2024 BAR QUESTION:

Viada and Blanco are best friends. In July 2024, Blanco sold to Castan a

parcel of land registered in Viada’s name. Blanco signed the deed of

absolute sale in behalf of Viada and pretended as his agent. In August

2024, Viada executed a special power of attorney (SPA) authorizing

Blanco to sell the identical parcel of land. Blanco executed a deed of

absolute sale in favor of Sanchez Roman who was aware of the prior

conveyance of the same land to Castan. Thereafter, Castan learned of the

subsequent transaction between Blanco and Sanchez Roman. Castan then

filed against Sanchez Roman an action for annulment of sale. Castan

argued that Sanchez Roman is in bad faith because of his knowledge of

the prior sale. Sanchez Roman countered that the sale between Blanco and

Castan is void for lack of Viada’s consent. Castan replied that the

subsequent issuance of the SPA to Blanco ratified any defect in their

transaction. Who between Castan and Sanchez Roman has a better

right over the parcel of land? Explain.

ANSWER:

Castan has a better right over the parcel of land.

The Supreme Court has held that a buyer in bad faith is one who is aware or has knowledge of the
previous or prior sale of the subject land.

Here, Sanchez Roman is a buyer in bad faith because he has knowledge of the prior sale of the subject
land.

Hence, Castan has a better right over the parcel of land.

2024 CIVIL LAW BAR QUESTION

Alice and Sheila occupied a parcel of land which they inherited from their parents. In 2003, Alice
executed an affidavit of self-adjudication over the property and was issued a certificate of title solely
under her name. In August 2024, Sheila discovered that she was excluded from the certificate of title.
Sheila filed against Alice an action to reconvey the land based on

implied trust. Sheila alleged continuous actual possession of the property

and deprivation of share as compulsory heir. Alice countered that the

prescriptive period to reconvey real property based on an implied trust is

10 years reckoned when she repudiated the trust in 2003 upon the issuance

of certificate of title in her name. Thus, Sheila’s action for reconveyance

filed only in 2024 had already prescribed. Is Sheila’s cause of action to

recover her share in the property from Alice already prescribed?

Explain.

ANSWER:

No, Sheila’s cause of action to recover her share in the property from Alice has not prescribed.

The Supreme Court has held that the recovery of share as compulsory heir is imprescriptible.

Here, the recovery of share by Shiela is imprescriptible because she is a compulsory heir.

Hence, Sheila’s cause of action to recover her share in the property from Alice has not prescribed.

2024 BAR QUESTION:

In 2017, Maloi leased her real property to Sheena for a period of 10 years

with rental escalation clause which reads: “For the first five years, the

rental rate shall be PHP 10,000.00 per month subject to 10% increase for

the succeeding years.” In 2020, Sheena assigned to Colet her rights and

obligations under the contract of lease. Colet then paid the agreed rentals

to Maloi. In 2023, Colet paid PHP 10,000.00 monthly rent through

postdated checks but were dishonored for having been drawn against a

closed account. Maloi charged Colet with the crime of estafa. On the other

hand, Maloi demanded from Sheena the unpaid rentals and stipulated

increase in rent but was refused. Sheena denied liability and argued that

her obligation was already extinguished when Colet substituted her as

lessee. Sheena added that Maloi accepted rental payments from

Colet. Did novation extinguish Sheena’s obligation under the contract

of lease? Explain.

ANSWER:

No, novation does not extinguish Sheena’s obligation under the contract

of lease.

The Supreme Court has held that assignment of rights and

obligations under the contract of lease cannot be done by the lessee without the consent of the Lessor.

Here, the lessee, Sheena assigned to Colet her rights and obligations under the contract of lease
without the consent of the Lessor, Maloi.

Hence, novation does not extinguish Sheena’s obligation under the contract of lease.

