BAR Questions Civi law

[pinkalou]

BAR EXAMINATIONS 2005
CIVIL LAW


- I -

Gabby and Mila got married at Lourdes Church in Quezon City on July 10, 1990. Prior thereto, they executed a marriage settlement whereby they agreed on the regime of conjugal partnership of gains. The marriage settlement was registered in the Register of Deeds of Manila, where Mila is a resident. In 1992, they jointly acquired a residential house and lot, as well as a condominium unit in Makati. In 1995, they decided to change their property relations to the regime of complete separation of property. Mila consented, as she was then engaged in a lucrative business. The spouses then signed a private document dissolving their conjugal partnership and agreeing on a complete separation of property. Thereafter, Gabby acquired a mansion in Baguio City, and a 5-hectare agricultural land in Oriental Mindoro, which he registered exclusively in his name. In the year 2000, Mila’s business venture failed, and her creditors sued her for P10,000,000.00. After obtaining a favorable judgment, the creditors sought to execute on the spouses’ house and lot and condominium unit, as well as Gabby’s mansion and agricultural land. a) Discuss the status of the first and the amended marriage settlements. (2%) b) Discuss the effect/s of the said settlements on the properties acquired by the spouses. (2%) c) What properties may be held answerable for Mila’s obligations? Explain. (2%)

- II –

In 1985, Sonny and Lulu, both Filipino citizens, were married in the Philippines. In 1987, they separated, and Sonny went to Canada, where he obtained a divorce in the same year. He then married another Filipina, Auring, in Canada on January 1, 1988. They had two sons, James and John. In 1990, after failing to hear from Sonny, Lulu married Tirso, by whom she had a daughter, Verna. In 1991, Sonny visited the Philippines where he succumbed to heart attack. a) Discuss the effect of the divorce obtained by Sonny and Lulu in Canada. (2%)

b) Explain the status of the marriage between Sonny and Auring. (2%) c) Explain the status of the marriage between Lulu and Tirso. (2%) d) Explain the respective filiation of James, John and Verna. (2%) e) Who are the heirs of Sonny? Explain. (2%)

–III –

Emil, the testator, has three legitimate children, Tom, Henry and Warlito; a wife named Adette; parents named Pepe and Pilar; an illegitimate child, Ramon; brother, Mark; and a sister, Nanette. Since his wife Adette is well-off, he wants to leave to his illegitimate child as much of his estate as he can legally do. His estate has a net amount of P1,200,000.00, and all the above-named relatives are still living. Emil now comes to you for advice in making a will. How will you distribute his estate according to his wishes without violating the law on testamentary succession? (5%)

- IV –

Steve was married to Linda, with whom he had a daughter, Tintin. Steve fathered a son with Dina, his secretary of 20 years, whom Dina named Joey, born on September 20, 1981. Joey’s birth certificate did not indicate the father’s name. Steve died on August 13, 1993, while Linda died on December 3, 1993, leaving their legitimate daughter, Tintin, as sole heir. On May 16, 1994, Dina filed a case on behalf of Joey, praying that the latter be declared an acknowledged illegitimate son of Steve and that Joey be given his share in Steve’s estate, which is now being solely held by Tintin. Tintin put up the defense that an action for recognition shall only be filed during the lifetime of the presumed parents and that the exceptions under Article 285 of the Civil Code do not apply to him since the said article has been repealed by the Family Code. In any case, according to Tintin, Joey’s birth certificate does not show that Steve is his father. a) Does Joey have a cause of action against Tintin for recognition and partition? Explain. (2%)

b) Are the defenses set up by Tintin tenable? Explain. (2%) c) Supposing that Joey died during the pendency of the action, should the action be dismissed? Explain. (2%)

- V –

In 1984, Eva, a Filipina, went to work as a nurse in the USA. There, she met and fell in love with Paul, an American citizen, and they got married in 1985. Eva acquired American citizenship in 1987. During their sojourn in the Philippines in 1990, they filed a joint petition for the adoption of Vicky, a 7-year old daughter of Eva’s sister. The government, through the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioners, being both foreigners, are disqualified to adopt Vicky. a) Is the government’s opposition tenable? Explain. (2%) b) Would your answer be the same if they sought to adopt Eva’s illegitimate daughter? Explain. (2%) c) Supposing that they filed the petition to adopt Vicky in the year 2000, will your answer be the same? Explain. (2%)

- VI –

Hans Herber, a German national, and his Filipino wife, Rhoda, are permanent residents of Canada. They desire so much to adopt Magno, an 8-year old orphaned boy and a baptismal godson of Rhoda. Since the accidental death of Magno’s parents in 2004, he has been staying with his aunt who, however, could hardly afford to feed her own family. Unfortunately, Hans and Rhoda cannot come to the Philippines to adopt Magno although they possess all the qualifications as adoptive parents. Is there a possibility for them to adopt Magno? How should they go about it? (5%)

- VII -

Don was the owner of an agricultural land with no access to a public road. He had been passing through the land of Ernie with the latter’s acquiescence for over 20 years. Subsequently, Don subdivided his property into 20 residential lots and sold them to different persons. Ernie blocked the pathway and refused to let the buyers pass through his land. a) Did Don acquire an easement of right of way? Explain. (2%) b) Could Ernie close the pathway and refuse to let the buyers pass? Give reasons. (2%) c) What are the rights of the lot buyers, if any? Explain. (2%)

- VIII –

State with reason whether each of the following is a nuisance, and if so, give its classification, whether public or private: a) A squatter’s hut (1%) b) A swimming pool (1%) c) A house of prostitution (1%) d) A noisy or dangerous factory in a private land (1%) e) Uncollected garbage (1%)

- IX –

Marvin offered to construct the house of Carlos for a very reasonable price of P900,000.00, giving the latter 10 days within which to accept or reject the offer. On the fifth day, before Carlos could make up his mind, Marvin withdrew his offer. a) What is the effect of the withdrawal of Marvin’s offer? (2%) b) Will your answer be the same if Carlos paid Marvin P10,000.00 as consideration for that option? Explain. (2%) c) Supposing that Carlos accepted the offer before Marvin could communicate his withdrawal thereof? Discuss the legal consequences. (2%)

