MANILA LAW COLLEGE

MOCK BAR EXAMINATION IN CIVIL LAW

I. Arnold and Benilda were married on Jan. 2, 2019. On Feb. 14, 2019, Arnold discovered
that Benilda has a 2-year-old son with her former boyfriend. Feeling betrayed by his
wife’s concealment of her previous pregnancy, Arnold filed a petition for annulment of
marriage due to fraud. Should the court grant the annulment decree? Why? (2.5%)
The court should not grant the annulment decree. The FC enumerates instances when the
husband can file an annulment case due to concealment or fraud which include
concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant by a
man other than her husband. The fact that Benilda has a 2-year-old son is not uncluded in
the enumeration, hence there was no ground to file the action for annulment of marriage.
(Art. 46 par. 2 FC).

II. Bernard was married to Carina but they were legally separated pursuant to a legal
separation decree issued by the Manila RTC. Carina cohabited with Dante who was
married to Elisa. From their cohabitation, Frank was born on Mar. 9, 2008. Dante died in a
vehicular accident on Nov. 1, 2018. Carina, on Frank’s behalf, intervened in the settlement
of Dante’s estate contending that Frank is entitled to inherit as Dante’s son. Carina
presented Frank’s baptismal certificate indicating Dante as Frank’s father, school report
cards signed by Dante and several pictures and videos showing Dante and Frank
together.
1. May Frank prove his filiation to Dante and inherit from him? Explain well.
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Frank may not prove his filiation to Dante, hence, he cannot inherit from
Dante’s estate. Children conceived or born during the marriage of their
parents are legitimate (Art. 164 FC). It is the husband, or in a proper case, any
of his heirs, who may impugn the legitimacy of the child (Art. 170 FC). In this
case, Frank was conceived and born during the valid marriage of his mother,
Carina and Bernard. Although the spouses were legally separated from each
other, the marital bond between them was not severed. They remain married
to each other even when Carina cohabited with Dante, who is likewise
married to Elisa. For as long as Bernard has not impugn Frank’s legitimacy
within the period prescribed by law. Frank remains the former;s legitimate
child.

2. Suppose Bernard died on February 14, 2007, more than a year prior to
Frank’s birth, may Frank prove his filiation to Dante and inherit from him?
Explain well. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Bernard died more than one year prior to Frank’s birth, it was physically
impossible for the former to have sexual intercourse with his wife Carina
within the first 120 days of 300 days which immediately preceded Frank’s
birth. (Art. 166 FC). Frank is the illegitimate son of Carina and Dante having
been conceived and born outside a valid marriage. (Art. 165 FC). However, the
pieces of evidence presented by carina, such as Frank’s baptismal certificate,
school report cards, pictures and videos to prove Frank’s filiation to Dante
belong to the second (2nd) paragraph of Article 172 of the Family Code, which
must be presented and proven during the lifetime of the alleged father. In this
case, Carina was presenting secondary pieces of evidence to prove Frank’s
filiation to Dante when the latter was already dead. Such action to claim
illegitimate filiation is already barred under the Family Code (Art. 172 (2) and
175 FC).

1
III. Edgar was the lessee of a parcel of land owned by Fred. With the consent of Edgar and by
chance, Greg found hidden treasure in this parcel of land. How should the hidden treasure
be divided between the parties? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
½ of the hidden treasure should go to the land owner, Fred while the other ½ should go
to Greg, the finder who found the hidden treasure by chance (Art. 438 NCC). Hidden
treasure belongs to the owner of the land, building or other property on which it is found,
when the discovery is made on the property of another by chance, one-half thereof shall
be allowed to the finder.

XIV. In a small residential subdivision in Cavite, Anton maintained a shoe factory which emits
smoke and produce intermittent loud noise during its operations.
1. Is this a nuisance per accidens or per se? Why? (1.25%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
This is a nuisance per accidens. A factory is not a nuisance per se because it is
not always a nuisance at all times. It only becomes a nuisance because of its
location, surroundings and circumstances. In this case, it only became a
nuisance because it was located in a small residential subdivision where the
noise and the smoke emanating from its operation affect the residence of the
subdivision.

2. Is this a public or a private nuisance? Why? (1.25%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
This is a public nuisance. A public nuisance affects a community or
neighbourhood or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of
the annoyance, danger or damage upon individuals may be unequal (Art. 695
NCC).