2024 BAR QUESTION:

In 2021, Jesse and Celeste got married. After a year, Jesse took all their

savings and abandoned Celeste for his paramour Diana. Jesse asked Diana

to quit her job. Diana hesitated because she has no money and is drowning in debts. Yet, Jesse promised
to provide for all of Diana’s needs. Jesse and Diana then lived together. The following day, Jesse and
Diana bought a

brand-new car. The vehicle was exclusively registered under Diana’s

name. Celeste learned of the purchase and filed an action to recover the

vehicle from Diana. Celeste claimed that Jesse is still her lawful husband,

and that the car is part of their community property. Diana countered that

she and Jesse are co-owners of the vehicle. Can Celeste recover the

vehicle from Diana? Explain.

ANSWER:

Yes, Celeste can recover the vehicle from Diana.

 The Supreme Court has held that property acquired during the existence of the spouses’
marriage is presumed to be came from their joint efforts and is part of their absolute community of
property.

Here, Celeste and Jesse are still married, and that the car is part of their community property
because the same is acquired during the existence of the spouses’ marriage and is presumed to be came
from their joint efforts.

Hence, Celeste can recover the vehicle from Diana.

Lloyd had a long-time crush with his childhood friend Miggy. Lloyd always dreamed of building a
family with Miggy but Philippine laws disapprove of same-sex marriages. Lloyd then migrated and
established a career in Sweden. After several years, Lloyd applied for naturalization and was granted
Swedish citizenship. Lloyd underwent gender-affirming surgery to resemble the woman gender identity.
Lloyd also changed his sex from “male” to “female” and his name from “Lloyd” to “Laida”pursuant to
Swedish law. Thereafter, Laida returned to the Philippines and married Miggy. Is the marriage between
Miggy and Laida valid?

Explain.

ANSWER:

No, the marriage between Miggy and Laida is not valid.

Under the Family Code, marriage is a special contract between a man and a woman.

Here, the marriage is not between a man and a woman but of same-sex because Laida is
biologically a man who underwent gender-affirming surgery to resemble the woman gender identity.

Hence, the marriage between Miggy and Laida is not valid.

2024 BAR EXAM

Klyde and his predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous,

exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of a 10-hectare

agricultural land of the public domain under a bona fide claim of

ownership since 1995. In 2015, the property had been declared alienable

and disposable. In 2020, Klyde applied for registration of the lot. The

Register of Deeds denied the application because Klyde did not occupy

the property since time immemorial or before June 12, 1945. Is the

Register of Deeds justified in denying registration of the property in

favor of Klyde based on lack of occupation since time immemorial?

Explain.
 ANSWER:

No, the Register of Deeds is not justified in denying registration of the property in favor of
Klyde based on lack of occupation since time immemorial.

The Supreme Court has held that the applicant must be in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation as regards registration of agricultural land which had been
declared alienable and disposable.

Here, Klyde and his predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation of the property applied for registration.

Hence, Register of Deeds is not justified in denying registration of the property in favor of
Klyde based on lack of occupation since time immemorial.

In 2015, Sergio and Calista got married. In 2019, Sergio started

complaining about his recurring and severe migraines. Sergio then left

without informing Calista his whereabouts. Eventually, Calista fell in love

with her best friend Albert. In 2024, Calista filed a summary proceeding

to declare Sergio presumptively dead so she can marry Albert. Calista

alleged that Sergio’s only known relative is his brother, Robert, who lives

in Cotabato City. Calista wrote to Robert and asked him about Sergio.

Robert replied that he does not have any idea where to find Sergio. Calista

also tried to inquire from Sergio’s friends but to no avail. Thus, Calista

honestly believed that Sergio is already dead. Is Calista’s petition for

declaration of presumptive death meritorious? Explain.

