2nd File

1. A. TRUE. A 12 year old must recognize the existence of an easement since minority is a
mere limitation on one’s capacity to act. Hence, even minors must recognize easements.
2pts

B. TRUE. A deaf-mute can enter into a contract of sale because being such does not
necessarily incapacitate him to enter into contractual obligations as long as he knows the
nature of the agreements and dispositions being entered into. 1pt

C. FALSE. A 23 year old female may not marry his uncle because such kind of marriage
is prohibited for being against public policy since they are relatives. 2pts

D. FALSE. A foreigner is not allowed to own or buy real property in PH as provided for
in the 1987 Constitution. Aliens are not allowed to own real property in the Philippines.
2pts

E. FALSE. It is not an 18 year old married woman that is qualified for all acts of civil life
but a 21 year old woman as provided for in the New Civil Code. 0pt

F. TRUE. A person who has schizophrenia may donate property to his nieces and
nephews absent any showing that he cannot enter into contracts and make dispositions.
Such disease will not incapacitate him to donate. 0pt

G. FALSE. A contract entered into by an 16 year old is not void but voidable. 2pts

H. FALSE. A deaf-mute who does not know how to read and write may not contract with
a 17 year old minor. A contract entered into between incapacitated persons is
unenforceable. 2pts

I. FALSE. A deed of sale in which two of the four parties are minors aged 16 and 17 is
voidable since these minors did not represent themselves to be of legal age at the time of
signing it. 2pts

J. FALSE. One penalized by a penalty of civil interdiction loses his parental authority
over his wayward teenager, hence, may not impose disciplinary measures on the latter.
2pts

2. A. The provisions of NCC should be utilized in the instant case. Tarzan and Jade got
married in 1987 before the effectivity of the FC in Aug 1988 hence, the provisions of
NCC shall govern which is the law at the time of the celebration of their marriage. 0pt

B. The sale made by Tarzan of the conjugal property is void for being done without the
authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. However, such would
constitute as a continuing offer to the spouse who did not consent to fully dispose of the
property in accordance with the law, by ratifying such. 3pts
3. No, Conchita and the managers/owners of the flowers cannot be held criminally liable for
violation of EO 324 because at the time of the raid, EO 324 was not yet effective hence,
not binding yet.

The law itself provided that it shall take effect 7 days after the completion of its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation. It has only been 6 days since it was
published thus not compliant with the 7 days publication requirement. Meaning, it shall
have no effect; as it would constitute a violation of Art 2 of the NCC. 5pts

4. Based on the principle of Lex Rae Sitae, the law in which the real or personal property is
situated shall govern the right to possess the property. The only exception to this is when
successional rights are involved. In this case, the law of the place near Amazon Forest
shall govern. 2pts

5. A. The marriage between Jose and Teresita is valid. In 2003, or at the time of its
celebration, Jose was already granted Australian citizenship. Therefore, his family rights,
legal capacity, status and conditions are now governed by Australian Law. Assuming
Australia recognizes his divorce, then Jose is deemed capacitated to marry Teresita
without any legal impediment in the Philippines. 3pts

B. The marriage of Evelyn and Anacleto would be valid if Australian law specifically
allows the alien spouse, Evelyn, to remarry. But in this case, following the Orbecido
ruling, if a Filipino spouse who later on become a naturalized citizen of another country
obtains a divorce decree, such shall capacitate the Filipino spouse to remarry or else it
will violate the equal protection of laws enshrined in the Constitution. 3pts

C. No, the renvoi doctrine would not have any relevance in this case. As enunciated in
the case of Garcia v. Recio, renvoi doctrine is only applicable in cases where one country
follows the nationality theory and the other follows the domiciliary theory. There is
nothing in the facts of the case that would require renvoi or referring back. 0pt

6. No, there is no valid marriage in this case since both essential and formal requisite is
absent.

With regard to the essential requisite, the law requires that the consent must be freely
given by the contracting parties in the presence of the solemnizing office. In this case, it
did not happen since it was Alicia who stood in and not Martha

In relation to the formal requisite, the provisions of the Civil Code requires that the
parties should have a personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife.
Such did not happen in this case considering the fact that it was not Marsha who
personally declared her vow but rather her sister, Alicia. Hence, marriage is void. 5pts

7. The marriage is valid since at the time of the celebration of the marriage, all requisites of
a valid marriage is complied with. By that time, Alicia would be 18 years old hence has
 the legal capacity to contract marriage, provided that all the other essential and formal
requisites should have been complied with. 5pts

8. Yes, Anthony is not liable under the contract. Since Anthony is an American citizen,
according to the Nationality principle, his family rights, legal capacity, status, rights and
condition shall be governed by the laws of the country in which he is a citizen. Hence, in
this case, Anthony, being considered an adult in the US shall be held liable under the
contract.

C. I would rule against the claims of the buyer since their claim of valid consent, loss of right to
declare nullity of sale and prescription are bereft of merit.

However, if proven that the buyers in this case are buyers in GF, then their vested rights may no
longer be impaired.

In this case, prescription has not lied yet coz the spouse, whose consent was not obtained may
assail the validity of the disposition or encumbrance within 5 years from such date.

The rules on CPGand NCC is the same as the FC. 3pts

Parang kulang ung booklet huhu