7. If I were the Judge, I would deny the petition.

Under our family code, an illegitimate child shall be under the exclusive
parental authority of the mother. Furthermore, a child below seven years old shall be
in the custody of the mother unless the court finds compelling reasons to order
otherwise.
In the case at bar, Mirasol, being an illegitimate child and is below seven
years old, should remain under parental authority and custody of Anita. Furthermore,
there is no showing that Anita is unfit and is unable to provide and take care of
Mirasol. In fact, she was able to provide a house, a nanny, and other necessities for
Marisol.
Hence, the petition for custody filed by Billy should be denied for lack of valid
grounds.

8. Niccolo is correct.
Under the rule on co-ownership in our new civil code provides that the shares
in in the benefits as well as in the charges shall be proportional to the co-owner’s
respective interest. Any stipulation in a contract to the contrary shall be void.
In the case at bar, the contract between Niccolo and Meann stipulating equal
sharing in the benefits and charges is void and of no effect. Niccolo and Meann are
co-owners with interest of 2/3 and 1/3 respectively. Hence, their sharing in the
benefits and charges shall also be proportional to their respective interest.
Therefore, Niccolo is correct.

9. No, the complaint of Bienvenido will not prosper.

Settled is the rule that a co-owner can only sell an undivided interest or share
in the co-ownership prior to partition. The sale of a specific portion is void unless it is
consented, ratified or when the other co-owners are estopped from questioning it.
In the case at bar, Arturo and Bugoy were co-owners if their inherited property.
After previously selling the other half, they remained co-owners of the remaining half.
When Arturo’s children, one of whom is Bienvenido, occupied one quarter of the
property, Arturo and his children have effectively selected their definite portion,
resulting in the partition of the property.
Thus, Bienvenido cannot question the sale by Bugoy of his portion to the Sps.
Cruz.

10. No, Marvic is not entitled to a compulsory right of way.

Under our civil code, a compulsory easement may only be granted if the
property is surrounded by immovable properties and there is no other access road
available, that there is compensation to the owner of the property which will be used
as access road, and that the proposed right of way be the shortest access to the
public highway.
In the case at bar, the property of Marvic is not one without access to the
public highway and is totally surrounded by immovable properties. In fact, there
exists a dirt road that connects his property to the public highway. Although Marvic
contends that the existing road is not convenient, this does not warrant for a grant of
compulsory right of way as convenience is not one of the requisites.
Hence, Marvic is not entitled to a grant of compulsory right of way.

11. The donation is valid.

Under our civil code, a donation is void if it is made between persons who are
guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time of donation.
In the case at bar, although Alejandro and Francisca were engaged previously
in clandestine love affair, the donation of Alejandro to Francisca was made only after
the existence of such adulterous relationship.
Hence, the donation made by Alejandro is valid.

12. No, Wenceslao is not correct.

As provided by the civil code, preterition is a ground to annul the institution of
heirs. It is when in a decedent’s will, a compulsory heir is omitted. However, this
does not include spouses which is not considered as part of those who are in the
direct descending.
In the case at bar, Wenceslao is only the spouse of Cora. Being a spouse,
Wenceslao is not a compulsory heir in the direct descending line and therefore there
is no preterition.
Hence, Wenceslao cannot oppose the probate of the will on the grounds that
he is deprived of his legitime.

13. No, the legitimate heirs of Hilario are not correct.

Our civil code provides that grandchildren, regardless of status, shall inherit
from their grandparents by right of representation.
In the case at bar, Enrico and Euriz are illegitimate children of Rocky.
However, their illegitimate status is immaterial. Rocky died before his father Hilario
did. What Rocky could have inherited from Hilario may got to Enrico and Euriz by
way of representation.
Hence, the legitimate heirs of Hilario are incorrect and Enrico and Euriz may
inherit by way of representation.