3. State all remedies available to the residents of the subdivision to abate

this nuisance. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The remedies against a public nuisance are: (1) A prosecution under the
Revised Penal Code or any local ordinance; or (2) A civil action; or (3)
Abatement, without judicial proceedings (Art. 699 NCC).

XV. Bernard and Barbara are married but childless. They filed a petition before the Family
Court of Manila on August 16, 2018 to adopt 8-year-old Carlo, the son of Spouses Dennis
and Danica. During the 6-month supervised trial custody period, Carlo resided with
Spouses Bernard and Barbara in the latter’s home. While playing in the park one day,
Carlo quarrelled with Francis. Carlo stabbed Francis in the face with a barbecue stick
resulting to physical injuries to Francis. Who shall be civilly liable for the injury suffered
by Francis, Spouses Bernard and Barbara or Spouses Dennis and Danica? Explain fully.
(2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under the Family Code, parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be
civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their
unemancipated children living in their company and under their parental authority,
subject to the appropriate defences provided by law (Art. 221 FC). In the case at bar,
Spouses Bernard and Barbara shall be civilly liable for the injury suffered by Francis.
During the six (6) months supervised trial custody period, temporary parental custody
shall be vested in the adopters, hence they are the ones liable for whatever injury caused
by the prospective adoptee (Sec. 12 Art. IV R.A. No. 8552 or DAL ’98).

2
XVI. Rollie, with TCT in his name, owns a lot adjoining a river. After a strong earthquake, a
portion of Rollie’s land was abruptly detached and transported to Peter’s lot. Who is the
owner of this portion of land now attached to Peter’s land? Why? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Peter becomes the owner of the land. No avulsion occurred in this case since it was the
earthquake and not the current of the river, creek or torrent which caused the transfer of
the land from Rollie’s property to Peter’s property (Art. 459 NCC).

XVII. Arsenia and Benigno, both Filipinos and of legal age, 2nd cousins to each other, got
married in Libya where such marriage is void. Is their marriage valid, voidable or void in
the Philippines? Why? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Arsenia’s and Benigno’s marriage is void in the Philippines. All marriages solemnized
outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they
were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those
prohibited under Article 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38 (Art. 26(1) FC. By analogy,
a marriage void in the foreign country where it was celebrated is also void in the
Philippines.

XVIII. Francis and Greta, 17 and 16 years old, respectively, had pre-marital sex resulting
to Greta’s pregnancy. Greta gave birth to Hector on January 1, 2017. With parental
consent, Francis and Greta got married on June 1, 2019 in Japan when Francis and Greta
were 19 and 18 years old, respectively. They did not obtain any marriage license and
their marriage was solemnized by a notary public. Under Japanese law, their marriage
was valid. They did not execute any marriage settlement. The couple returned to Manila
and Francis put up his own computer shop while Greta stayed at home, managed the
household and took care of Hector. During their marriage, the spouses were able to buy a
house and lot worth ₽1M; a secondhand car worth ₽500K and several appliances worth
₽500K.
1. Is the marriage of Francis and Greta valid in the Philippines? Why? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the marriage of Francis and Greta is valid in the Philippines. All marriages
solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the
country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in
this country, except those prohibited under Article 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37
and 38 (Art. 26(1) FC. Francis’ and Greta’s marriage was valid in Japan and not
among those prohibited under the laws of the Philippines and with parental
consent, their marriage is also valid in the Philippines.

2. May Hector be legitimated based on the given facts? Why? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Hector may be legitimated. Children conceived and born outside of wedlock of
parents who, at the time of conception of the former, were not disqualified by any
impediment to marry each other, or were so disqualified only because either or
both of them were below eighteen (18) years of age, may be legitimated (R.A. No.
9858 amending Art. 177 FC). Legitimation shall take place by a subsequent valid
marriage between parents. In this case, both Francis and Greta were below
eighteen years of age, during Hector’s conception and birth. They, however, got
married to each other after Hector’s birth and after attaining the age of 18, hence
their son, Hector, may be legitimated.

3. What property regime governs Francis’ and Greta’s marriage? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In the absence of a marriage settlement, or when the regime agreed upon is void,
the system of absolute community of property as established in the Family Code
shall govern (Art. 75 FC). In this case, Francis and Greta did not execute a marriage

3
 settlement prior to their marriage, hence, the absolute community of property
(ACP) governs their property regime.