- X -

Bernie bought on installment a residential subdivision lot from DEVLAND. After having faithfully paid the installments for 48 months, Bernie discovered that DEVLAND had failed to develop the subdivision in accordance with the approved plans and specifications within the time frame in the plan. He thus wrote a letter to DEVLAND informing it that he was stopping payment. Consequently, DEVLAND cancelled the sale and wrote Bernie, informing him that his payments are forfeited in its favor. a) Was the action of DEVLAND proper? Explain. (2%) b) Discuss the rights of Bernie under the circumstances. (2%) c) Supposing DEVLAND had fully developed the subdivision but Bernie failed to pay further installments after 4 years due to business reverses. Discuss the rights and obligations of the parties. (2%)


- XI –

Before he left for Riyadh to work as a mechanic, Pedro left his Adventure van with Tito, with the understanding that the latter could use it for one year for his personal or family use while Pedro works in Riyadh. He did not tell Tito that the brakes of the van were faulty. Tito had the van tuned up and the brakes repaired. He spent a total amount of P15,000.00. After using the vehicle for two weeks, Tito discovered that it consumed too much fuel. To make up for the expenses, he leased it to Annabelle. Two months later, Pedro returned to the Philippines and asked Tito to return the van. Unfortunately, while being driven by Tito, the van was accidentally damaged by a cargo truck without his fault. a) Who shall bear the P15,000.00 spent for the repair of the van? Explain. (2%) b) Who shall bear the costs for the van’s fuel, oil and other materials while it was with Tito? Explain. (2%) c) Does Pedro have the right to retrieve the van even before the lapse of one year? Explain. (2%)

d) Who shall bear the expenses for the accidental damage caused by the cargo truck, granting that the truck driver and truck owner are insolvent? Explain. (2%)

- XII –

On July 14, 2004, Pedro executed in favor of Juan a Deed of Absolute Sale over a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 6245. It appears in the Deed of Sale that Pedro received from Juan P120,000.00 as purchase price. However, Pedro retained the owner’s duplicate of said title. Thereafter, Juan, as lessor, and Pedro, as lessee, executed a contract of lease over the property for a period of one (1) year with a monthly rental of P1,000.00. Pedro, as lessee, was also obligated to pay the realty taxes on the property during the period of lease. Subsequently, Pedro filed a complaint against Juan for the reformation of the Deed of Absolute Sale, alleging that the transaction covered by the deed was an equitable mortgage. In his verified answer to the complaint, Juan alleged that the property was sold to him under the Deed of Absolute Sale, and interposed counterclaims to recover possession of the property and to compel Pedro to turn over to him the owner’s duplicate of title. Resolve the case with reasons. (6%)

- XIII –

Rod, the owner of an FX taxi, found in his vehicle an envelope containing TCT No. 65432 over a lot registered in Cesar’s name. Posing as Cesar, Rod forged Cesar’s signature on a Deed of Sale in Rod’s favor. Rod registered the said document with the Register of Deeds, and obtained a new title in his name. After a year, he sold the lot to Don, a buyer in good faith and for value, who also registered the lot in his name. a) Did Rod acquire title to the land? Explain. (2%) b) Discuss the rights of Don, if any, over the property. (2%) c) In an ejectment case filed by Don against Cesar, can the latter ask for the cancellation of Don’s title considering that he (Cesar) is the rightful owner of the lot? Explain. (2%)

- XIV -

Under a written contract dated December 1, 1989, Victor leased his land to Joel for a period of five (5) years at a monthly rental of P1,000.00, to be increased to P1,200.00 and P1,500.00 on the third and fifth year, respectively. On January 1, 1991, Joel subleased the land to Conrad for a period of two (2) years at a monthly rental of P1,500.00. On December 31, 1992, Joel assigned the lease to his compadre, Ernie, who acted on the belief that Joel was the rightful owner and possessor of the said lot. Joel has been faithfully paying the stipulated rentals to Victor. When Victor learned on May 15, 1992 about the sublease and assignment, he sued Joel, Conrad and Ernie for rescission of the contract of lease and for damages. a) Will the action prosper? If so, against whom? Explain. (2%) b) In case of rescission, discuss the rights and obligations of the parties. (2%)

- XV –

Under the law on quasi-delict, aside from the persons who caused injury to persons, who else are liable under the following circumstances: a) When a 7-year-old boy injures his playmate while playing with his father’s rifle. Explain. (2%) b) When a domestic helper, while haggling for a lower price with a fish vendor in the course of buying foodstuffs for her employer’s family, slaps the fish vendor, causing her to fall and sustain injuries. Explain. (2%) c) A carpenter in a construction company accidentally hits the right foot of his co-worker with a hammer. Explain. (2%)

d) A 15-year-old high school student stabs his classmate who is his rival for a girl while they were going out of the classroom after their last class. Explain. (2%) e) What defense, if any, is available to them? (2%)

XVI

Dr. and Mrs. Almeda are prominent citizens of the country and are frequent travelers abroad. In 1996, they booked round-trip business class tickets for the Manila-Hong Kong-Manila route of the Pinoy Airlines, where they are holders of Gold Mabalos Class Frequent Flier cards. On their return flight, Pinoy Airlines upgraded their tickets to first class without their consent and, inspite of their protestations to be allowed to remain in the business class so that they could be with their friends, they were told that the business class was already fully booked, and that they were given priority in upgrading because they are elite members/holders of Gold Mabalos Class cards. Since they were embarrassed at the discussions with the flight attendants, they were forced to take the flight at the first class section apart from their friends who were in the business class. Upon their return to Manila, they demanded a written apology from Pinoy Airlines. When it went unheeded, the couple sued Pinoy Airlines for breach of contract claiming moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees. Will the action prosper? Give reasons. (5%)

NOTHING FOLLOWS

[pinkalou]

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
CIVIL LAW BAR EXAMINATION 2000

