2nd File.

1. Which of the following statements is wrong.

Ans: Possessor in BF is entitled to a refund of useful expenses.

2. Which phrase most accurately complete the statement — the expenses incurred in
improvements for the pure luxury or mere pleasure shall not be refunded to the possessor in BF;
Ans: but he may remove the objects for which such expenses have been incurred, provided that
the thing suffers no injury thereby, and the lawful possessor does not prefer to retain them.

3. The following are limitations on the right of ownership imposed by the owner himself, except:
Ans: Will/Succession

4. A plenary action for the recovery of the possession of real estate, upon mere allegation and
proof of a better right thereto and without allegation of proof of title. This action can be brought
after the expiration of one year. What action is being referred to.
Ans: Accion Publiciana

5. Action to recover real property based on ownership . Here, the object is the recovery of the
dominion over the property as owner. What action is being referred to.
Ans: Accion Reinvindicatoria

6. A summary action to recover a physical or material possession only and must be brought within
one year from the time the cause of action arises.
Ans: Accion Interdictal

7. The following are property of public dominion, except;

Ans: not a bar q

8. Which of the following statement is wrong?

Ans: Patrimonial property of the state, when no longer intended for public use or public service
shall become property of he public dominion.

9. The following cannot ask for the reduction of inofficious donations, except;
Ans: Compulsory heirs of the donor

10. Donation is perfected from the moment —

Ans: the donor knows of the donee’s acceptance even if the latter has not received the copy of
the deed of donation.

11. If one of the parties to a contract is without juridical capacity, the contract is —
Ans: VOID

12. When both parties to the contract are minors, contract is —

Ans: UNENFORCEABLE

13. The requisites of succession are as follows, except;

Ans: Payment of Taxes
 14. The characteristics of succession are as follows, except;
Ans: It is a legal contract

15. The following rights are extinguished by death, except —

Ans: Right to inherit

16. Attestation clause contains the following, except;

Ans: Notary Public

17. The following are formalities required in the execution of holographic will, except;
Ans: Notarized by a notary public

18. The following are grounds fr disallowance of wills, except;

Ans: will contains an attestation clause

19. It is the omission in the testator’s will of one; some or other compulsory heirs in direct line,
whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator.
This is principle of — Preterition

20. Any disposition made upon the condition that the heir shall make some provision in his will in
favor of the testator or any other person shall be void. Here, both condition and disposition are
void. This is the principle of — Dispocision Captatoria

Essay Questions — all are from 2012 Bar Qs

21.Roberto was in Nikko Hotel when he bumped into a friend who was then on her way to a wedding
reception being held in said hotel. Roberto alleged that he was then invited by his friend to join her at
the wedding reception and carried the basket full of fruits which she was bringing to the affair. At the
reception, the wedding coordinator of the hotel noticed him and asked him, allegedly in a loud voice, to
leave as he was not in the guest list. He retorted that he had been invited to the affair by his friend, who
however denied doing so. Deeply embarrassed by the incident, Roberto then sued the hotel for
damages under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code. Will Roberto's action prosper? Explain. (5%) (2012
BAR)

Answer:
It depends. While the hotel has the right to exclude an uninvited guest from the wedding reception, that
does not give the hotel the license to humiliate Roberto. If the wedding coordinator of the hotel acted
wrongfully e.g. with abuse of right, unfairly, or in a manner that exposed Roberto to unnecessary
ridicule or shame, his action will proper. Otherwise, Roberto's action will prosper. The hotel is liable for
the wrongful acts of its employees.

NO. Roberto's action will not prosper. From the facts given in the problem, the wedding coordinator did
not abuse her right when she asked him to leave the wedding reception because he was not in the guest
list. Hotel Nikko could not be held liable for damages as its liable spring from the liability of its employee
(Nikko Hotel Manila Garden v. Reyes, G.R. No. 154259, February 28, 2005).
22. Ricky donated P 1 Million to the unborn child of his pregnant girlfriend, which she accepted. After six
(6) months of pregnancy, the fetus was born and baptized as Angela. However, Angela died 20 hours
after birth. Ricky sought to recover the P 1 Million. Is Ricky entitled to recover? Explain. (5%) (2012 BAR)

Answer:
YES, Ricky is entitled to recover the P1,000,000.00. The NCC considers a fetus is considered a person for
purposes favorable to it provided it is born later in accordance with the provision of the NCC. While the
donation is favorable to the fetus, the donation did not take effect because the fetus was not born in
accordance with the NCC.

To be considered born, the fetus that had an intrauterine life of less than seven (7) months should live
for 24 hours from its complete delivery from the mother's womb. Since Angela had an intrauterine life
of less than seven (7) months but did not live for 24 hours, she was not considered born and, therefore,
did not become a person (Art. 41). Not being a person, she has no juridical capacity to be a donee,
hence, the donation to her did not take effect. The donation not being effective, the amount donated
may be recovered. To retain it will be unjust enrichment.

