2025 CIVIL LAW BAR EXAM SUGGESTED ANSWERS

BY: HON. MINERVA A. VIOJAN-SIOSANA

CIVIL LAW REVIEW PROFESSOR
1

A leased out his penthouse condominium unit to B. Unfortunately,

A figured in an accident and perished, leaving his son, C, as his sole
heir. Subsequently, C demanded that B vacate the premises by noon
of the following day. B refused, showing C the duly executed lease
agreement between her and A. B claimed that she has a right to
remain in the unit since the term of the lease was yet to expire. C
countered that he had nothing to do with the lease contract as it was
executed between his father and B and therefore does not bind him.
Is C correct? Reason(s).

Suggested Answer:
No, C is not correct in saying that the lease agreement does not bind
him.

Contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns and
heirs, except in case where the rights and obligations arising from
the contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation
or by provision of law.

Here, the obligation under the lease contract of A is transmissible. C

therefore, being the legal heir of A, is bound under the rule on
relativity of contracts to respect that lease agreement.
(Art. 1311 CC rule on relativity of contract)

2.

In a desperate attempt to dispose of her assets, X, a fugitive from

justice, called her friend, Y, instructing him to sell her house and lot
located at Forbes Park to the first interested buyer for not less than
PHP 250 million. Y offered the property for sale to his boss, Z.
Enticed by the offer, Z asked Y for a copy of the title and proof of
Y’s authority to sell the property. Y presented the title of the property,
claiming that his possession of the title was sufficient proof of his
authority to sell the property. Relying on the representation of Y, Z
bought the property from Y, the agent of X.

Is the sale valid? Reason(s).

Suggested Answer:
No, the sale to Z is not valid.

Under the Civil Code, contracts shall be obligatory, in whatever form

they may have been entered into, provided all the essential requisites
for their validity are present. However, when the law requires that a
contract be in some form in order that it may be valid or enforceable,
or that a contract be proved in a certain way, that requirement is
absolute and indispensable. Relative to this, under the same
code, a Special power of attorney is necessary in certain cases of
transactions and one of those is to enter into any contract by which
the ownership of an immovable is transmitted or acquired either
gratuitously or for a valuable consideration.

Here, X has entered into a contract of agency with Y, instructing him

to sell her house and lot located at Forbes Park to the first interested
buyer for not less than PHP 250 million. The authority however is
not in writing; no special power of attorney was given to Y for the
said sale, a requirement under the law which is absolute and
indispensable to make the sale valid.

The sale to Z therefore is void for having been made by an agent

without a Special Power of Attorney, a document that is absolute and
indispensable for the validity of the sale.

(Art. 1356, forms of contract in connection with Article 878,

enumerations of circumstances requiring a special power of
attorney)
3.

The government owned a 12-hectare land in Cavite classified as forest

land. Informal settlers built shanty houses on the land since it was
flat and there were no trees planted thereon. In 2023, the
government decided to plant Narra trees on the land and
demanded that the informal settlers vacate the same. A, owner of
one of the shanty houses, refused, claiming that he already owned
the portion of the property he was occupying by virtue of
acquisitive prescription. Is the claim of A meritorious? Decide
with reason(s).

Suggested Answer:
No, the claim of the A is not meritorious.
A forest land is classified as land of public dominion which cannot
be alienated, transferred, assigned, or encumbered and neither can
it be acquired by prescription no matter how long one possesses it
in the concept of an owner. With respect to classification of the land,
the same is provided by law, so that even if the occupant will change
its form as to its use, it will not change the nature and classification
of the property.

In this case, the lot being occupied by A is a forest land, one of public
domain and as such, it cannot be alienated, transferred, assigned,
encumbered nor be acquired by prescription. Even if A has
converted the land to be a residential land, it does not change the
fact that it is still categorized as forest land, a property that cannot
be acquired by prescription no matter how long A possessed and
occupied it.

Therefore, A cannot claim acquisitive prescription over the land

where his shanty is built because it is a public domain.

