buy the property in good faith.

Hence, Benito may successfully file for the annulment of title of Pedro.
VII.

A.

No, the holographic will should not be allowed.

The rules on Succession provides that when a holographic will is contested, three witnesses should be
presented.

Here, the proponent presented only two witnesses for the contested will of the testatrix.

Hence, the will should now be allowed.

B.

Yes, my answer would be the same.

The rules on Succession does not qualify the requirements in contested holographic wills.

Here, in the absence of three witnesses, the proponent may seek for an expert testimony.

Without the expert testimony, the will should not be allowed.

C.

To be valid, a holographic will should be written in its entirety, dated and signed by the testator himself.
No other form is required for its validity.
VIII.

Delta Buikders Inc shall have the right to the P40,000,000.

The Civil Code states that the creditors of the mortgagor have the first preference in payment.

Here, Delta Builders is a creditor of Acme Corporation.

Hence, Delta Builders should be paid first.

A.

B.
X.

David should pay P100,000 plus the interest of 15% for two years to Charles.

The Civil Code provides that a contract is made upon the meeting of the minds whether made orally or
written, which has the law and binding effect between the parties.

Here, the oral agreement made by Charles and David created the contract. It constitutes the law
between them.

Hence, David is liable to pay Charles according to their contract.

Yes, Aldrin is correct in opposing the termination of the agency contract.

The law on Agency allows the principal to rescind the contract of agency provided that it does not
prejudice the right of the agent.

Here, the termination of the contract of agency is founded in the principal obligation of Alain to pay
Aldrei for the loan he obtained from him. Allowing Alain to terminate the contract will cause damage
to Aldrin, the agent.

Hence, Aldrin may oppose the termination of the contract.

A.

Yes, all partners are personally liable to pay the partnership obligation to Marikina Leather.

The rules on Partnership states that all the partners are liable to third persons.

Here, Nita, Celine and Natasha are co-partners.

Hence, they are all liable to Marikina Leather, a third person.

B.

No, the stipulation is not binding.

The Rules on Partnership provides that exempting a partner from liability to third persons shall be void.

Here, Nita cannot be exempted as she is a co-partner in the partnership.

Hence, the stipulation exempting her would be void.

No, the motion to dismiss should not be granted.

The Civil Code provides that every person must, in the exercise of his rights and the performance of his
duties, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

Here, BPA has the duty to comply with the direction of the depositor, Tom Son, to honor the check he
issued to Alan.

Hence, the motion to dismiss filed by BPA should not be granted.

A.

Yes, the child of Liza was preterited.

The Civil Code provides that a fetus is considered born for all purposes favorable to it.

Here, although the fetus is still inside Liza’s womb, it already has a status of an heir which is favorable
to it.

Hence, Liza’s child was preterited.

B.

No, the probate court did not act correctly when it proceeded to intestate proceedings.

The Rules on Succession provides that in cases of preterition of compulsory heirs, the court may
proceed with the testate proceedings and that the share of the preterited heir will be taken from the free
portion of the estate. In cases where the free portion is not sufficient, the share of each heir shall be
proportionately reduced.

Here, the court should proceed with probating the will of Enrique, In case the free portion of the estate
be insufficient to cover the share of Liza’s unborn child, the shares of the heirs on the will shall be
equitably reduced.

Hence, the probate court did not act in accordance with law.
XV.

One half of the estate will be given to Tina, her child, and the other half will be shared by Tong, Tim
and Trish.

The Rules on Succession provides that when the decedent is the adopted child with her adoptive
parents and husband and a child left without a will, her child gets half of the estate and the portion left
will be shared by her adoptive parents and husband.

Here, the compulsory are Tina, Tim, Trish and Tong.

The marriage between Panfilo and Lala is void for being bigamous.

The Civil Code provides that a marriage subsequent to a valid one without annuling the first one is void.

Here, Panfilo’s marriage to Luz is still subsisting at the time he married Lala.

Hence, their marriage is void for being bigamous.

As to the marriage between Luz and Ponzie, it is also void.

Jurisprudence has held that a petition for declaration of death is necessary on the first marriage before a
subsequent marriage is celebrated. Otherwise, the second marriage is void.

Here, the petition for declaration of presumptive death is not valid as it was made in bad faith when
Luz came to know the whereabouts of Panfilo before she filed the petition.

Hence, the subsequent marriage of Luz and Ponzie is void.

A.

The land is considered conjugal property of Kato and Kat.

The Civil Code provides that a property which is acquired during the marriage belongs to the conjugal
property of the husband and wife.

Here, although the property was paid before the marriage, the payment was completed and the property
was acquired during the marriage of Kato and Kat.

Hence, the land is part of their conjugal property.

The bungalow is also a conjugal property.

The law on Marriage provides that any property acquired by the husband or the wife during the
marriage is conjugal in so far as it redounds to the benefit of the family.

Here, the bungalow they built is for the dwelling of their family.

Hence, the bugalow is a conjugal property.

C.

Yes, the heirs may compel partition of the bungalow and the land.

In rules of Succession, the transfer and transmission of rights to the heirs of the deceased occurs by
reason of the latter’s death.

Here, when Kato died, it left Kat and Kimpy as his heirs.

Hence, the heirs may compel partition by reason of the death of the decedent.
XVIII.

Yes, Petra may file a complaint for damages against Ding.

The Civil Code provides that a guarantor may be held liable for damages when the lender is moved to
create the contract because of his express guaranty.

Here, Petra would not have lent P1,000,000 to Danica had Ding told Petra that Danica is insolvent.

Hence, Ding’s action is estopped from denying liability therefrom.

A.

In donation of personal property, it is required that the same is in writing and signed by the testator.

B.

In donation of real property, it is required that the same is written entirely, dated and signed by the
testator himself if holographic will. In notarial or ordinary will, it must be written in a public
instrument and attested by two witnesses before a notary public.