2018 BAR (Remedial Law)

1. Dendenees Inc. and David, both stockholders owning collectively 25% of Darwinkle Inc.,
filed an action before the RTC of Makati to compel its Board of Directors (BOD) to hold
the annual stockholders' meeting (ASM) on June 21, 2017, as required by Darwinkle Inc.
's By-Laws, with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction to use as record date April
30, 2017. The complaint alleged, among others, that the refusal to call the ASM on June
21, 2017 was rooted in the plan of the BOD to allow Databank Inc. (which would have
owned 50% of Darwinkle Inc. after July 15, 2017) to participate in the ASM to effectively
dilute the complainants' shareholdings and ease them out of the BOD. Dendenees Inc. and
David paid the amount of PhP 7,565 as filing fees based on the assessment of the Clerk of
Court. The BOD filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. They
averred that the filing fees should have been based on the actual value of the shares of
Dendenees Inc. and David, which were collectively worth PhP 450 million.

If you were the Judge, will you grant the motion to dismiss? (5%)

Answer:

No, as the Judge on the case, I will deny the motion to dismiss.

In a case decided by the Supreme Court, the Court has ruled that jurisdiction is validly
acquired by the courts upon full payment of the docket fees as assessed by the clerk of
court.

In this case, the RTC of Makati has validly acquired the jurisdiction of Dendees, Inc. and
David’s action upon payment of the filing fees based on the assessment of the Clerk of
Court.

Hence, I will deny the motion to dismiss.

2018 BAR (Civil Law)

2. 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%)
Answers:

(a) The marriage of Solenn and Sonny is voidable. Under the Family Code, marriage
between step-siblings are not among those void marriages. However, since Solenn is
19 years old while Sonny is 20 years of age at the time of their marriage, they are
required by the Code to secure their respective parental consent before their marriage.

(b) Yes the marriage of Solenn and Sonny may be ratified by free cohabitation of the
parties when after attaining the age of twenty-one, they freely cohabited with each other
and both lived together as husband and wife

2016 BAR (Political Law)

3. The contents of the vault of ABC company consisting of cash and documents were stolen.
Paulyn, the treasurer of ABC, was invited by the Makati City Police Department to shed
light on the amount of cash stolen and the details of the missing documents. Paulyn obliged
and volunteered the information asked. Later, Paulyn was charged with qualified theft
together with other suspects. Paulyn claims her rights under the Constitution and pertinent
laws were blatantly violated. The police explained that they were just gathering evidence
when Paulyn was invited for a conference and she was not a suspect at that time. Rule on
her defense. (5%)

Answer:

Paulyn’s defense has merit.

According to a case decided by the Supreme Court, any person under custodial
investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his
right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel. Custodial
investigation includes the practice of the law enforcement authorities in issuing an
invitation and involves questioning.

Here, the act of the Police in inviting and questioning Paulyn is already considered as
custodial investigation which the Constitutional right to remain silent and to have a
competent and independent counsel must be strictly followed. However, said rights have
been violated by the Police.

Thus, the offense charged of qualified theft against Paulyn must be dismissed.

2018 BAR (Criminal Law)

4. Rico, a hit man, positioned himself at the rooftop of a nearby building of a bank, to serve
as a lookout for Red and Rod while the two were robbing the bank, as the three of them
had previously planned. Ramiro, a policeman, responded to the reported robbery. Rico saw
Ramiro and, to eliminate the danger of Red and Rod being caught, pulled the trigger of his
rifle, intending to kill Ramiro. He missed as Ramiro slipped and fell down to the ground.
 Instead, a woman depositor who was coming out of the bank was fatally shot. After their
apprehension, Rico, Red, and Rod were charged with the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide. Rico's defense was that he never intended to shoot and kill the woman, only
Ramiro. Red and Rod's defense was that they were not responsible for the death of the
woman as they had no participation therein.

(a) Is Rico's defense meritorious? (2.5%)

Answers:

(a) No, Rico’s defense has no merit.

In accordance with a Supreme Court decision, intent to kill is conclusively presumed

Here, Rico’s intent to kill is conclusively presumed when he deliberately shoot Ramiro
but instead shot the woman-depositor who died in the process.

Thus, Rico’s defense lacks of merit.

(b) No, Red and Rod’s defense lacks merit.

Jurisprudence provides that whenever homicide has been committed on the occasion
of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held
guilty as principals of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide although
they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appears that they
endeavored to prevent the homicide.

Here, Rico, Red and Rod has planned and conspired to commit robbery of a bank and
on the occasion of the said robbery, a woman depositor has been shot by Rico and died.
Rico, Red and Rod have all acted as principals in the robbery, which held Red and Rod
liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide with Rico, although they
both did not actually take part in the shooting.

Thus, Red and Rod’s defense is unmeritorious.

2019 BAR (Civil Law)

5. F. a Filipina, married J. a Japanese, in the Philippines. After three (3) years, they had a
falling out and thus, separated. Soon after, F initiated a divorce petition in Japan which was
not opposed by because under Japanese law, a grant of divorce will capacitate him to
remarry. F’s divorce petition was then granted by the Japanese court with finality.

May the legal effects of the divorce decree be recognized in the Philippines, and
consequently, capacitate F to remarry here? Explain. (3%)
Answer:

Yes, the legal effects of the divorce decree may be recognized in the Philippines, and
consequently, capacitate F to remarry.

Jurisprudence dictates that under Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code, a Filipino
citizen has the capacity to remarry under Philippine law after initiating a divorce
proceeding abroad and has obtained a favorable judgment against his spouse who is
capacitated to remarry.

Here, F initiated a divorce petition in Japan and obtained a favorable judgment which
capacitated her Japanese husband to remarry. In effect, the divorce decree obtained by F
may be recognized in the Philippines which may capacitate her to remarry.