CIL FINALS

Atty. Eulogio Prima

1. Spouses contested custody of their 2 children above 7. The woman

contended that the man was a drug addict and underwent rehab but not
totally rehabilitated as shown in the psychiatric evaluation results. The
court awarded custody to the woman on the basis of the evaluation but
did not conduct further trial which was questioned by the man. Does
drug dependence disqualify him from having custody of his children?

ANSWER:

The man’s history of drug dependence as well as the result of the

psychiatric evaluation may render him unfit to take custody of the
children. However there must be concrete evidence to show his inability to
provide for the needs of the children for their holistic development. In
addition, since the children are already above 7 years of age, the court
could have ascertained the children’s choice of the parent whom they
would want to live with. These inadequacies could have been resolved in
a trial that would prove the accuracy of the psychiatric report and
determine the capacity of the parties to provide for the needs of the
children.

As such, as provided for by jurisprudence, it would be best to

remand the case back to the court for trial to rightfully ascertain the issues
involved.

2. What matters may be recorded in the civil register? When?

ANSWER:

Records shall include:

a. Acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of

persons.
b. Births, marriages, deaths, legal separations, annulments of
marriage, legitimation, adoption, naturalization, citizenship, civil
interdiction, judicial decree of filiation, emancipation of minors
and changes of name.
 Entries in the civil register may be changed only upon a judicial
order as provided for by law.

3. Pecson was the owner of a land with improvements. He failed to pay his
taxes, hence, the lot was sold at a public auction to Nepumoceno who
likewise sold it to Nuguid. Pecson questioned the sale but a final
judgement was rendered declaring the buyers as owners. Nuguid moved
for the delivery of possession of the lot and its improvements. It was
granted with the condition that they should reimburse Pecson for the
value of the improvements. Is Pecson entitled?

ANSWER:

Yes, Pecson is entitled to the reimbursement since the same was

built when he was still the owner of the land.

In this case, Pecson is considered as a builder in good faith. Under

the Civil Code, a builder in good faith is entitled to full reimbursement for
the improvement as well as all the necessary and useful expenses
incurred in the preservation of the property. Pecson is also given the right
of retention until full reimbursement is made. Furthermore, the amount of
payment must correspond to value of the improvement at the time of actual
payment.

4. Requisites of easement of right of way:

ANSWER:

a. The property is surrounded by other estates;

b. There is no adequate outlet to a public highway;
c. There must be indemnity subject to the following values:
a. If the passage is permanent, indemnity must correspond to
the value of the land occupied or the amount of damage
caused;
b. If the passage is temporary, value of the indemnity is
based on the value of the damage cause.

5. X is the owner of a land where a tree is planted. Branches and roots

extended to the neighboring estate. Can Y, the owner of the tenement,
cut the branches and gather the fruits extending to his tenement? Can
he cut the roots?
 ANSWER:

a. Y cannot cut the branches but he can demand from X that it be cut off. Or
if even Y should cut the branches, then he should ask the consent of X
who is the owner of the tree.

b. Y cannot gather the fruits as long as they are still attached to the tree
which remains to be owned by X. But if the fruits fall to the ground and
are no longer attached to the tree, then Y can now gather the fruits in as
much as he is already the owner of the same by virtue of accession.

c. Y can cut the roots extending to his property in as much as he is now the
owner of the same by the principle that the accessory follows the principal.
As the owner of the land, Y is also the owner of anything found therein.

6. Is a swimming pool an attractive nuisance? Why?

ANSWER:

No, as a general rule, the pool is not an attractive nuisance.

Under American Law, the attractive nuisance doctrine does not

apply to a swimming pool or a pond or a reservoir of water in the absence
of unusual condition or artificial feature other than the water and its
location.

Nature abounds with bodies of water such as lakes, ponds, etc. and
children are presumed to have been instructed early on with the
possibilities and danger of drowning. If the owner of a private property
builds an artificial pool on his property, he is merely duplicating the work
of nature and is not liable for having created an attractive nuisance.

7. Civic groups attempted to seek an injunction of the public bidding for an

incinerator-geothermal plant for garbage disposition on the ground that
it would constitute a nuisance per se to pollution. Will the action
prosper? Why?

ANSWER:

No, the injunction will not proper.

