v
a) Spouses Primo and Monina Lim, childless, were entrusted
with
the custody of two (2) minor children, the parents of whom were
unknown. Eager of having children of their own, the spouses
made
it appear that they were the children's parents by naming
them
Michelle P. Lim and Michael Jude Lim. Subsequently, Monina
married
Angel Olario after Primo's death. fcivil Law Page 4 of61
She decided to adopt the children by availing the amnesty
given
under R.A. 8552 to those individuals who simulated the birth
of a
child. She filed separate petitions for the adoption of
Michelle, then
25 years old and Michael, 18. Both Michelle and Michael gave
consent to the adoption.
The trial court dismissed the petition and ruled that Monina
should have filed the petition jointly with her new husband.
Monina,
in a Motion for Reconsideration argues that mere consent of
her
husband would suffice and that joint adoption is not needed,
for the
adoptees are already emancipated.
Is the trial court correct in dismissing the petitions for
adoption?
Explain. (5%)
b) Jambrich, an Austrian, fell in-love and lived together
with
Descallar and bought their house and lots at Agro-Macro
Subdivision.
I
In the Contracts to Sell, Jambrich and Descallar were
referred to as
the buyers. When the Deed of Absolute Sale was presented for
registration before the Register of Deeds, it was refused
because
Jambrich was an alien and could not acquire alienable lands
of the
public domain. After Jambrich and Descaller separated,
Jambrich
purchased an engine and some accessories for his boat from
Borromeo. To pay for his debt, he sold his rights and
interests in the
Agro-Macro properties to Borromeo.
Borrome1
o discovered that titles to the three (3) lots have been
transferred in the name of Descallar. Who is the rightful
owner of the
properties? Explain. (5%)
VI
a) Siga-an granted a loan to Villanueva in the amount of
P540,000.00. Such agreement was not reduced to writing.
Siga-an
demanded interest which was paid by Villanueva in cash and
checks.
The total amount Villanueva paid accumulated to
P1,200,000.00.
Upon advice of her lawyer, Villanueva demanded for the
return of the
excess amount of P660,000.00 which was ignored by Siga-an.
1. Is the payment of interest valid? Explain. (3%)
2. Is solutio indebiti applicable? Explain. (2°/o)
1
b) Eulalia was engaged in the business of buying and selling
large
cattle. In order to secure the financial capital, she
advanced for her
e!llployees (biyaheros). She required them to surrender TCT
of their I civil Law Page 5 of 61
properties anq to execute the corresponding Deeds of Sale in
her
favor. Domeng Bandong was not required to post any security
but
when Eulalia discovered that he incurred shortage in cattle
procurement operation, he was required to execute a Deed of
Sale
over a parcel of land in favor of Eulalia. She sold the
property to her
grandneice Jocelyn who thereafter instituted an action for
ejectment
against the Spouses Bandong.
To assert their right, Spouses Bandong filed an action for
annulment of sale against Eulalia and Jocelyn alleging that
there was
no sale intended but only equitable mortgage for the purpose
of
securing the shortage incurred by Domeng in the amount of
P?O,OOO.OO while employed as "biyahero" by
Eulalia. Was the Deed
of Sale between Domeng and Eulalia a contract of sale or an
equitable mortgage? Explain. (5%)
VII
a) Natividad's holographic will, which had only one (1)
substantial
provision, as first written, named Rosa as her sole heir.
However,
when Gregorio presented it for probate, it already contained
an
alteration, naming Gregorio, instead of Rosa, as sole heir,
but without
authentication by Natividad's signature. Rosa opposes the
probate
allegiQg such lack of proper authentication. She claims that
the
unaltered form of the will should be given effect. Whose
claim should
be granted? Explain. (5°/o)
b) John Sagun and Maria Carla Camua, British citizens at
birth,
acquired Philippine citizenship by naturalization after
their marriage.
During their marriage, the couple acquired substantial
landholdings in
London and in Makati. Maria begot three (3) children, Jorge,
Luisito,
and Joshur. In one of their trips to London, the couple
executed a
joint will each other as their heirs and providing that upon
the death of Uie survivor between them, the entire estate
would go to
Jorge and Luisito only but the two (2) could not dispose of
nor divide
the London estate as long as they live. John and Maria died
tragically in the London subway terrorist attack in 2005.
Jorge and
Luisito filed a petitipn for probate of their parents' will
before a Makati
Regional Trial Court. Joshur vehemently objected because he
was
preterited.
1. Should the will be admitted to probate? Explain. (2°/o)
2. Are the testamentary dispositions valid? Explain. (2o/o)
3. Is . the testamentary prohibition against the division of
the
London estate valid? Explain. ( 1 °/o) lcivil Law Page 6
of61