, a r

w B
ChanRobles Internet
net
t Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

i e t
e v e
R MOCK BAR ESSAY EXAMS
MS

r n
a l ON

t e
n In
VIL
L LAW
CIVIL

i o ociat
cia Dean Teresita Cruz
By: Associate

s
ss I.
l e
Arnold and Benilda were married on Jan. 2, 2019. On Feb. 14, 2019, Arnold discovered
that Benilda has a 2 -year
b
year--old son with her former boyfriend. Feeling betrayed by his
2-year-old

o
wife’s concealment
ent of her previous pregnancy, Arnold filed a petition for annulment of
ment
marriage due to fraud. Should
S the court grant the annulment decree? Why? (2.5%)

R
n
Suggested
ges
ge
este
ted aanswer:
nswer:
ns r:

No,
a
No, the court
cou should not grant the annulment decree. The Family Code enumerates instances
co

h
when ththe husband can file an annulment case due to concealment or fraud which includes
concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant by a man
conc

C
other than her husband. [Art. 46(2) FC] The fact that Benilda has a 2-year-old son is not
included in the enumeration, hence the court should not grant the annulment decree.

II. Percival had a severe heart attack and was brought to the hospital by his best friend
Romulo. Percival was aware he may die anytime and since he was a bachelor without
any close relative at his bedside, he gave his car keys to Romulo, telling his friend that his
car now belongs to the latter. Percival survived d the
t eh heart attack but one week later, he
died of pneumonia. The administrator of Percival’s
Romulo. Can Romulo be compelled to return

a
urn the car?
car
c
r
val’s estate
rcival’s esta wants to recover the car from
Why? (2.5%)

Suggested answer:
B
e s
Yes, Romulo can be compelled to return the ccar to Percival’s estate. It is a donation mortis causa

l
because it was made in contemplation
emplation of death.
ntemplation d (Arts. 774 & 777 NCC). Percival intended

b
the donation to take effect
ectt upon his death
deat
dea due to his heart attack and although Percival died from
a different cause, it does
es not detract
detrac from the fact that it was Percival’s death that would have

o
conveyed ownership ip of the car to
rship t Romulo. However, the donation was not made in accordance
with the formalities
malities of a valid
rmalities va will, either notarial or holographic, hence the donation is void.

R Romulo never
ever acquired ownership over the car and he must return it to Percival’s estate.

a n
III. The Deed of D
rreserving
re eserv
es rvin
ing
Donation reads: “I donate these real properties out of love and affection to donee,
ng llifetime
if usufruct over these properties to myself for my subsistence and maintenance; donee

h
ccannot
caannot sell or dispose these lands without prior consent and approval by the donor during his
lifetime.”
lli
iffeeti Before the donor died, he sold one lot to Spouses Reyes. Upon donor’s death,

C 1

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
www.c
r
 , a r
w B
ChanRobles Internet
net
t Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

i e t
donee asserted

e
rted
v
ed ownership
ownersh over all real properties donated to her conten
e
contending that the

n
donation donation inter vivos, hence the sale was
n to her was a d Spouses Reyes contend
as void. Spous
the donation
R
nation was mmortis causa, hence the sale was valid.

r
d. Is the donation,
lid. d
do intervivos or

l e
r causa?
mortis usa Explain well.. (5%).
sa?? Ex

a Sugg
gge
geesst answer:
Suggested
t
n In
This is a donation inter vivos. A donation intervivos tak
T takes effect during the lifetime of the donor.

o
Clearly reflected on this Deed of Donation
ati is the reservation
res
rese of lifetime usufruct in favor of the

i s
donor for his subsistence and maintenance.
nanc Such
ntenance. ch lifetime
uch l reservation of usufruct would not have

s e
been included in the Deed of Donation
onation had
ha the naked ownership not yet passed to the donee.

s l
The donee was prohibited too sell or dispos
dispose the lands subject of the donation during the donor’s

b
lifetime to ensure that shall enjoy lifetime usufruct over the donated properties.
at the latter sha
sh
(GESTOPA vs. C CA,
A, GG.R.
.R. N
No.
o 111904, October 5, 2000).

married
R o
IV. Arsenia and
nd Benigno, b
d in Libya wh
both
bo Filipinos and both of legal age, 2nd cousins to each other, got
where such marriage is void. Is their marriage valid, voidable or void

n
in the Philippin
Philippines? Why? (2.5%)
Philippines

S
a
Suggested
uggggeste
ted A
Answer:

h The marriage is void in the Philippines. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in

C
accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as
such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35 (1,4,5, and 6),
36, 37, and 38. [Art. 26(1) FC]. By analogy, marriages void in the place of solemnization
shall also be considered void in the Philippines.

