I

a)

Abet’s action for annulment of the contract of sale in favor of Bobot will not prosper.

Under the Civil Code, in case of sale of immovable property to different persons, the rule
is that preference shall be given to the first who registered the land in good faith.

Here, the first who registered the land in good faith was Bobot, hence preference shall be
given to Bobot.

Therefore, Abet’s action will not prosper.

b)

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

Under the Civil Code, in case of sale of immovable property to different persons and the
same was already registered, preference shall be given to the first who took possession of the
immovable property in good faith.

Here, preference should be given to Bobot since the latter was the one who occupied the
land in good faith after the execution of the sale of the registered land.

Therefore, my answer will be the same.

II

(a) The defense of Tania in her answer that Bruce is not an innocent purchaser for value
since he should have inspected the land before buying it is tenable.

The Supreme Court has held that the buyer of land should exercise due diligence in a
transaction involving a registered land before buying it.

Here, Bruce did not exercise due diligence when he did not exercise due diligence when
he did not inspect the land subject of the sale, such as ocular inspection, before buying it.

Therefore, the first defense of Tania is tenable.

Under the law governing the land titles and deeds, to be able for the possessor to acquire
the land by prescription the possessor must be in the possession of the land in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession of the land in the concept of an owner since January 1, 1974.

Here, although Tania was in possession of the land in an open, adversely and
continuously but the same was not in the concept of an owner, which is a requirement to acquire
ownership over the land by prescription since there is a title in possession of Selma which
conclusive upon the latter.

Hence the defense of Tania that she acquired the ownership over the land by prescription
is not tenable.

III

a) The opposition of the three sons to the probate of the will on the ground that the laws of
Australia do not allow holographic will is tenable.

Under the Civil Code, testamentary succession of the person with respect to intrinsic
validity of the testamentary provision shall be governed by the national law of the person whose
succession is under consideration.

Here, the intrinsic validity of the testamentary provision of the holographic will of John
should be governed by the Australian law since he is an Australian national, and since Australian
law does not allow holographic wills, it will be a ground for the opposition of the heirs of John.

Hence, the opposition of the three sons to the probate of the will is tenable.

b) The opposition of the three sons to the probate of the will on the ground that they were
deprived of their legitimes under the Philippine law is not tenable.

Under the Civil Code, testamentary succession of the person with respect to order of
succession shall be governed by the national law of the person whose succession is under
consideration.

Here, the opposition of the three sons on the ground of they were deprived of their
legitimes under Philippine law is not tenable since John is an Australian national, his national
law which is Australian law is the governing law with respect to the order of succession in his
will.

Hence, the opposition of the three sons based on the second ground is not tenable.
 IV

a)

Rice crop mortgaged by a farmer to the Mauban Rural Bank is a real property.

Under the Civil Code, plants are considered immovable as long as they are adhered to the
soil.

Here, the subsequent mortgaged over the rice crops will not change the nature of the
property as real property.

b)

Movie projector installed by the movie house proprietor installed in the movie house he
owns is a real property.

Under the Civil Code, machineries installed by the owner of the building tend to meet
directly the industry in that building is considered as real property.

c)

The interest of the contractor in a government contract for the construction of a road
between two rural towns is a real property.

The Supreme Court has held that government contracts for the construction of roads are
real property in the nature of public domain which is not susceptible of private ownership.

Hence, government contracts are considered real property in the nature of public domain.

d)

Leasehold right of a lessee in a one year lease of a commercial building is a personal

Under the Civil Code, leasehold right of a lessee will only become real right that attaches
to the real property if the lease contract is for more than 1 year and registered to the Registry of
Property.

e)

PLDT undersea internet cables are personal property.

The Supreme Court has held that undersea cables owned by private corporations with
permits approved by the Philippine government are considered personal properties.
 V

a)

Ambo may recover the book from Coco.

Under the Civil Code, the true owner of a movable property may recover the movable
property which was lost or stolen. Lost or stolen movable property acquired by a person to
through another even such acquisition was in good faith will never be equivalent to title.

Here, even though the Coco bought the book in good faith from Botchok who stole it
from Ambo, therefore the acquisition by Coco although in good faith is not equivalent to title.

Hence, Ambo may recover the book from Coco.

b)

Ambo may not recover the book from Coco.

Under the Civil Code, a movable property acquired in good faith from a person who also
acquired the said property in good faith and for value is equivalent to title.

Here, since Coco bought the book in good faith from Botchok who acquired the book
from Ambo through a valid contract of sale, therefore the acquisition by Coco of the book in
good faith is equivalent to title.

Hence, Ambo may not recover the book from Coco.

VI

a)

The writ of execution issued in favor of Pedro directing the reconveyance of Lot A to
Pedro may not be enforced against Benito.

Under the Mirror doctrine, a buyer of a land in good faith may rely merely on the face of
the title of the land without the need of inquiring further.

Here, the writ of execution may not be enforced against Benito since applying the mirror
doctrine, the latter has the right to rely merely on the face of the title of the subject land.