Zion purchased a condominium unit from Hammered Homes Realty (HHR) for PHP
10,000,000.00. Zion paid a down payment of PHP 2,000,000.00, while the balance of PHP 8,000,000.00 is
payable for a period of 80 months at PHP 100,000.00 monthly installments. Zion started paying the
monthly installments on April 15, 2022. Due to financial difficulties, Zion started to default on his
payments from June 15, 2024. Zion paid PHP 1,800,000.00 total monthly installments. On August 15,
2024, Zion received a notarized letter cancelling the contract to sell. Zion then went to the office of HHR
to claim the cash surrender value of his payments pursuant to Republic Act No. 6552 entitled “Realty
Installment Buyer Act” or the Maceda Law. Is Zion entitled to cash surrender value? Explain.
 ANSWER:

Yes, Zion is entitled to cash surrender value.

Under the Maceda Law, the buyer is entitled to cash surrender value when the seller is the one
who cancels the contract to sell.

Here, Zion received a notarized letter from the seller-developer cancelling the contract to sell
on August 15, 2024.

Hence, Zion is entitled to cash surrender value.

On July 5, 2024, Odrey and Jeboy executed a notarized agreement for the sale of real property
which reads: “Odrey agrees to sell Lot 0416 to Jeboy for a total consideration of PHP 1,000,000.00. Upon
full payment of the purchase price, Odrey will execute a deed of absolute sale in favor of Jeboy.” The
following day, Jeboy recorded the instrument with the Register of Deeds. On August 5, 2024, Odrey and
Lorenz executed a notarized document over the same parcel of land which reads: “for and in
consideration of PHP 1,000,000.00, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Odrey hereby sells,
transfers, and conveys and by these presents sold, transferred, and conveyed Lot 0416 to Lorenz.” The
deed between Odrey and Lorenz was not registered. Later, Jeboy discovered the transaction between
Odrey and Lorenz. Jeboy invoked the rules on double sale and argued that he has a better right because
he is the first registrant in good faith. Will the rules on double sale apply? Explain.

ANSWER:

No, the rules on double sale will not apply.

The Supreme Court has held that double sale applies only to a situation where the same
property is validly sold to different vendees.

Here, Lot 0416 is not yet validly sold to Jeboy because he is yet to comply with the contract to
sell between him and the seller Odrey, which reads, “Odrey agrees to sell Lot 0416 to Jeboy for a total
consideration of PHP 1,000,000.00. Upon full payment of the purchase price, Odrey will execute a deed
of absolute sale in favor of Jeboy.” On the other hand, the same Lot 0416 is validly sold to Lorenz
because the seller, Odrey executed a notarized contract of sale over the said lot in favor of Lorenz, which
reads, “for and in consideration of PHP 1,000,000.00, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Odrey
hereby sells, transfers, and conveys and by these presents sold, transferred, and conveyed Lot 0416 to
Lorenz.”

Hence, the rules on double sale will not apply.

2024 CRIMINAL LAW BAR QUESTION

In 2019, government-sponsored militias in Sudan known as “Janjaweed” conducted a campaign

of slaughter, starvation, rape, and kidnapping of a certain racial and ethnic group. An estimated
1,000,000 people were systematically killed and 300,000 families have been displaced. In August 2024,
Maverick, a known leader of Janjaweed, was spotted in Boracay. Maverick was criminally charged for the
widespread and systematic attacks directed against the civilian population. The Regional Trial Court (RTC)
then issued a warrant of arrest. Maverick challenged the jurisdiction of the RTC to prosecute the offense
since none of his actions was committed in the Philippines, and none of the alleged victims is a Filipino
citizen. Can Maverick be prosecuted in the Philippines? Explain.

ANSWER:

No, Maverick cannot be prosecuted in the Philippines.

The Supreme Court has held that a court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the person charged
with an offense committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court because venue is jurisdictional
in criminal cases.

Here, the RTC cannot exercise jurisdiction over Maverick criminally charged for the widespread
and systematic attacks directed against the civilian population committed outside the territorial
jurisdiction of the RTC because venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases.

Hence, Maverick cannot be prosecuted in the Philippines.