I

a) As finance officer of K and Co., Victorino arranged a loan of P5 Million from PNB for the corporation. However, he was required by the bank to sign a Continuing Surety Agreement to secure the repayment of the loan. The corporation failed to pay the loan, and the bank obtained a judgment against it and Victorino, jointly and severally. To enforce the judgment, the sheriff levied on a farm owned by the conjugal partnership of Victorino and his wife Elsa. Is the levy proper or not? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The levy is not proper there being no showing that the surety agreement executed by the husband redounded to the benefit of the family. An obligation contracted by the husband alone is chargeable against the conjugal partnership only when it was contracted for the benefit of the family. When the obligation was contracted on behalf of the family business the law presumes that such obligation will redound to the benefit of the family. However, when the obligation was to guarantee the debt of a third party, as in the problem, the obligation is presumed for the benefit of the third party, not the family. Hence, for the obligation under the surety agreement to be chargeable against the partnership it must be proven that the family was benefited and that the benefit was a direct result of such agreement. (Ayala Investment v. Ching, 286 SCRA 272)

b) On April 15, 1980, Rene and Angelina were married to each other without a marriage settlement. In 1985, they acquired a parcel of land in Quezon City. On June 1, 1990, when Angelina was away in Baguio, Rene sold the said lot to Marcelo. Is the sale void or voidable? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The sale is void. Since the sale was executed in 1990, the Family Code is the law applicable. Under Article 124 of the FC, the sale of a conjugal property by a spouse without the consent of the other is void.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

The sale is voidable. The provisions of the Family Code may apply retroactively but only if such application will not impair vested rights. When Rene and Angelina got married in 1980, the law that governed their property relations was the New Civil Code. Under the NCC, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Heirs of Felipe v. Aldon, 100 SCRA 628 and reiterated in Heirs of Ayuste v. Malabonga, G.R. No. 118784, 2 September 1999, the sale executed by the husband without the consent of the wife is voidable. The husband has already acquired a vested right on the voidable nature of dispositions made without the consent of the wife. Hence, Article 124 of the Family Code which makes the sale void does not apply.

II

For five years since 1989, Tony, a bank Vice-President, and Susan, an entertainer, lived together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage although they were capacitated to marry each other. Since Tony’s salary was more than enough for their needs, Susan stopped working and merely “kept house”. During that period, Tony was able to buy a lot and house in a plush subdivision. However, after five years, Tony and Susan decided to separate.

a) Who will be entitled to the house and lot? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Tony and Susan are entitled to the house and lot as co-owners in equal shares. Under Article 147 of the Family Code, when a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other lived exclusively with each other as husband and wife, the property acquired during the cohabitation are presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry and shall be owned by then in equal shares. This is true even though the efforts of one of them consisted merely in his or her care and maintenance of the family and of the household.

b) Would it make any difference if Tony could not marry Susan because he was previously married to Alice from whom he is legally separated? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, it would make a difference. Under Article 148 of the Family Code, when the parties to the cohabitation could not marry each other because of an impediment, only those properties acquired by both of them through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. The efforts of one of the parties in maintaining the family and household are not considered adequate contribution in the acquisition of the properties.
Since Susan did not contribute to the acquisition of the house and lot, she has no share therein. If Tony cohabited with Susan after his legal separation from Alice, the house and lot is his exclusive property. If he cohabited with Susan before his legal separation from Alice, the house and lot belongs to his community or partnership with Alice.

III

a) Manuel, a Filipino, and his American wife Eleanor, executed a Joint Will in Boston, Massachusetts when they were residing is said city. The law of Massachusetts allows the execution of joint wills. Shortly thereafter, Eleanor died. Can the said Will be probated in the Philippines for the settlement of her estate? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the will may be probated in the Philippines insofar as the estate of Eleanor is concerned. While the Civil Code prohibits the execution of joint wills here and abroad, such prohibition applies only to Filipinos. Hence, the joint will which is valid where executed is valid in the Philippines but only with respect to Eleanor. Under Article 819, it is void with respect to Manuel whose joint will remains void in the Philippines despite being valid where executed.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

The will cannot be probated in the Philippines, even though valid where executed, because it is prohibited under Article 818 of the Civil Code and declared void under Article 819. The prohibition should apply even to the American wife because the joint will is offensive to public policy. Moreover, it is a single juridical act which cannot be valid as to one testator and void as to the other.

b) Cristy and her late husband Luis had two children, Rose and Patrick. One summer, he mother-in-law, aged 70, took the two children, then aged 10 and 12, with her on a boat trip to Cebu. Unfortunately, the vessel sank en route, and the bodies of the three were never found. None of the survivors ever saw them on the water. On the settlement of her mother-in-law’s estate, Cristy files a claim for a share of her estate on the ground that the same was inherited by her children from their grandmother in representation of their father, and she inherited the same from them. Will her action prosper? (2%)


SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, her action will not prosper. Since there was no proof as to who died first, all the three are deemed to have died at the same time and there was no transmission of rights from one to another, applying Article 43 of the New Civil Code.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

No, her action will not prosper. Under Article 43 of the New Civil Code, inasmuch as there is no proof as to who died first, all the three are presumed to have died at the same time and there could be no transmission of rights among them. Her children hot having inherited from their grandmother, Cristy has no right to share in her mothe-in-law’s estate. She cannot share in her own right as she is not a legal heir of her mother-in-law. The survivorship provision of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court does not apply to the problem. It applies only to those cases where the issue involved is not succession.


IV

In his last will and testament, Lamberto 1) disinherits his daughter Wilma because “she is disrespectful towards me and raises her voice talking to me”, 2) omits entirely his spouse Elvira, 3) leaves a legacy of P100,000.00 to his mistress Rosa and P50,000.00 to his driver Ernie and 4) institutes his son Baldo as his sole heir. How will you distribute his estate of P1,000,000.00? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The disinheritance of Wilma was ineffective because the ground relied upon by the testator does not constitute maltreatment under Article 919(6) of the New Civil Code. Hence, the testamentary provisions in the will shall be annulled but only to the extent that her legitime was impaired. The total omission of Elvira does not constitute preterition because she is not a compulsory heir in the direct line. Only compulsory heirs in the direct line may be the subject of preterition. Not having preterited, she will be entitled only to her legitime. The legacy in favor of Rosa is void under Article 1028 for being in consideration of her adulterous relation with the testator. She is, therefore, disqualified to receive the legacy of 100,000 pesos. The legacy of 50,000 pesos in favor of Ernie is not inofficious not having exceeded the free portion. Hence, he shall be entitled to receive it. The institution of Baldo, which applies only to the free portion, shall be respected. In sum, the estate of Lamberto will be distributed as follows:

Baldo -------------------------------------------------450,000
Wilma-------------------------------------------------250,000
Elvira--------------------------------------------------250,000
Ernie--------------------------------------------------- 50,000
---------------
1,000,000