23. The petitioner filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based allegedly on the
psychological incapacity of the respondent, but the psychologist was not able to personally examine the
respondent and the psychological report was based only on the narration of petitioner. Should the
annulment be granted? Explain. (2012 BAR)

Answer:
NO. The annulment cannot be guaranteed solely on the basis of the psychological report. For the report
to prove the psychological incapacity of the respondent, it is required that the psychologist should
personally examine the respondent and the psychological report should be based on the psychologist's
independent assessment of the facts as to whether or not the respondent is psychologically
incapacitated.

Since, the psychologist did not personally examine the respondent, and his report is based solely on the
story of the petitioner who has an interest in the outcome of the petition, the marriage cannot be
annulled on the ground of respondent's psychological incapacity if the said report is the only evidence of
respondent's psychological incapacity.

24. Maria, wife of Pedro, withdrew P 5 Million from their conjugal funds. With this money, she
constructed a building on a lot which she inherited from her father. Is the building conjugal or
paraphernal? Reasons. (2012 BAR)

Answer:
It depends. If the value of the building is more than the value of the land, the building is conjugal and
the land becomes conjugal property under Art. 120 of the FC. This is a case of reverse accession, where
the building is considered as the principal and the land, the accessory. If, on the other hand, the value of
the land is more than the value of the building, then the ordinary rule of accession applies where the
land is the principal and the building, the accessory. In such case, the land remains paraphernal property
and the building becomes paraphernal properly. (Note: The rule on reverse accession is applicable only
to the regime of conjugal partnership of gains in both the Family Code and the New Civil Code. The
foregoing answer assumes that CPG is the regime of the property relations of the spouses.)
25. Cipriano and Lady Miros married each other. Lady Miros then left for the US and there, she obtained
American citizenship. Cipriano later learned all about this including the fact that Lady Miros has divorced
him in America and that she had remarried there. He then filed a petition for authority to remarry,
invoking Par. 2, Art. 26 of the Family Code. Is Cipriano capacitated to re-marry by virtue of the divorce
decree obtained by his Filipino spouse who was later naturalized as an American citizen? Explain. (2012
BAR)

Answer:
YES, he is capacitated to re-marry. While the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code is
applicable only to a Filipino who married a foreigner at the time of the marriage, the Supreme Court
ruled in the case of Republic v. Orbecido, GR. No. 154380, October 5, 2005, that the said provision
equally applies to a Filipino who married another Filipino, at the time of the marriage, but who was
already a foreigner when the divorce was obtained.

26. After they got married, Nikki discovered that Christian was having an affair with another woman. But
Nikki decided to give it a try and lived with him for two (2) years. After two (2) years, Nikki filed an action
for legal separation on the ground of Christian's sexual infidelity. Will the action prosper? Explain. (2012
BAR)

Answer:
Nikki's action will not prosper on account at condonation. Although the action for legal separation has
not yet prescribed, the prescriptive period being five years, the decision of Nikki to live with Christian
after discovering his affair amounts to condonation of such act. However, if such affair is still continuing,
Nikki's action would prosper because the action will surely be within (5) years from the commission of
the latest act of sexual infidelity. Every act or sexual liaison is a ground for legal separation.

27. Honorato filed a petition to adopt his minor illegitimate child Stephanie, alleging that Stephanie's
mother is Gemma Astorga Garcia; that Stephanie has been using her mother's middle name and
surname; and that he is now a widower and qualified to be her adopting parent. He prayed that
Stephanie's middle name be changed from "Astorga" to "Garcia," which is her mother's surname and
that her surname "Garcia" be changed to "Catindig," which is his surname. This the trial court denied.
Was the trial court correct in denying Hororato's request for Stephanie's use of her mother's surname as
her middle name? Explain. (1996, 2012)

Answer:
NO, the trial court was not correct. There is no law prohibiting an illegitimate child adopted by his
natural father to use as middle name his mother's surname. The law is silent as to what middle name an
adoptee may use. In the case of In re: Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia (G.R. No, 148311,
March 31, 2005), the Supreme Court ruled that the adopted child may use the surname of the natural
mother as his middle name because there is no prohibition in the law against it. Moreover, it will also be
for the benefit of the adopted child who shall preserve his lineage on his mother's side and reinforce his
right to inherit from his mother and her family. Lastly, it will make the adopted child conform with the
time-honored Filipino tradition of carrying the mother's surname as the person's middle name.

