MA. ABEGAIL O.

TIPONES JD4B CIVIL LAW REVIEW FINAL EXAM

Answers for problem No. 1:

1.) The legal significance of an adverse claim creates a cloud on the title and apprises third persons that
there is a controversy over the ownership of the land covered by the title and to preserve and protect
the right of the adverse claimant during the pendency of the controversy.

2.) An adverse claim shall be in the form of an affidavit or a sworn statement alleging the right or
interest, how and under whom such alleged right or interest was acquired, the description of the land in
which the right or interest was claimed and the certificate of title number. The affidavit or sworn
statement must also be signed and sworn to before a notary public or other officer authorized to
administer oath and the one who claims such right shall state his residence or place where all notice to
him may be served upon.

3.) The adverse claim is not valid. Under the law, money claims cannot be considered as a valid adverse
claim. Jomar cannot claim that he has an interest or a right over the property because the latter cannot
be subject to any encumbrance or alienation for a period of ten years and within fifteen years from the
issuance the patent. In this case the land was only acquired by Mang Natoy for two years. He cannot be
allowed to sell the same to third persons. Therefore, Jomar cannot have a right or interest over the
land.

4.) The nature of the contract between Mang Tanoy and Jomar shall be considered as a simple loan or
mutuum. Under the law, when a person delivers to another an amount of money in a condition that the
same shall be returned with the the same amount of the same kind and quality, the contract is
considered as a simple loan or a mutuum. In this case, since Mang Natoy obtained an amount of
P500,000 from Jomar, he is expected to return the same amount of the same kind or value to Jomar.
Therefore, the contract shall be considered as a simple loan or mutuum.

5.) No. Under the law, lands acquired by virtue of a sales patent cannot be transferred or alienated after
a period of ten years and within fifteen years from the issuance the patent. In this case, the land was
only acquired by Mang Natoy for two years. therefore he cannot be allowed to sell the same to third
persons. The sale shall be considered as void ab initio.

Answers to problem no. 2

1.) Vi and Anna can file a civil case for damages against Cardo. Under the law, for a person to be able to
claim damages against another for quasi-delict. It must be shown that there is damage suffered by the
victim because of the negligence of another and that the the connection of cause and effect between
such negligence and the damages must be established. In this case, the injuries suffered by Vi and Anne
were due to the negligence of Cardo and his employees. Such negligence was also the direct cause of
the injuries Vi and Anne suffered. Hence, Vi and Anna can file a civil case for damages against Cardo.

The source of liability of Cardo is Article 2180 of the New Civil Code. Under such law, employers shall be
liable for the damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks unless
the former proves that he exercised the diligence of a good father of the family to prevent the damage
caused by their employees. In this case, Cardo shall be held liable for the damage caused by his
employees because he failed to prove that he observed the required diligence to prevent such damage
when the employees were driving the truck.

2.) Vi and Anna can file a case of reckless imprudence resulting to physical injuries against and a
separate civil action for damages against Agapito. Under the law, for a person to be able to claim
damages against another for quasi-delict. It must be shown that there is damage suffered by the victim
because of the negligence of another and that the the connection of cause and effect between such
negligence and the damages must be established. In this case, the injuries suffered by Vi and Anne were
due to the negligence of Agapito for driving the truck without being authorized to do the same. Such
negligence was also the direct cause of the injuries Vi and Anne suffered. Hence, Vi and Anna can file a
civil case for damages against Fernan.

The source of liability of Fernan is Article 2176 of the New Civil Code. Under such law, a person who by
act or omission causes damage to another through negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. In
this case, when Agapito drove the truck without being authorized to do the same he can be liable to pay
for damages caused by virtue of quasi delict.

3.)Vi and Anna can file a case of reckless imprudence resulting to physical injuries and civil action for
damages against Fernan. Under the law, for a person to be able to claim damages against another for
quasi-delict. It must be shown that there is damage suffered by the victim because of the negligence of
another and that the the connection of cause and effect between such negligence and the damages
must be established. In this case, the injuries suffered by Vi and Anne were due to the negligence of
Fernan for letting another person drive the truck. Such negligence was also the direct cause of the
injuries Vi and Anne suffered. Hence, Vi and Anna can file a civil case for damages against Fernan.

The source of liability of Fernan is Article 2176 of the New Civil Code. Under such law, a person who by
act or omission causes damage to another through negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. In
this case, when Fernan let another person who is not authorized to drive the truck, and thereby caused
damage to Vi and Anne, he is liable to pay for damages by virtue of quasi delict.

4.) Yes. Vi and Anna can file separate and independent cases against the Cardo, Agapito, and Fernan.
Under the law, when a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising
from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party
waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to
the criminal action. In this case, Vi and Anne can reserve the right to institutes the civil action prior to
the criminal action.
5. Vi and Anne can claim for indemnity for the death of Rod and Monna, indemnity for loss of earning
capacity of Rod, moral damages for mental anguish for the trauma they suffered, exemplary damages,
attorney's fees and expenses of litigation.

6. No. Vi cannot claim 5 Million Pesos as the value for the loss of income of Rod. Under the law, loss of
Earning Capacity can be computed by multiplying Life Expectancy to 1/2 of the annual gross income of
the deceased. Life expectancy can be computed by subtracting the age of the deceased from 80 and
multiplying the answer by 2, and dividing it by 3. So 80 -45 is 35 (2/3)= 23.33 multiplied by 50% of the
annual gross income which is P25000 x12 = P300,000/2 = P150,000. The total of which is P3, 4999.99.99.
Therefore, Vi cannot claim 5 Million Pesos as the value for the loss of income of Rod.