4. How should their properties be distributed in the event of dissolution of their

marriage? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Co-ownership governs the absolute community of property between the spouses,
hence there shall be equal division of all properties acquired during their marriage
(Art. 90 FC).

XIX. While on their way to Tuguegarao, Rogelio and his wife Patricia were involved in a tragic
vehicular accident. Rogelio died on the spot while Patricia, who was seven (7) months
pregnant, was rushed to the hospital. A weak baby boy was delivered alive by caesarean
operation but who unfortunately later died after twenty-one (21) hours from delivery.
Two (2) days after the baby’s death, Patricia likewise died due to severe traumatic
injuries. Rogelio and Patricia have acquired properties worth P20M. The spouses’ estates
are being claimed by Rogelio’s parents, Santiago and Tarcila and by Patricia’s parents,
Wilfredo and Vanessa. Distribute Rogelio’s and Patricia’s estates to their heirs citing all
the requisites of the provision of law you are using as legal basis in your answer. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Reserva Troncal is present in this case. When Rogelio died, his net hereditary estate
(NHE) was P10M which was ½ of the conjugal properties of P20M. Rogelio’s P10M estate
was inherited by his wife Patricia and the baby boy, P5M each. The baby acquired civil
personality having an intra-uterine life of seven (7) months and alive when delivered by
caesarean operation. Upon the baby’s death, his P5M share was inherited by his mother,
Patricia, by operation of law. This amount became reservable property. Under the
principle reserve truncal, the origin of the P5M was Antonio, the propositus was the baby
boy, the descendant who acquired the P5M by gratuitous title and the reservoir was
Patricia, the ascendant who acquired the property by operation of law. Upon Patricia’s
death, Rogelio’s parents, Santiago and Tarcila, who are the relatives of the propositus
within the 2nd degree and belonging to the line of the origin, inherited the P5M as
reservatarios, P2.5M each. Patricia’s estate of P15M (P10M as her own share from the
conjugal properties and P5M as inheritance from Rogelio) shall be inherited by her own
parents, Wilfredo and Vanessa, by intestate succession, P7.5M each (Art. 891 NCC).

XX. Pablo, lessor/owner, and Percival, lessee, entered into a Contract of Lease for five (5)
years over Pablo’s 1,000 sq. m. land where Percival would construct a 3-storey building.
There was an option given to Percival to buy the land during the 5-year lease period with
the agreement that if Percival does not avail of the option, Pablo shall become the owner
of the building constructed by Percival. On the fourth year, Percival notified Pablo that he
was exercising his option to buy the latter’s land but Pablo said that he has already
withdrawn the offer since Percival did not deliver a consideration distinct from the price.
Is Pablo correct in his contention? Explain fully. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, there was a valid option contract between Pablo and Percival. When the offer has
allowed the offeree a certain period to accept, the offer may be withdrawn at any time
before acceptance by communicating such withdrawal, except when the option is
founded upon a consideration, as something paid or promised (Art. 1324 NCC). The
parties agreed that if Percival will not be able to exercise the option to buy Pablo’s land
within the 5-year leased period, Pablo shall become the owner of Percival’s building. A
consideration distinct from the price need not be in the form of money; it may be any
promise or undertaking of value. Percival’s undertaking or promise to transfer the
ownership of his building to Pablo without compensation was the consideration separate
and distinct from the purchase price. Pablo cannot withdraw the offer until the lapse of
the period agreed upon by the parties, in this case, within the 5-year lease period.

4
XXI. Anton, a Filipino citizen, executed a will on June 1, 2017 in the USA. The will was entirely
written by Anton in English, a language he is familiar with, dated but not signed by him.
Under USA’s law, a will is valid provided it was written and dated by the testator even if
not signed by him. Anton expressly stated in his will that USA’s law on succession shall be
followed in the distribution of his estate.
Anton was married to Belinda and had 3 legitimate children, Cherry, Danny, and Efren. In
his will, Anton completely omitted Belinda, mentioned Cherry, Danny and Efren as his
legitimate children and instituted Danny and Anton’s friend, Freddy, as his heirs. Anton
died on January 1, 2019 leaving a net hereditary estate of P9M.
1. Is Anton’s will extrinsically valid in the Philippines? Why? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The will is extrinsically valid in the Philippines under the principle of lex
loci celebrationis. The forms and solemnities of contracts, will and other
public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they
are executed (Art. 17 (1) NCC). Anton’s will was executed in accordance with
the formalities prescribed by USA’s law, hence it is considered extrinsically
valid in the Philippines.