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

The disinheritance of Wilma was effective because disrespect of, and raising of voice to, her father constitute maltreatment under Article 919(60) of the New Civil Code. She is, therefore, not entitled to inherit anything. Her inheritance will go to the other legal heirs. The total omission of Elvira is not preterition because she is not a compulsory heir in the direct line. She will receive only her legitime. The legacy in favor of Rosa is void under Article 1028 for being in consideration of her adulterous relation with the testator. She is, therefore, disqualified to receive the legacy. Ernie will receive the legacy in his favor because it is not inofficious, The institution of Baldo, which applies only to the free portion, will be respected. In sum, the estate of Lamberto shall be distributed as follows:




Heir Legitime Legacy Institution TOTAL

Baldo 500,000 200,000 700,000
Elvira 250,000 250,000
Ernie 50,000 50,000
------------- ------------- ------------------- ----------
TOTAL 750,000 50,000 200,000 1,000,000

ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Same answer as the first Alternative Answer except as to distribution. Justice Jurado solved this problem differently. In his opinion, the legitime of the heir who was disinherited is distributed among the other compulsory heirs in proportion to their respective legitimes, while his share in the intestate portion, if any, is distributed among the other legal heirs by accretion under Article 1018 of the NCC in proportion to their respective intestate shares. In sum the distribution shall be as follows:

Heir Legitime Distribution
Of Wilma’s
Legitime Legacy Institution TOTAL
Baldo 250,000 125,000 200,000 575,000
Wilma (250,000)
Elvira 250,000 125,000 375,000
Ernie 50,000 50,000
----------- ---------- -------- ----------- ------------
TOTAL 500,000 250,000 50,000 200,000 1,000,000

V.

Sometime in 1990, Sarah, born a Filipino but by then a naturalized American citizen, and her American husband Tom, filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court of Makati, for the adoption of the minor child of her sister, a Filipina. Can the petition be granted? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

It depends. If Tom and Sarah have been residing in the Philippines for at least 3 years prior to the effectivity of RA 8552, the petition may be granted. Otherwise, the petition cannot be granted because the American husband is not qualified to adopt.

While the petition for adoption was filed in 1990, it was considered refilled upon the effectivity of RA 8552, the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998. This is the law applicable, the petition being still pending with the lower court.

Under the Act, Sarah and Tom must adopt jointly because they do not fall in any of the exceptions where one of them may adopt alone. When husband and wife must adopt jointly, the Supreme Court has held in a line of cases that both of them must be qualified to adopt. While Sarah, an alien, is qualified to adopt under Section 7(b)(i) of the Act for being a former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative within the 4th degree of consanguinity or affinity, Tom, an alien, is not qualified because he is neither a former Filipino citizen nor married to a Filipino. One of them not being qualified to adopt, their petition has to be denied. However, if they have been residents of the Philippines three years prior to the effectivity of the Act and continues to reside here until the decree of adoption is entered, they are qualified to adopt the nephew of Sarah under Section 7(b) thereof, and the petition may be granted.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Since the petition was filed before the effectivity of the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998, the Family Code is the law applicable.

Under the FC, Sarah and Tom must adopt jointly because they do not fall in any of the exceptions where one of them may adopt alone. Under a long line of cases decided by the Supreme Court, when husband and wife must adopt jointly, both of them must be qualified to adopt. While Sarah is qualified to adopt under Article 184(3)(a) for being a former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative by consanguinity, Tom is not. He is not a former Filipino citizen and neither is he married to a Filipino. One of them not being qualified to adopt, the petition must be denied.

VI

The coconut farm of Federico is surrounded by the lands of Romulo. Federico seeks a right of way through a portion of the land of Romulo to bring his coconut products to the market. He has chosen a point where he will pass through a housing project of Romulo. The latter wants him to pass another way which is one kilometer longer. Who should prevail? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Romulo will prevail. Under Article 650 of the New Civil Code, the easement of right of way shall be established at the point least prejudicial to the servant estate and where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway is the shortest. In case of conflict, the criterion of least prejudice prevails over the criterion of shortest distance. Since the route chosen by Federico will prejudice the housing project of Romulo, Romulo has the right to demand that Federico pass another way even though it will be longer.

VII

a) Arturo borrowed P500,000.00 from his father. After he had paid P300,000.00, his father died. When the administrator of his father’s estate requested payment of the balance of P200,000.00, Arturo replied that the same had been condoned by his as evidenced by a notation at the back of his check payment for the P300,000 reading: “In full payment of the loan”. Will this be a valid defense in an action for collection? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

It depends. If the notation “in full payment of the loan” was written by Arturo’s father, there was an implied condonation of the balance that discharges the obligation. In such case, the notation is an act of the father from which condonation may be inferred. The condonation being implied, it need not comply with the formalities of a donation to be effective. The defense of full payment will, therefore, be valid.


When, however, the notation was written by Arturo himself, it merely proves his intention in making the payment but in no way does it bind his father (Yam v. CA, G.R. No. 104726, 11 February 1999). In such case, the notation was not the act of his father from which condonation may be inferred. There being no condonation at all, the defense of full payment will not be valid.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

If the notation was written by Arturo’s father, it amounted to an express condonation of the balance which must comply with the formalities of a donation to be valid under the 2nd paragraph of Article 1270 of the New Civil Code. Since the amount of the balance is more than 5,000 pesos, the acceptance by Arturo of the condonation must also be in writing under Article 748. There being no acceptance in writing by Arturo, the condonation is void and the obligation to pay the balance subsists. The defense of full payment is, therefore, not valid. In case the notation was not written by Arturo’s father, the answer is the same as the answers above.