It is not yet clear or evident that pollution would result to justify the
injunction. This is based on the legal principle that a mere tendency to
 injure is not sufficient to warrant an injunction against an alleged
nuisance. There must be something actually apparent which itself arrest
the attention and not merely based on theoretical assumptions, but strikes
the common senses of the ordinary citizen.

8. There was a donation by the spouses to their children denominated as

“Donation Mortis Causa” and stating that it is irrevocable. It had no
attestation and had only 2 witnesses. The donees accepted. After the
death of one of the donors, the donation was submitted to probate but
the RTC ruled to be a donation inter vivos due to its irrevocability. The
CA ruled it to be one of mortis causa and since it did not comply with the
formalities of a will, it is void. Is the CA ruling correct? Why?

ANSWER:

The CA ruling is incorrect.

The designation of the conveyance as mortis causa is not controlling.

Its designation will not alter the nature of the donation as inter vivos.

In addition, jurisprudence provides that irrevocability is

incompatible with the idea of a conveyance mortis causa, where
revocability is precisely the essence of the act. As such, the donation is
one made inter vivos and immediately operative and final from the
moment the donor learned of the donee’s acceptance.

9. X became insane after he executed a deed of donation to Y. He was still

insane at the time Y delivered the instrument of acceptance. What is the
status of the donation? Why?

ANSWER:

The donation is void.

Under the Civil Code, the capacity of a person to donate is at the

time of the making of the donation which includes acceptance by the
donee. X was not capacitated at the time of the acceptance which is the
moment of the perfection of the contract. And one of the elements of a
valid contract is consent. There is consent to a donation when there is
acceptance of the same and perfected at the time the donor is made aware
of such acceptance.
10. Will notarization have the effect of validating a Deed of Donation?

ANSWER:

No.

Although it is a rule that a notarized document enjoys the

presumption of regularity as to its due execution and converts a private
document into a public document that can be offered as evidence in court,
such presumption is not absolute. Such presumption can be overcome and
refuted through the introduction of evidence to the contrary.

Thus a notarized Deed of Donation can be invalidated through the

introduction of contrary evidence even if the same is already notarized.

11. X, Y and Z are co-owners of a parcel of land. X sells his aliquot

part of the whole property without the consent of the others. Is the sale
valid? Explain.

ANSWER:

Yes, the sale is valid because the sale only involves X’s ideal share
in the co-ownership. With respect to the whole property, the sale is valid
only with respect to X’s share is concerned and is a right granted to him
under the law as a co-owner in the alienation of his share in the property
even without the consent of the other co-owners.

12. A real property is the subject of co-ownership. A co-owner sold a

specific portion of said property without the consent of the co-owners. Is
the sale valid? Explain

ANSWER:

No, the sale is void because a co-owner could not enter into a
contract to sell a definite portion of the co-owned property without the
consent of the other co-owners. Such contract is still subject to the
 partition of the property and that the co-owners agree to that portion of the
property which has been subject of the sale. Hence, the co-owners’
consent is an important factor in the perfection of the sale.

13. X is the heir of Y who died on Dec. 1992. He accepted his

inheritance in June 1993. From what time should his possession be
reckoned with?

ANSWER:

X’s possession shall be computed from the time of the death of Y.

Under the Civil Code, the possession of the hereditary property is

deemed transmitted to the heir without interruption and from the moment
of the death of the decedent in the event that the inheritance is
subsequently accepted.

14. In an action to prove filiation and support the court decided the
case based on the appearance of the child and admission by the
defendant that he had intercourse with the plaintiff’s mother. The
decision was affirmed by the CA. Are the decisions correct? Explain.

ANSWER:

The decisions of both courts are incorrect.

Under the law, a high standard of proof is required to establish

paternity and filiation in as much as an order for recognition and support
will affect and create an unfavorable situation in the family to which the
courts have are bound to uphold. Hence, the same must be established by
clear and convincing evidence which has not been complied with in the
problem.

15. May a house and lot be considered a family home if the lot is not
owned by the spouses.

ANSWER:

No, it may not be considered as a family home.

 The Family Code provides that a family home must be established
on the properties of: a) the absolute community property, b) conjugal
partnership property, c) exclusive property of either spouse with the
consent of the other. Hence, a family home could not be constituted on a
property owned by a third party.