2. Can Anton’s estate be distributed following USA’s law? Why? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the New Civil Code provides that intestate and testamentary successions,
both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional
rights and to the intrinsic validity of the testamentary provisions, shall be
regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under
consideration, whatever may be the

3. Distribute Anton’s estate, legitime (5%) and Free Portion (5%).

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Although Anton omitted his wife Belinda from his will, there was no preterition as
the wife is not a compulsory heir in the direct line of the testator. The institution of
the heirs shall not be annulled (Art. 854 NCC) Anton’s estate shall be distributed as
follows:
The legitime of the legitimate children shall be ½ of Anton’s NHE of P9M which is
P4.5M divided equally among 3 legitimate children, hence, Cherry’s, Danny’s and
Efren’s legitimes shall be P1.5M each (Art. 888 NCC). Belinda’s legitime shall be the
same share as one legitimate child which is P1.5M taken from the free portion (Art.
892 [2] & [3] NCC). Deducting Belinda’s legitime of P1.5M from the free portion of
P4.5M, the remaining disposable free portion is P3M which shall be divided equally
between the instituted heirs, Danny and Freddy, each receiving P1.5M (Art. 842 [2]
NCC).

XII. Romy is the owner of a house and lot enclosed by the estates owned by Sonny, Tommy and
Vahl. Romy has no access to the public highway, hence, he demanded a right of way
through Tommy’s property which is 10 meters away from the public highway but whose
garage shall be destroyed if the right of way shall be constituted on his property. Vahl’s
land is 20 meters away from the public highway, uphill and a more circuitous way. Aside
from his house, no other structure exists on Vhal’s land but a portion of his wire fence
shall be destroyed and kept open if the right of way is imposed on his property. Sonny’s
property is a vacant lot, 30 meters away from the public highway, with a lot of potholes
and gets so muddy whenever it rains. Over whose property should the legal easement
of right of way be established? Why? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The legal easement of right of way shall be constituted on Sonny’s property. While it may
not be the shortest way to the public highway, constituting the legal easement of right of
way over Sonny’s property, which is a vacant lot, is least prejudicial on the servient

5
 estate. (Art. 650 NCC). Convenience of the dominant estate, has never been the gauge for
the grant of the legal easement for right of way. The true standard for the grant of the
legal easement of right of way is “adequacy”. Dischoso, Jr. et al vs Marcos, GR No. 180282,
April 11, 2011).

XIII. Arnel had two (2) legitimate sons, Basilio and Carlos. Carlos had two (2) legitimate
daughters, Donna and Erica. Erica has a son, Fernando. Carlos died on January 2, 2015
and Erica repudiated her inheritance from her father. On January 2, 2016, Erica’s
grandfather, Arnel died. Can Erica inherit from Arnel’s estate? Why or why not? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Erica, who repudiated her inheritance from her father Carlos, cannot be represented
by her own son Fernando. (Art. 977 NCC). However, she can represent her father Carlos
from the inheritance of her grandfather Arnel. Under the law, one who repudiates cannot
be represented but he may represent him whose inheritance he has renounced (Art. 976
NCC). Simply stated, a renouncer cannot be represented but may represent the person
whose inheritance he has renounced.

XIV. Benjie, a bachelor without any ascendant or descendant, executed a notarial will on
December 1, 2015 instituting his friend Caloy as sole and universal heir to his estate of
P10M. On January 2, 2017, Benjie executed a will entirely written and dated by him
instituting his legitimate brother Daniel as his sole heir. So weak due to his illness, Benjie
placed his thumbmark on the will intending such thumbmark to be his signature. Upon
Benjie’s death on February 14, 2019, who shall inherit his estate? Explain well. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Caloy shall inherit Benjie’s P10M estate. Although Benjie executed a second will, a
holographic will, which instituted his brother Daniel as sole heir, such holographic will did
not comply with the formalities required under the law. A holographic will must be
entirely written, dated and signed by the hand of the testator himself (Art. 810 NCC). In
the case at bar, Benjie’s holographic will was entirely written, dated but not signed by
him. His thumbmark cannot be considered as his signature, hence, his holographic will is
void. Daniel cannot inherit under the void holographic will. Moreover, under the doctrine
of dependent relative revocation if the second will which was the revoking will was not an
extrinsically valid will, such will cannot revoke an earlier will. The revoked will can be
revived and shall be considered as the valid will. Caloy shall inherit under the notarial will
apllying the doctrine of dependent relative revocation.