b) Anastacia purchased a house and lot on installments at a housing project in Quezon City. Subsequently, she was employed in California and a year later, she executed a deed of donation, duly authenticated by the Philippine Consulate in Los Angeles, California, donating the house and lot to her friend Amanda. The latter brought the deed of donation to the owner of the project and discovered that Anastacia left unpaid installments and real estate taxes. Amanda paid these so that the donation in her favor can be registered in the project owner’s office. Two months later, Anastacia died, leaving her mother Rosa as her sole heir. Rosa filed an action to annul the donation on the ground that Amanda did not give her consent in the deed of donation or in a separate public instrument. Amanda replied that the donation was an onerous one because she had to pay unpaid installments and taxes; hence her acceptance may be implied. Who is correct? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Rosa is correct because the donation is void. The property donated was an immovable. For such donation to be valid, Article 749 of the New Civil Code requires both the donation and the acceptance to be in a public instrument. There being no showing that Amanda’s acceptance was made in a public instrument, the donation is void. The contention that the donation is onerous and, therefore, need not comply with Article 749 for validity is without merit. The donation is not onerous because it did not impose on Amanda the obligation to pay the balance on the purchase price or the arrears in real estate taxes. Amanda took it upon herself to pay those amounts voluntarily. For a donation to be onerous, the burden must be imposed by the donor on the donee. In the problem, there is no such burden imposed by the donor on the donee. The donation not being onerous, it must comply with the formalities of Article 749.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Neither Rosa nor Amanda is correct. The donation is onerous only as to the portion of the property corresponding to the value of the installments and taxes paid by Amanda. The portion in excess thereof is not onerous. The onerous portion is governed by the rules on contracts which do not require the acceptance by the donee to be in any form. The onerous part, therefore, is valid. The portion which is not onerous must comply with Article 749 of the New Civil Code which requires the donation and the acceptance thereof to be in a public instrument in order to be valid. The acceptance not being in a public instrument, the part which is not onerous is void and Rosa may recover it from Amanda.

[pinkalou]

VIII

a) Republic Act 1899 authorizes municipalities and chartered cities to reclaim foreshore lands bordering them and to construct thereon adequate docking and harbor facilities. Pursuant thereto, the City of Cavite entered into an agreement with the Fil-Estate Realty Company, authorizing the latter to reclaim 300 hectares of land from the sea bordering the city, with 30% of the land to be reclaimed to be owned by Fil-Estate as compensation for its services. The Solicitor General questioned the validity of the agreement on the ground that it will mean reclaiming land under the sea which is beyond the commerce of man. The City replies that this is authorized by R.A. 1899 because it authorizes the construction of docks and harbors. Who is correct? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The Solicitor General is correct. The authority of the City of Cavite under RA 1899 to reclaim land is limited to foreshore lands. The Act did not authorize it to reclaim land from the sea. The reclamation being unauthorized, the City of Cavite did not acquire ownership over the reclaimed land. Not being the owner, it could not have conveyed any portion thereof to the contractor.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

It depends. If the reclamation of the land from the sea is necessary in the construction of the docks and the harbors, the City of Cavite is correct. Otherwise, it is not. Since RA 1899 authorized the city to construct docks and harbors, all works that are necessary for such construction are deemed authorized, including the reclamation of land from the sea. The reclamation being authorized, the city is the owner of the reclaimed land and it may convey a portion thereof as payment for the services of the contractor.

ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

On the assumption that the reclamation contract was entered into before RA 1899 was repealed by PD 3-A, the City of Cavite is correct. Lands under the sea are “beyond the commerce of man” in the sense that they are not susceptible of private appropriation, ownership or alienation. The contract in question merely calls for the reclamation of 300 hectares of land within the coastal waters of the city. Per se, it does not vest, alienate or transfer ownership of land under the sea. The city merely engaged the services of Fil-Estate to reclaim the land for the city.

b) Regina has been leasing foreshore land from the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources for the past 15 years. Recently, she learned that Jorge was able to obtain a free patent from the Bureau of Agriculture, covering the same land, on the basis of a certification by the District Forester that the same is already “alienable and disposable”. Moreover. Jorge had already registered the patent with the Register of Deeds of the province, and he was issued an Original Certificate of Title for the same. Regina filed an action for annulment of Jorge’s title on the ground that it was obtained fraudulently. Will the action prosper? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

An action for the annulment of Jorge’s Original Certificate of Title will prosper on the following grounds:

(1) Under Chapter IX of C.A. No. 141, otherwise known as the Public Land Act, foreshore lands are disposable for residential, commercial, industrial, or similar productive purposes, and only by lease when not needed by the government for public service.
(2) If the land is suited or actually used for fishpond or aquaculture purposes, it comes under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) and can only be acquired by lease. (P.D. 705)
(3) Free patent is a mode of concession under Section 41, Chapter VII of the Public Land Act, which is applicable only for agricultural lands.
(4) The certificate of the district forester that the land is already “alienable and disposable” simply means that the land is no longer needed for forest purposes, but the Bureau of Lands could no longer dispose of it by free patent because it is already covered by a lease contract between BFAR and Regina. That contract must be respected.
(5) The free patent of Jorge is highly irregular and void ab initio, not only because the Bureau has no statutory authority to issue a free patent over a foreshore area, but also because of the false statements made in his sworn application that he has occupied and cultivated the land since July 4, 1945, as required by the free patent law. Under Section 91 of the Public Land Act, any patent, concession or title obtained thru false representation is void ab initio. In cases of this nature, it is the government that shall institute annulment proceedings considering that the suit carries with it a prayer for the reversion of the land to the state. However, Regina is a party in interest and the case will prosper because she has a lease contract for the same land with the government.




IX

a) Demetrio knew that a piece of land bordering the beach belonged to Ernesto. However, since the latter was studying in Europe and no one was taking care of the land Demetrio occupied the same and constructed thereon nipa sheds with tables and benches which he rented out to people who want to have a picnic by the beach. When Ernesto returned, he demanded the return of the land. Demetrio agreed to do so after he has removed the nipa sheds. Ernesto refused to let Demetrio remove the nipa sheds on the ground that these already belonged to him by right of accession. Who is correct? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Ernesto is correct. Demetrio is a builder in bad faith because he knew beforehand that the land belonged to Ernesto. Under Article 449 of the New Civil Code, one who builds on the land of another loses what is built without right to indemnity. Ernesto becomes the owner of the nipa sheds by right of accession. Hence, Ernesto is well within his right in refusing to allow the removal of the nipa sheds.

b) In good faith, Pedro constructed a five-door commercial building on the land of Pablo who was also in good faith. When Pablo discovered the construction, he opted to appropriate the building by paying Pedro the cost thereof. However, Pedro insists that he should be paid the current market value of the building, which was much higher because of inflation.
1) Who is correct, Pedro or Pablo? (1%)
2) In the meantime that Pedro is not yet paid, who is entitled to the rentals of the building, Pedro or Pablo? (1%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Pablo is correct. Under Article 448 of the New Civil Code in relation to Article 546, the builder in good faith is entitled to a refund of the necessary and useful expenses incurred by him, or the increase in value which the land may have acquired by reason of the improvement, at the option of the landowner. The builder is entitled to a refund of the expenses he incurred, and not to the market value of the improvement.

