CIVIL LAW

2017

1.a) The marriage of Ador and Becky is voidable.

Article 45 of the Family Code provides that the marriage is voidable when at the time of the marriage,
one of the spouses was already afflicted with a sexually transmitted disease found to be serious and
appears to be incurable.

Since AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease found to be serious and appears to be incurable and that
such fact exists at the time of the marriage without notice to Becky, their marriage is voidable.

1.b) The marriage is void by reason of public policy.

Article 38 of the Family Code provides that the marriage is void when one party in order to marry the
other, kills the latter’s spouse or his or her own spouse.

1.c) The marriage is void.

Family Code provides that a prior declaration of presumptive death is necessary in order for the present
spouse to remarry another. Absence of which makes the second marriage void.

1.d) The marriage is valid.

There was no mention that David and Elisa had properties and children; hence, there was no need to
partition and distribute properties before contracting another marriage as provided in Article 53 of the
Family Code.

1.e) The marriage id valiud

Article 34 of the Family Code provides that parties are excused from securing a marriage license if they
lived together as husband and wife for at least five years without impediment to marry each other.

II

a) The timber land occupied by Rigor was converted into a patrimonial property by virtue of the 1991
declaration that it was no longer intended for public use or public service provided that such declaration
was in the form of a law duly enacted by the Congress or by a Presidential Proclamation as authorized by
law as provided in jurisprudence.

The land occupied by Mike however remains to be a property of public dominion. Jurisprudence
provides that there must be an express declaration that the property is no longer needed for public use,
development of national wealth or that it is converted into a patrimonial property. Absence of such and
a mere declaration that the land was alienable and disposable does not change its status as property of
public dominion.

b) No, Mike cannot base his assertion of the right of ownership on prescription under the Civil Code
because the land remains to be a public land.
The law provides that prescription as mode of ownership cannot apply to a public land.

Here, the 1991 declaration did not effectively convert the agricultural land occupied by Mike as a
patrimonial property in the absence of an express declaration that such land was no longer intended for
public service, development of national wealth or that it is converted into a patrimonial property, in the
form of law duly enacted by the Congress or by a Presidential Proclamation as authorized by law.

Hence, Mike cannot base his assertion of the right of ownership on prescription under the Civil Code
because the land remains to be a public land which is not susceptible of acquisition by prescription.

c) No, Rigor has no legal basis for his application for judicial confirmation of imperfect title based on
prescription.

Under the law, acquisition of land by prescription of thirty- year period without need to show good faith
is a valid mode of title provided that the land was expressly declared as patrimonial property prior such
thirty- year period.

Here, the land was effectively converted as a patrimonial land only in 1991; hence, the prescriptive
period of thirty years must reckon from 1991. However, Rigor’s possession fell short of four years.

Hence, Rigor has no legal basis for his application for judicial confirmation of imperfect title based on
prescription.

III

Josef owns the interest by right of accession.

Jurisprudence held that upon the deposit of the just compensation to the depository bank, the owner of
the property becomes the owner of such amount deposited and any interst which shall accrue
therefrom shall also be owned by the latter by virtue of accession.

Here, Josef becomes the owner of the amount representing just compensation deposited by NHA;
hence, the interest accrued therefrom pertains to Josef by right of accession.

IV

b) Commodatum is an agreement where the bailor delivers to another called the bailee, consumable or
non-consumable property so that the bailee may use the same for a certain period and must return the
same thing. Mutuum is an agreement where the creditor delivers to the debtor money or other
consumable property upon the condition that the same amount or the same kind and quality must be
paid by the bailee.

The subject matter of commodatum may be immovable or movable property which is ordinarily non-
consumable or otherwise used only for display or exhibition while money or consumable property is the
subject matter of mutuum.
Commodatum is essentially gratuitous while mutuum may either be gratuitous or with stipulation to pay
interest.

There is transfer of ownership in mutuum while there is none in commodatum.

In commodatum, the same thing borrowed must be returned while in mutuum, the same amount of
money or the same kind and quality of the consumable property must be paid.

The remedy available to Jacob is accion publiciana in order to regain possession of his property.

Accion publiciana is a remedy sought in order to recover possession from an unlawful possessor. It also
refers to an ejectment suit filed after the lapse of a period of one year from unlawful possession.

Here, Jacob could have filed an action for forcible entry when he discovered in 2014 Liz’s entry since it
was done surreptitiously and stealthily. However, such action cannot be filed after one year from the
accrual of the cause of action or in case of stealth, from the time the plaintiff learned the unlawful
possession.

Thus, since it was only in 2016 when Jacob wanted to regain possession of the property, he can file
accion publiciana because the one-year prescriptive period for forcible entry reckoned from 2014 had
already lapsed.

VI

a) Yes, Alice and Bernadette entered into a contract of sale which is a conditional sale.

Jurisprudence held that in a conditional sale, the title over the property is automatically acquired by the
buyer upon full payment of the purchase price by operation of law. The seller need not perform any
further act.

Here, it was expressly stipulated on the agreement that the title to the property shall be transferred
upon full payment of P900,000.00 which is the purchase price.

Hence, Alice and Bernadette entered into a contract of sale which is a conditional sale.

b) No, Alice did not engage in double sale on the property.

The law on double sales contemplates absolute sales and not conditional.

Here, the sale by Alice to Bernadette is not absolute but conditional sale subject to full payment of the
purchase price. However, Bernadette failed to fulfill such condition granting no obligation to Alice to
transfer the title to Bernadette. Alice retains ownership over the property and thus, she can sell the
property subsequently to Chona.

Hence, Alice did not engage in double sale on the property.

 VIII

a) Pedro’s legal heirs are Alex, his legitimate child and his three illegitimate children with his common
law spouse. The law on Wills and Succession provides that the ascendants of the decedent are excluded

by the latter’s descendants.

Alex shall receive half of the net estate while the three illegitimate children shall receive the other half
divided equally between them.

b) No, the testamentary dispositions are not valid and effective in so far as they impair the legitimes of
Pedro’s compulsory heirs.

The law on succession provides that the legitime of the compulsory heirs shall not be impaired.

Here, the compulsory heirs of Pedro are his legitimate child Alex and his three illegitimate children.
Under the law, Alex shall receive half the net estate and the illegitimate children shall be entitled to half
of Alex’s share equally divided among the three of them.

If there is anything left, it can be disposed by the testator to anyone although not a compulsory heir,
including Veneranda and Pedro’s parents.

IX