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

Benito has the right against Pedro to compel the latter to pay for the necessary and useful
expenses of the former. Also, Benito has the right of retention to the possession of the land until
paid to the necessary and useful expenses in using the land which include the right of tenancy
and the right to receive the rents if Benito decide to lease the building.

Under the Civil Code, a builder in good faith has the following rights against the
landowner in good faith: 1. The right to compel the landowner to pay the value of the necessary
and useful expenses incurred by the builder; 2. The right to retain the land until paid to the
necessary and useful expenses he incurred, which include the right to tenancy and the right to
receive the rents in case the builder in good faith decided to lease the premises of the building
during such retention of the land.

VII

a)

The holographic will that was presented for probate should not be allowed.

Under the Civil Code, in case of opposition to the probate of a holographic will with
respect to the handwriting of the testator, there must be three witnesses who know the
handwriting of the testator.

Here, the proponent presented only two witnesses with respect to the handwriting and
signature of the testator, therefore it is not sufficient for the will to be allowed.

Hence, the will should not be allowed.

b)

My answer would not be the same if the ground of the opposition was the forgery of the
testator’s signature in the will.

Under the Civil Code, the requirement of three witnesses is only applicable if the ground
of the opposition is the handwriting of the testator. If the ground is other than the handwriting,
such as forgery, one witness is sufficient to declare that the signature is forged, such as expert
witness.

c)

The formal requirements for the validity of a holographic will under the Civil Code are
the following: 1. It must be entirely written; 2. dated and signed; 3. By the hand of the testator
himself.
 VIII

The Bank of the Philippine Archipelago has the right to the P 40,000,000.

Under the Civil Code, the principal mortgagor should be given preference over the junior
encumberances that have interest over the mortgage property or to the proceeds in case the
mortgage is foreclosed.

Here, since the building of Acme Corporation was mortgaged in favor of the Bank of the
Philippine Archipelago to secure a loan of P 50,000,000, the obligation of Acme Corporation
towards the Bank of the Philippine Archipelago should be preferred over other obligations of
Acme Corporation.

Hence, the Bank of the Philippine Archipelago has the right to the P 40,000,000.

IX

a)

The doctrine of rebus sic stantibus means that you cannot give what you do not have
because of the total loss of the thing subject of the obligation, hence the effect would be the
obligation will be extinguished.

b)

The Daimos’ contention that it had been relieved of its obligation to deliver the crude oil
because of caso fortuito and under the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus is not meritorious.

Under the Civil Code, the principle of caso fortuito will not apply if the obligor is already
in delay in the performance of its obligation. On the other hand, the doctrine of rebus sic
stantibus will not apply if the object of the obligation is not totally lost which will render the
performance of the obligation possible to be performed.

Here, the the assertion of Daimos that relieved on its obligation to deliver by reason of
caso fortuito will not apply, since Daimos was already delayed in the performance of its
obligation at the time Petron demanded the delivery of the crude oil. On the other hand, doctrine
of rebus sic stantibus will not apply also in this case since the object of the obligation of Daimos
which is the crude oil is not yet totally lost which the will render the performance of the
obligation still possible.

Hence, the Daimos’ contention is not meritorious.

The total amount that David should pay Charles in 1 January 2014 is P 100,000.

Under the Civil Code, an agreement with respect to the payment of interest in an
obligation should be reduced in writing to be give effect to the same.

Here, the stipulation with respect to the interest that will be paid by David to Charles was
not reduced in writing, therefore it has no effect to the principal amount that David borrowed
from Charles.

Hence the total amount that David should pay Charles in 1 January 2014 is P 100,000.

XI

Aldrei is not correct in opposing the termination of the contract of agency.

Under the Civil Code, a contract of agency may be terminated at will if it is not coupled
with interest. A contract of agency is one coupled with interest if there is an obligation on the
part of the agent to sell an immovable property of the principal under written authority.

Here, the obligation of Alain to sell Aldrei’s property without written authority indicates
that the contract of agency between Alain and Aldrei is not coupled with interest, therefore it
may be terminated at will.

Hence, Aldrei is not correct in opposing the termination.

XVIII

Petra’s complaint against Ding for damages for misleading him will prosper.

Under the Civil Code, any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a
manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy, shall indemnify the latter for
the damage.

Here, Ding willfully causes loss to Petra by telling the latter that Danica was financially
well-off although he knew for a fact that Danica was insolvent, therefore Ding is liable for the
damage incurred by Petra.

Hence, Petra’s complaint will prosper.

a)

The formalities for the donation of Personal property under the Civil Code are the
following: 1. The donation of personal property may be orally or in writing; 2. In case of oral
donation, simultaneous delivery of the thing subject of the donation is necessary; 3. If the value
of the thing subject of the donation exceeds P 5,000, it must be reduced in writing, otherwise it
will be null and void.

b)

The formalities for the donation of Real property under the Civil Code are the following:
1. the donation of real property must be embodied in a public instrument; 2. The acceptance of
the done must be made in the same instrument or in a separate public instrument; 3. Both
instrument if the acceptance is made to a separate instrument should be presented and
communicated to the donor, otherwise the donation is null and void.