The case of Pecson v. CA, 244 SCRA 407, is not applicable to the problem. In the Pecson case, the builder was the owner of the land who later lost the property at a public sale due to non-payment of taxes. The Court ruled that Article 448 does not apply to the case where the owner of the land is the builder but who later lost the land; not being applicable, the indemnity that should be paid to the buyer must be fair market value of the building and not just the cost of construction thereof. The Court opined in that case that to do otherwise would unjustly enrich the new owner of the land.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Pedro is correct. In Pecson v. CA, it was held that Article 546 of the New Civil Code does not specifically state how the value of useful improvements should be determined in fixing the amount of indemnity that the owner of the land should pay to the builder in good faith. Since the objective of the law is to adjust the rights of the parties in such manner as “to administer complete justice to both of them in such a way as neither one nor the other may enrich himself of that which does not belong to him”, the Court ruled that the basis of reimbursement should be the fair market value of the building.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

2) Pablo is entitled to the rentals of the building. As the owner of the land, Pablo is also the owner of the building being an accession thereto. However, Pedro who is entitled to retain the building is also entitled to retain the rentals. He, however, shall apply the rentals to the indemnity payable to him after deducting reasonable cost of repair and maintenance.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Pablo is entitled to the rentals. Pedro became a possessor in bad faith from the time he learned that the land belongs to Pablo. As such, he loses his right to the building, including the fruits thereof, except the right of retention.

X

a) Ambrosio died, leaving his three daughters, Belen, Rosario and Sylvia a hacienda which was mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank. Due to the failure of the daughters to pay the bank, the latter foreclosed the mortgage and the hacienda was sold to it as the highest bidder. Six months later, Sylvia won the grand prize at the lotto and used part of it to redeem the hacienda from the bank. Thereafter, she took possession of the hacienda and refused to share its fruits with her sisters, contending it was owned exclusively by her, having bought it from the bank with her own money. Is she correct or not? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Sylvia is not correct. The 3 daughters are the co-owners of the hacienda being the only heirs of Ambrocio. When the property was foreclosed, the right of redemption belongs also to the 3 daughters. When Sylvia redeemed the entire property before the lapse of the redemption period, she also exercised the right of redemption of her co-owners on their behalf. As such she is holding the shares of her two sisters in the property, and all the fruits corresponding thereto, in trust for them. Redemption by one co-owner inures to the benefit of all (Adille v. CA, 157 SCRA 455). Sylvia, however, is entitled to be reimbursed the shares of her two sisters in the redemption price.

b) Felix cultivated a parcel of land and planted it to sugar cane, believing it to be his own. When the crop was eight months old, and harvestable after two more months, a resurvey of the land showed that it really belonged to Fred. What are the options available to Fred? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

As to the pending crops planted by Felix in good faith, Fred has the option of allowing Felix to continue the cultivation and to harvest the crops, or to continue the cultivation and harvest the crops himself. In the latter option, however, Felix shall have the right to a part of the expenses of cultivation and to a part of the net harvest, both in proportion to the time of possession. (Art. 545 NCC)

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Since the sugarcane is not a perennial crop, Felix is considered a sower in good faith. Being so, Art. 448 applies. The option available to Fred are: (a) to appropriate the crop after paying Felix the indemnity under Art. 546, or (b) to require Felix to pay rent.

XI

Eugenio died without issue, leaving several parcels of land in Bataan. He was survived by Antonio, his legitimate brother; Martina, the only daughter of his predeceased sister Mercedes; and five legitimate children of Joaquin, another predeceased brother. Shortly after Eugenio’s death, Antonio also died, leaving three legitimate children. Subsequently, Martina, the children of Joaquin and the children of Antonio executed an extrajudicial settlement of the estate of Eugenio, dividing it among themselves. The succeeding year, a petition to annul the extrajudicial settlement filed by Antero, an illegitimate son of Antonio, who claims he is entitled to share in the estate of Eugenio. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that Antero is barred by Article 992 of the Civil Code from inheriting from the legitimate brother of his father. How will you resolve the motion? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The motion to dismiss should be granted. Article 992 does not apply. Antero is not claiming any inheritance from Eugenio. He is claiming his share in the inheritance of his father consisting of his father’s share in the inheritance of Eugenio (Dela Merced v. Dela Merced, G.R. No. 126707, 25 February 1999).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

It depends. If Antero was not acknowledged by Antonio, the motion to dismiss should be granted because Antero is not a legal heir of Antonio. If Antero was acknowledged, the motion should be denied because Article 992 is not applicable. This is because Antero is claiming his inheritance from his illegitimate father, not from Eugenio.

[pinkalou]

XII

In 1979, Nestor applied for and was granted a Free Patent over a parcel of agricultural land with an area of 30 hectares, located in General Santos City. He presented the Free Patent to the Register of Deeds, and he was issued a corresponding Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 375. Subsequently, Nestor sold the land to Eddie. The deed of sale was submitted to the Register of Deeds and on the basis thereof, OCT No. 375 was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 4576 was issued in the name of Eddie. In 1986, the Director of Lands filed a complaint for annulment of OCT No. 375 and TCT No. 4576 on the ground that Nestor obtained the Free Patent through fraud. Eddie filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that he was an innocent puchaser for value and in good faith and as such, he has acquired a title to the property which is valid, unassailable and indefeasible. Decide the motion. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The motion of Nestor to dismiss the complaint for annulment of O.C.T. No. 375 and T.C.T. No. 4576 should be denied for the following reasons:

1) Eddie cannot claim protection as an innocent purchaser for value nor can he interpose the defense of indefeasibility of his title, because his TCT is rooted on a void title. Under Section 91 of CA No. 141, as amended, otherwise known as the Public Land Act, statements of material facts in the applications for public land must be under oath. Section 91 of the same act provides that such statements shall be considered as essential conditions and parts of the concession, title, or permit issued, any false statement therein, or omission of facts shall ipso facto produce the cancellation of the concession. The patent issued to Nestor in this case is void ab initio not only because it was obtained by fraud but also because it covers 30 hectares which is far beyond the maximum of 24 hectares provided by the free patent law.
2) The government can seek annulment of the original and transfer certificates of title and the reversion of the land to the state. Eddie’s defense is untenable. The protection afforded by the Torrens System to an innocent purchaser for value can be availed of only if the land has been titled thru judicial proceedings where the issue of fraud becomes academic after the lapse of one (1) year from the issuance of the decree of registration. In public land grants, the action of the government to annul a title fraudulently obtained does not prescribe such action and will not be barred by the transfer of the title to an innocent purchaser for value.