28. Spouses Primo and Monina Lim, childless, were entrusted with the custody of two (2) minor
children, the parents of whom were unknown. Eager of having children of their own, the spouses made
it appear that they were the children's parents by naming them Michelle P. Lim and Michael Jude Lim.
Subsequently, Monina married Angel Olario after Primo's death.
She decided to adopt the children by availing the amnesty given under R.A. 8552 to those individuals
who simulated the birth of a child. She filed separate petitions for the adoption of Michelle, then 25
years old and Michael, 18. Both Michelle and Michael gave consent to the adoption. The trial court
dismissed the petition and ruled that Monina should have filed the petition jointly with her new
husband. Monina, in a Motion for Reconsideration argues that mere consent of her husband would
suffice and that joint adoption is not needed, for the adoptees are already emancipated.
Is the trial court correct in dismissing the petitions for adoption? Explain. (2012 BAR)

Answer:
YES, the trial court was correct. At the time the positions for adoptions were filed, petitioner had already
remarried. Under the law, husband and wife shall adopt jointly, except in cases enumerated in the law.
The adoption cases of Michelle and James do not fall in any of the exceptions provided in the law where
a spouse is permitted to adopt alone. Hence, Monina should adopt jointly with her husband Angel
(Adoption of Michelle P. Lim, G.R. Nos. 168992-93, May 21, 2009).

29. Jambrich, an Austrian, fell in-love and lived together with Descallar and bought their houses and lots
at Agro-Macro Subdivision. In the Contracts to Sell, Jambrich and Descallar were referred to as the
buyers. When the Deed of Absolute Sale was presented for registration before the Register of Deeds, it
was refused because Jambrich was an alien and could not acquire alienable lands of the public domain.
After Jambrich and Descallar separated, Jambrich purchased an engine and some accessories for his
boat from Borromeo. To pay for his debt, he sold his rights and interests in the Agro-Macro properties to
Borromeo. Borromeo discovered that titles to the three (3) lots have been transferred in the name of
Descallar. Who is the rightful owner of the properties? Explain. (2012 BAR)

Answer:
It depends. On the assumption that the Family Code is the applicable law, the ownership of the
properties depends on whether or not Jambrich and Descallar are capacitated to marry each other
during their cohabitation, and whether or not both have contributed funds for the acquisition of the
properties.

If both of them were capacitated to marry each other, Art. 147 will apply to their property relations and
the properties in question are owned by them in equal shares even though all the funds used in
acquiring the properties came only from the salaries or wages or the income of Jambrich from his
business or profession. In such a case, while Jambrich is disqualified to own any part of the properties,
his subsequent transfer of all his interest therein to Borromeo, a Filipino, was valid as it removed the
disqualification. In such case, the properties are owned by Borromeo and Descallar in equal shares.
If, on the other hand, Jambrich and Descallar were not capacitated to marry each other, Article 153
governs their property relations. Under this regime, Jambrich and Descallar are owners of the properties
but only if both of them contributed in their acquisition. If all the funds used in acquiring the properties

in question came from Jambrich, the entire property is his even though he is disqualified from owning it.
His subsequent transfer to Borromeo, however, is valid as it removed the disqualification. In such case,
all of the properties are owned by Borromeo. If, on the other hand, Descallar contributed to their
acquisition, the properties are co-owned by Descallar and Borromeo in proportion to the respective
contributions of Descallar and Jambrich. (Note: The facts of the problem are not exactly the same as in
the case of Borromeo v. Descallar, G.R. No. 159310, February 24, 2009, hence, the difference in the
resulting answer.)
30. Natividad's holographic will, which had only one (1) substantial provision, as first written, named
Rosa as her sole heir. However, when Gregorio presented it for probate, it already contained an
alteration, naming Gregorio, instead of Rosa, as sole heir, but without authentication by Natividad's
signature. Rosa opposes the probate alleging such lack of proper authentication. She claims that the
unaltered form of the will should be given effect. Whose claim should be granted? Explain. (1996, 2012)

Answer:
It depends. If the cancellation of Rosa's name in the will was done by the testator himself, Rosa's claim
that the holographic will in its original tenor should be given effect must be denied. The said cancellation
has revoked the entire will as nothing remains of the will after the name of Rosa was cancelled. Such
cancellation is valid revocation of the will and does not require authentication by the full signature of
the testator to be effective. However, if the cancellation of Rosa's name was not done by the testator
himself, such cancellation shall not be effective and the will in its original tenor shall remain valid. The
efficacy of a holographic will cannot be left to the mercy of unscrupulous third parties. The writing of
Gregorio‘s name as sole heir was ineffective, even though written by the testator himself, because such
is an alteration that requires the authentication by the full signature of the testator to be valid and
effective. Not having been authenticated. The designation of Gregorio as an heir was ineffective. (Kalaw
v. Relova, G.R. No. L-40207, September 28, 1984).