Yari is a lesbian who had a romantic relationship with Malou. Yari financially supported Malou
and her brother Bobby, and even rented a condominium unit for them. After five years, Malou broke up
with Yari because she is longing the affection from a real man. Yari suffered mental and emotional
anguish because of the separation. Later, Yari learned through friends that Malou is flaunting her
boyfriend in social media. Yari discovered that Bobby is Malou’s long-time boyfriend, and that they just
pretended to be siblings. Yari filed a criminal complaint for violation of Republic Act No. 9262 or the
Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (Anti-VAWC) against Malou and Bobby. As
supporting evidence, Yari submitted a medical report which diagnosed her with major depressive
disorder with symptoms of psychosis. At the trial, Malou argued that she is not criminally liable because
the Anti-VAWC law is inapplicable to homosexual relationships. On the other hand, Bobby contended
that the law is inapplicable to him because he is not in a relationship with Yari. Are Malou and Bobby
criminally liable for violation of the Anti-VAWC law? Explain.

Answer:

Malou is criminally liable for Violation of the Anti-VAWC law while Bobby is not.

The Anti-VAWC law is also applicable to a lesbian relationship according to the Supreme Court.

Here, Yari and Malou are in a lesbian romantic relationship and because of the separation and
after Yari discovered that Bobby is Malou’s long-time boyfriend for they just pretended to be siblings,
Yari was diagnosed with major depressive disorder with symptoms of psychosis. As regards Bobby, the
Anti-VAWC law is inapplicable to him because he is not in a romantic relationship with Yari.

Hence, Malou is criminally liable for Violation of the Anti-VAWC law while Bobby is not.
 2024 REMEDIAL LAW BAR QUESTION

Toni filed an action for breach of contract against Ivana. At the trial, Toni answered these
questions from her counsel:

Q: What happened next, if any?

A: Ivana and I negotiated the terms of the transaction.

Q: After your negotiation with Ivana, did you reduce your agreement into writing?

A: Yes, we drafted and signed an instrument.

Q: Do you know the contents of this instrument?

A: Yes.

Q: Will you tell the court the contents of this instrument?

If you are Ivana’s counsel, will you object to the last question? Explain.

ANSWER:
If I were the counsel of Ivana, I will object to the last question.

According to the Supreme Court, whenever the subject of inquiry is the content of a document,
the original writing must be produced as it is the best evidence to prove such content under the original
document rule.

Here, the subject of inquiry is the content of a document because Toni was asked by his counsel
to tell to the court the contents of the instrument which Toni and Ivana had signed. Thus, before Toni
could answer the question with regard to the contents of the instrument, the original writing of the said
instrument must first be produced as it is the best evidence to prove such content under the original
document rule.

Hence, if I were the counsel of Ivana, I will object to the last question.

In a criminal case for homicide, the prosecution offered Austin as witness to prove that Titus admitted to
him the killing of the victim. At the trial, Austin answered these questions from the public prosecutor:

Q: Did you witness the killing of the victim?

A: No, ma’am.

Q: What were you doing when the victim was killed?

A: I was sleeping, ma’am.

Q: Why are you testifying against Titus?

A: Because Titus admitted to me that he killed the victim.

Q: What did Titus tell you?

Immediately, Titus’ counsel objected to the question on the ground that the answer of Austin
would be hearsay and inadmissible in evidence.

If you are the judge, how will you rule on the objection? Explain.

ANSWER:

If I were the judge, I will sustain the objection.

According to the Supreme Court a witness CAN TESTIFY ONLY TO THOSE

FACTS WHICH THEY KNOW OF THEIR PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, that is, which
are derived from their perception.
A witness, therefore,
1.) may not testify as to what they merely learned from others either because they
a.) were told or
b.) read or
c.) heard the same.
Such testimony is considered hearsay and may not be received as proof of the
truth of what they have learned.

Here, the testimony of Austin would be would be hearsay and inadmissible in the courts of law is
testifying merely on what was told to him by the accused