XV. On January 1, 2016, Basilio borrowed P1M from Charlie, evidenced by a promissory note
that the debt was payable on January 1, 2018. To secure the payment of this debt, Basilio
executed a real estate mortgage over his house in Makati in favor of Charlie. On June 1,
2016, Basilio’s house was totally burned by a fire of unknown origin. On June 15, 2016,
Charlie demanded the full payment of the loan from Basilio who refused to pay
contending that Charlie’s demand for payment was premature since the period for
payment is still on January 1, 2018. Do you agree with Basilio’s contention? Why? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Basilio can be compelled to pay the full amount of the loan on June 15, 2016. This is an
obligation with a period. As a general rule, obligations for whose fulfilment a day certain
has been fixed, shall be demandable only when that day comes (Art. 1193 NCC). However,
the debtor shall lose every right to make use of the period when by his own acts he has
impaired said guaranties or securities after their establishment, and when through a
fortuitous event they disappear, unless he immediately gives new ones equally
satisfactory (Art. 1198 [3] NCC). In this case, a real estate mortgage over his house was
executed by Basilio in favour of his creditor Charlie to secure payment of his debt to the
latter. Basilio’s house was not totally burned by a fire of unknown origin. Having lost the
security through a fortuitous event, Basilio lost his right to the period, unless he gives
another security to his creditor equally satisfactory.

6
 XVI. Happy and excited that her sister Delia became pregnant after being married for ten (10)
years, Debbie donated a ring worth P25,000.00 to the unborn child. Delia accepted the
donation and was profuse in thanking her sister while they were shopping for baby
clothes at SM Manila. Delia gave birth after 7 months of pregnancy but the baby died
twenty hours after complete delivery from the maternal womb. May Debbie recover the
ring she donated to the child? Why or why not? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The parties did not comply with the formalities of a valid donation inter vivos of personal
property. Under the law, if the value of the personal property donated exceeds P5,000,
the donation and the acceptance shall be made in writing. Otherwise, the donation shall
be void (Art. 748 NCC). Not having complied with the formalities of a valid donation inter
vivos of personal property, Debbie may recover the ring she donated to her sister’s child.

XVII. Amado and Benito borrowed P1M from Carlos and Dennis. The promissory
note signed by both Amado and Benito reads: “We promise to pay
Carlos and Dennis the amount of P1M on Dec. 25, 2018.” How much
can Carlos collect from Amado? Why? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The concurrence of two or more creditors or of 2 more debtors in one and the same
obligation does not imply solidary obligation. The general rule is that the obligation is
joint. The credit or debt shall be presumed to be divided into as many equal shares as
there are creditors or debtors, the credits or debts being considered distinct from one
another (Art. 1207-1208 NCC). In this case, since the obligation is joint, Carlos can collect
only P250,000 from Amado and Dennis can likewise collect the same amount of P250,000
from Amado.

XVIII. On January 15, 2019, Abel gave Amor a diamond ring worth P500K in
consideration of their marriage to be held on February 14, 2019. Abel died
on Feb. 7, 2019 due to a vehicular accident. Abel’s parents filed an action
to recover the ring from Amor. Will the action prosper? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Abel’s parents may recover the ring. A donation propter nuptias is made before the
marriage, in consideration of marriage and in favour of one or both of the future spouses
(Art. 82 FC). In this case, Abel gave a donation propter nuptias to Amor. Unfortunately,
Abel died, hence no marriage took place. Abel’s parents, as his legal heirs, may revoke the
donation considering that no marriage happened between Abel and Amor (Art. 86 FC).

XIX. Lando and Marlyn are married. When Lando disappeared for 4 years
without any knowledge of his whereabouts, Marlyn was able to secure a
judicial declaration of Lando’s presumptive death and was able to marry
Noel in accordance with the requisites prescribed by law. Later, Lando
reappeared and executed an affidavit of reappearance which he
immediately showed to Marlyn and Noel in their residence in Cebu City.
Aware of Lando's reappearance, Noel married Olga on June 15, 2019
complying with all the requisites required by law. Is the marriage of Noel
and Olga valid, voidable or void? Explain fully. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Noel’s and Olga’s marriage is void. Noel’s marriage to Marilyn is still subsisting because
the same has not been terminated by Lando’s reappearance. In order for the subsequent
marriage to be automatically terminated, the absent spouse’s Affidavit of Reappearance
must be recorded in the local civil registry of the residence of the parties to the
subsequent marriage, with due notice to the spouses of the subsequent marriage (Art. 42
FC). Lando executed an affidavit of reappearance but merely showed the same to Marilyn
and Noel, hence, Marilyn’s and Noel’s marriage was still subsisting when Noel married
Olga making such marriage bigamous.