XIII

Priscilla purchased a condominium unit in Makati City from the Citiland Corporation for a price of P10 Million, payable P3 Million down and the balance with interest thereon at 14% per annum payable in sixty (60) equal monthly installments of P198,333.33. They executed a Deed of Conditional Sale in which it is stipulated that should the vendee fail to pay three (3) successive installments, the sale shall be deemed automatically rescinded without the necessity of judicial action and all payments made by the vendee shall be forfeited in favor of the vendor by way of rental for the use and occupancy of the unit and as liquidated damages. For 46 months, Priscilla paid the monthly installments religiously, but on the 47th and 48th months, she failed to pay. On the 49th month, she tried to pay the installments due but the vendor refused to receive the payments tendered by her. The following month, the vendor sent her a notice that it was rescinding the Deed of Conditional Sale pursuant to the stipulation for automatic rescission, and demanded that she vacate the premises. She replied that the contract cannot be rescinded without judicial demand or notarial act pursuant to Article 1592 of the Civil Code.
a) Is Article 1592 applicable? (3%)
b) Can the vendor rescind the contract? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) Article 1592 of the Civil Code does not apply to a conditional sale. In Valarao v. CA, 304 SCRA 155, the Supreme Court held that Article 1592 applies only to a contract of sale and not to a Deed of Conditional Sale where the seller has reserved title to the property until full payment of the purchase price. The law applicable is the Maceda Law.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

b) No, the vendor cannot rescind the contract under the circumstances. Under the Maceda Law, which is the law applicable, the seller on installment may not rescind the contract till after the lapse of the mandatory grace period of 30 days for every one year of installment payments, and only after 30 days from notice of cancellation or demand for rescission by a notarial act. In this case, the refusal of the seller to accept payment from the buyer on the 49th month was not justified because the buyer was entitled to 60 days grace period and the payment was tendered within that period. Moreover, the notice of rescission served by the seller on the buyer was not effective because the notice was not by a notarial act. Besides, the seller may still pay within 30 days from such notarial notice before rescission may be effected. All these requirements for a valid rescission were not complied with by the seller. Hence, the rescission is invalid.


XIV

Kristina brought her diamond ring to a jewelry shop for cleaning. The jewelry shop undertook to return the ring by February 1, 1999. When the said date arrived, the jewelry shop informed Kristina that the job was not yet finished. They asked her to return five days after. On February 6, 1999, Kristina went to the shop to claim the ring, but she was informed that the same was stolen by a thief who entered the shop the night before. Kristina filed an action for damages against the jewelry shop which put up the defense of force majeure. Will the action prosper or not? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The action will prosper. Since the defendant was already in default not having delivered the ring when delivery was demanded by plaintiff at due date, the defendant is liable for the loss of the thing and even when the loss was due to force majeure.


XV

a) Lolita was employed in a finance company. Because she could not account for the funds entrusted to her, she was charged with estafa and ordered arrested. In order to secure her release from jail, her parents executed a promissory note to pay the finance company the amount allegedly misappropriated by their daughter. The finance company then executed an affidavit of desistance which led to the withdrawal of the information against Lolita and her release from jail. The parents failed to comply with their promissory note and the finance company sued them for specific performance. Will the action prosper or not?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The action will prosper. The promissory note executed by Lolita’s parents is valid and binding, the consideration being the extinguishment of Lolita’s civil liability and not the stifling of the criminal prosecution.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

The action will not prosper because the consideration for the promissory note was the non-prosecution of the criminal case for estafa. This cannot be done anymore because the information has already been filed in court and to do it is illegal. That the consideration for the promissory note is the stifling of the criminal prosecution is evident from the execution by Lolita’s parents of the promissory note. The consideration being illegal, the promissory note is invalid and may not be enforced by court action.

b) Pedro promised to give his grandson a car if the latter will pass the bar examinations. When his grandson passed the said examinations, Pedro refused to give his car on the ground that the condition was a purely potestative one. Is he correct or not? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, he is not correct. First of all, the condition is not purely potestative, because it does not depend on the sole will of one of the parties. Secondly, even if it were, it would be valid because it depends on the sole will of the creditor (the donee) and not the debtor (the donor).

XVI

In action brought to collect a sum of money based on a surety agreement, the defense of laches was raised as the claim was filed more than seven years from the maturity of the obligation. However, the action was brought within the ten-year prescriptive period provided by law wherein actions based on written contracts can be instituted.
a) Will the defense prosper? Reason (3%)
b) What are the essential elements of laches? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the defense will not prosper. The problem did not give facts from which laches may be inferred. Mere delay in filing an action, standing alone, does not constitute laches (Agra v. PNB, 309 SCRA 509).

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

b) The four basic elements of laches are: (1) conduct on the part of the defendant or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation of which complainant seeks a remedy; (2) delay in asserting the complainant’s rights, the complainant having knowledge or notice of the defendant’s conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to institute the suit; (3) lack of knowledge on the part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit; and (4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant, or the suit is not held to be barred.