V. Freddie and Gloria, both 18 years old, first cousins to each other, had pre-marital sex
resulting to Gloria’s pregnancy. Gloria gave birthth to Homer on January 1, 2018. With

r
parental consent, Freddie and Gloria got married
arried
rried on June 1, 2018 in Japan. Under

a
Japanese law, their marriage was valid. They ey did not execute any marriage settlement.
The couple returned to Manila on June ne 15, 2018.
2018. FFreddie became employed in a bank
while Gloria stayed at home, managed ed the hous
B
household and took care of Homer. During
hou

s
their marriage, the spouses weree abl o buy a house and lot worth ₽1M; a second hand
able to
car worth ₽500K and severall appliances
appliance worth ₽500K.

l
1. Is the marriage of Freddie
ddie and e
Gloria valid in the Philippines? Why? (2.5%)
nd G

b
o
Suggested answer:
r
r:

R
No. Freddiedie
ie and Gloria’s marriage is void in the Philippines. Marriages between collateral blood
relatives,
ves, whether legitimate
leg or illegitimate, up to the 4th civil degree, is considered void from the

each

a n
beginning
eginning
ning by reason
ach other, he
reas
rea of public policy. [Art. 38(1) FC]. Freddie and Gloria are first cousins to
hence their marriage is void in the Philippines although valid in Japan. This is one
of the exceptions
exce
exc provided under Art. 26(1) of the Family Code.

h
C 2

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
www.c
r
 , a r
w B
ChanRobles Internet
net
t Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

i e t
e v
2. May Homerr be legitimated
legitimat based on the given facts? Why? ((2.5%)
2.5%)
e
R
Suggested
gggeeste
gg ted aanswer:
nswe

rn
a l
Homer cannot
ca not be legitimated. Only children conceived

t e
edd and born outside
ou
who, at tthe time of the conception of the former, were not disqualified
disqu
of wedlock of parents
by any impediment to

n In
marr each other, or were so disqualified only because
marry ause either oor both of them were below 18 years
of age, may be legitimated. (Art. 177 FC C as
as aamended
mended by R.A. 9858). In the case at bar,

o
there was a legal impediment to Freddie
red e and GloGl
Gloria’s marriage, hence Homer cannot be

i s
legitimated.

ss l e
3. What property regimee governs Freddie’s
F and Gloria’s marriage? Why? (2.5%)

Suggested answer:
b
Article 148
R o
Freddie andd Gloria’s cohabitation
coha
coh
48 of the Family
is governed by the property regime of co-ownership under
Fami Code. Under this property regime, only the properties acquired by both

n
of the
he parties
arties thr
throu
through their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry shall be
owned ed by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. In the absence of proof

a
too the contr
contrary,
cont their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. (Art.

h
148
1 48 F
FC).
C

C
4. How should their properties be distributed in case of dissolution of
their marriage? (2.5%)

Suggested answer:

All the properties acquired during Freddie and Gloria’s cohabitation shall be owned by
Freddie. He was the only one working during coha
their cohabitation, hence there was no actual

r
contribution of money, m Gloria.
property or industry from Glori S She does not get any share at all.

a
(Art. 148 FC)

VI. Explain the trust pursuit rule. (2.5%))

e s
Equity will pursue property

b l
operty
restitution to the beneficiary.
eficiary.
ty wrongfully
wrongfu
wrongful converted by the fiduciary, or otherwise compel
ciary. A trus
trust will follow the property through all changes in its state and
form, provided itss product or proceeds
proc
pr are capable of identification. Simply stated, if the property

provided
R o
object of the trust
rust was wrongfully
wrongf converted by the trustee, restitution to the beneficiary shall be
compelledd and the trust will follow the property through all changes in its state and form,
dedd the property
property, its product or proceeds can still be identified.

a n
h
C 3

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
www.c
r