7
XX. Distinguish a Contract of Sale from a Contract to Sell. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In a Contract of Sale, ownership over the object of the sale is transferred from the vendor
to the vendee upon delivery of the thing, whether actual or constructive (Arts. 1458 &
1477 NCC). In a contract to Sell, ownership or title over the object of the sale is reserved
to the vendor and will not pass to the vendee until full payment of the purchase price
(Sacobia Hills Dev. Corp. vs. Ty, GR No.165889, Sept. 20, 2005)

XXI. Cornelio and Danilo, entered into a Contract of Lease over Cornelio’s
lot. The Contract of Lease stipulated that “if during the 5-year-lease
period, if the lessor should decide to sell the leased premises, the
lessee shall be given 30 days exclusive priority to purchase the
same”. Cornelio decided to sell the leased premises, hence, Danilo was
notified of the offer, the terms and conditions of which included that the
purchase price of the lot was P2M in cash, and the offer to sell and buy was
good only for one (1) month. Danilo replied that he cannot pay the full
amount of P2M in cash. Two (2) weeks later, Cornelio sold the leased
property to Emil. After learning that the sale to Emil was for P1M in cash
and the P1M balance payable within one year, Danilo filed a complaint for
specific performance and rescission of the Contract of Sale. Can the
Contract of Sale between Cornelio and Emil be rescinded? Explain fully.
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Contract of sale between Cornelio and Emil can be rescinded. There was a right of
first refusal incorporated in the Contract of Lease between Cornelio and Danilo, hence
such right of first refusal is enforceable and can be compelled by specific performance.
Although the lot was offered first to Danilo for P2M, in cash and he did not exercise the
right of first priority, Cornelio can only offer the leased premises to prospective buyers
under the same terms and conditions he offered to Danilo. Even if Danilo could not buy
the leased premises at the price quoted, Cornelio could not sell it to another for a lower
price and under more favourable, flexible, and lenient terms and conditions. The Contract
of Sale between Cornelio and Emil was rescissible. A contract otherwise valid may be
subsequently rescinded by reason of injury to 3 rd persons, like creditors (Arts 1380-1381
NCC). The status of creditor could be accorded to Danilo for he has substantial interest
that was prejudiced by the sale of the leased premises to Danilo without recognizing his
right of first priority under the Contract of Lease. (Guzman Bocaling & Co. vs Bonnevie,
GR No. 86150, March 2, 1992).

XXII. Albert owes Benigno P25,000.00 payable on June 30, 2019. On due date of
the obligation, Albert offered to deliver his laptop computer worth
P20,000.00 and Benigno consented to the offer. Was there payment of the
loan of P25,000.00? Explain well. (2.5%) Define/explain this mode of
payment? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, but only to the extent of P20,000. This mode of payment is dacion en pago or dation
in payment whereby property is alienated to the creditor in satisfaction of a debt in
money (Art. 1245 NCC). In dacion en pago, the obligation is extinguished to the extent of
the value of the property delivered to the creditor unless there is an agreement between
the parties that the entire obligation shall be extinguished even if the value of the thing
delivered is less than the value of the obligation.

XXIII. Araceli and Agaton entered into a contract of loan of P100,000.00 on

January 1, 2016 payable on December 30, 2016. On June 1, 2016, Agaton
wrote to Araceli stating that Armando shall take care of his debt to Araceli.
Araceli did not reply to Agaton’s letter. Armando did not pay Araceli. On

8
January 5, 2017, Araceli sued Agaton for the payment of the loan. Agaton
contends he is no longer liable as there was substitution of debtors by
delegacion. Rule on Agaton’s contention citing the requisites of novation.
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Agaton’s contention is untenable. There was no substitution of debtors by “delegacion”
since there was no consent from the creditor Araceli. The requisites of Novation are: (1) a
valid previous obligation; (2) agreement of the parties to a new obligation; (3)
extinguishment of the old obligation; and (4) validity of the new obligation. In this case,

*NOTHING FOLLOWS*
Mockbar-MLC2020.03.07