XVII

In 1955, Ramon and his sister Rosario inherited a parcel of land in Albay from their parents. Since Rosario was gainfully employed in Manila, she left Ramon alone to possess and cultivate the land. However, Ramon never shared the harvest with Rosario and was even able to sell one-half of the land in 1985 by claiming to be the sole heir of his parents. Having reached retirement age in 1990 Rosario returned to the province and upon learning what had transpired, demanded that the remaining half of the land be given to her as her share. Ramon opposed, asserting that he has already acquired ownership of the land by prescription, and that Rosario is barred by laches from demanding partition and reconveyance. Decide the conflicting claims. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Ramon is wrong on both counts: precription and laches. His possession as co-owner did not give rise to acquisitive prescription. Possession by a co-owner is deemed not adverse to the other co-owners but is, on the contrary, deemed beneficial to them (Pangan v. CA, 166 SCRA 375). Ramon’s possession will become adverse possession only when he has repudiated the co-ownership and such repudiation was made known to Rosario. Assuming that the sale was made in 1985 where Ramon claimed he was the sole heir of his parents amounted to a repudiation of the co-ownership, the prescriptive period began to run only from that time. Not more than 30 years having lapsed since then, the claim of Rosario has not prescribed. The claim of laches is also not meritorious. Until the repudiation of the co-ownership was made known to the other co-owners, no right has been violated for the said co-owners to vindicate. Mere delay in vindicating this right, standing alone, does not constitute laches.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Ramon has acquired the land by acquisitive prescription, and because of laches on the part of Rosario. Ramon’s possession of the land was adverse because he asserted sole ownership thereof and never shared the harvest therefrom. His adverse possession having been continuous and uninterrupted for more than 30 years, Ramon has acquired the land by prescription. Rosario is also guilty of laches not having asserted her right to the harvest for more than 40 years.

XVIII

A foreign manufacturer of computers and a Philippine distributor entered into a contract whereby the distributor agreed to order 1,000 units of the manufacturer’s computers every month and to resell them in the Philippines at the manufacturer’s suggested prices plus 10%. All unsold units at the end of the year shall be bought back by the manufacturer at the same price they were ordered. The manufacturer shall hold the distributor free and harmless from any claim for defects in the units. Is the agreement one for sale or agency? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The contract is one of agency and not sale. The notion of sale is negated by the following indicia: (1) the price is fixed by the manufacturer with the 10% mark-up constituting the commission; (2) the manufacturer reacquires the unsold units at exactly the same price; and (3) warranty for the units was borne by the manufacturer. The foregoing indicia negate sale because they indicate that ownership over the units was never intended to transfer to the distributor.

XIX

a) A leased his house to B with a condition that the leased premises shall be used for residential purposes only. B subleased the house to C who used it as a warehouse for fabrics. Upon learning this, A demanded that C stop using the house as warehouse, but C ignored the demand. A then filed an action for ejectment against C, who raised the defense that here is no privity between him and A, and that he has not been remiss in the payment of rent. Will the action prosper? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the action will prosper. Under Article 1651 of the Civil Code, the sublease is bound to the lessor for all acts which refer to the use and preservation of the thing leased in the manner stipulated between the lessor and the lessee.

b) In 1995, Mark leased the rice land of Narding in Nueva Ecija for an annual rental of P 1,000.00 per hectare. In 1998, due to the El Nino phenomenon, the rice harvest fell to only 40% of the average harvest for the previous years. Mark asked Narding for a reduction of the rental to P500.00 per hectare for that year but the latter refused. Is Mark legally entitled to such reduction? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Mark is not entitled to a reduction. Under Article 1680 of the Civil Code, the lessee of a rural land is entitled to a reduction of the rent only in case of loss of more than ½ of the fruits through extraordinary and unforeseen fortuitous events. While the drought brought about by the Ël Nino” may be classified as ordinary, it cannot be considered as unforeseen.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Yes, Mark is entitled to a reduction of the rent. His loss was more than ½ of the fruits and the loss was due to an extraordinary and unforeseen fortuitous event. The “El Nino” phenomenon is extraordinary because it is uncommon; it does not occur with regularity. And neither of the parties could have seen its occurrence. The event should be foreseeable by the parties so that the lessee can change the time for his planting, or refrain from planting, or take steps to avoid the loss. To be foreseeable, the time and the place of the occurrence, as well as the magnitude of the adverse effects of the fortuitous event must be capable of being predicted. Since the exact place, the exact time, and the exact magnitude of the adverse effects of the “El Nino” phenomenon are still unpredictable despite the advances in science, the phenomenon is considered unforeseen.

XX.

a) Silvestre leased a car from Avis-Rent-A-Car at the Mactan International Airport. No sooner had he driven the car outside the airport when, due to his negligence, he bumped an FX taxi owned and driven by Victor, causing damage to the latter in the amount of P100,000.00. Victor filed an action for damages against both Silvestre and Avis, based on quasi-delict. Avis filed a motion to dismiss the complaint against it on the ground of failure to state a cause of action. Resolve the motion. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The motion to dismiss should be granted. AVIS is not the employer of Silvestre; hence, there is no right of action against AVIS under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Not being the employer, AVIS has no duty to supervise Silvestre. Neither has AVIS the duty to observe due diligence in the selection of its customers. Besides, it was given in the problem that the cause of the accident was the negligence of Silvestre.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

The motion should be denied. Under the Public Service Law, the registered owner of the public utility vehicle is liable for damages suffered by third persons through the use of such public utitlity. Hence, the cause of action is based in law, the Public Service law.

b) Despite a warning from the police that an attempt to hijack a PAL plane will be made in the following week, the airline did not take extra precautions, such as frisking of passengers, for fear of being accused of violating human rights. Two days later, an armed hijacker did attempt to hijack a PAL flight to Cebu. Although he was subdued by the other passengers he managed to fire a shot which hot and killed a female passenger. The victim’s passenger sued the airline for breach of contract, and the airline raised the defense of force majeure. Is the airline liable or not? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The airline is liable. In case of death of a passenger, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence. (Article 1756 of the Civil Code). The failure of the airline to take extra precautions despite a police warning that an attempt to hijack the plane would be made, was negligence on the part of the airline. Being negligent, it is liable for the death of the passenger. The defense of force majeure is not tenable since the shooting incident would not have happened had the airline taken steps that could have prevented the hijacker from boarding the plane.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Under Article 1763 of the Civil Code, the common carrier is not required to observe extraordinary diligence in preventing an injury to its passengers on account of the willful acts of negligence of other passengers or of strangers. The common carrier, is required to exercise only the diligence of a good father of a family; hence, the failure of the airline to take extra precautions in frisking the passengers and by leaving that matter to the security personnel of the airport, does not constitute a breach of that duty so as to make airline liable. Besides, the use of irresistible force by the hijackers was force majeure that could not have been prevented even by the observance of extraordinary diligence.