4.
A, a member of a popular boy band in the Philippines, got his
girlfriend, B, pregnant. A and B got married in Hong Kong where the
legal age to get married was at least 15 years old. At the time of
their marriage, A and B were 17 and 16 years old, respectively,
and were both Filipino citizens. Subsequently, A continued with his
career while B hid her pregnancy in the United States of America. She
only returned to the Philippines after she gave birth to their son. By
then though, B was already tired of being A’s deep dark secret. She
thus filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the
ground that her marriage with A is void.

Will the petition prosper? Reason(s).

Suggested Answer:

Yes, the petition will prosper.

Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition

and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the
Philippines, even though living abroad.

Here, A and B, 17 and 16 respectively, Filipinos, are considered

minors it being that the majority and marriageable age here in the
Philippines is 18. Even if they got married in Hong Kong and their
marriage there is considered valid, it cannot be considered as valid
here in the Philippines because the law with respect to their legal
capacity is governed by the Philippine law- their national law, and
not of Hongkong.

Therefore, the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage filed by

B will prosper on the ground that their marriage lacks the essential
requirement of legal capacity.
(Art. 15CC)

A, B, and C are co-owners of a three-hectare agricultural land with a

fair market
value of PHP 9 million or PHP 3 million per hectare. A offered to sell
his share to B and C for a total amount of PHP 10 million. B and C
declined the offer and asked A to reduce the purchase price to PHP
3 million, the prevailing fair market value of the land per hectare. A
refused and instead sold his one-hectare share to X for PHP 10
million. May B and C go to court for the reduction of the purchase
price so they can exercise their right of legal redemption? Reason(s).

Suggested Answer:

Yes, B and C may go to court for the reduction of the purchase price
so they can exercise their right of legal redemption.

A co-owner of a thing may exercise the right of redemption in case

the shares of all the other co-owners or of any of them, are sold to a
third person. If the price of the alienation is grossly excessive, the
redemptioner shall pay only a reasonable one.

Here A, B and C are co-owners, so each of them enjoys the right of

legal redemption in case any of them sells his/their share. When A
sold his share to X, that gives B and C the right to redeem the
property from Z, not for the amount of P10M of course because this
is grossly excessive, but only up to amount which is reasonable, and
by reasonable means the prevailing market value of the property
which is 3M. It is immaterial even if B has offered it first to B and C
and there was an unaccepted counter offer. The right does not speak
of the right of first refusal but of the right of redemption, meaning,
the right can only be exercised after the sale is made to a third
person.
(Art. 1620 CC)

6.
A borrowed money from B in the amount of PHP 100,000.00. C, a
good friend of A, issued a promissory note in favor of B, binding
herself to pay the loan of A on its due date. Was there a novation of
the loan agreement between A and B? Reason(s).

Suggested Answer:

No, there was no novation of the loan agreement between A and B

with the issuance of the promissory note of C binding herself to pay
the loan of A.

Novation which consists in substituting a new debtor in the place of

the original one, may be made even without the knowledge or
against the will of the latter, but not without the consent of the
creditor.

Here, it was only C who bound herself to pay the loan of A. Although
the consent here of A, the debtor, is not necessary, the consent
however of B the creditor is mandatory and indispensable. Since the
consent of B, the creditor was not sought, novation was not effected
and the obligation of A to B subsists.
(Art. 1293)

7
A, upon request, lent his white van to his friend, B, to drive his wife
C from Tarlac to XYZ Medical Center in BGC for treatment. On his
way back to Tarlac and after leaving C at the hospital, people flagged
the white van, thinking it was a UV Express for hire. B stopped and
allowed the people to board and collected payment from them as if
the van was a UV Express plying its route. As B was driving along
the provincial road, a flash flood wrecked the white van. Is B liable
to A for the loss of the white van? Reason(s).

Suggested Answer:

Yes, B is liable to A for the loss of the white van.

The contract that was created between A and B is that of
commodatum, a contract whereby one of the parties delivers to
another, either something not consumable so that the latter may use
the same for a certain time and return it. In such a contract the bailee
is liable for the loss of the thing, even if it should be through a
fortuitous event when he devotes the thing to any purpose different
from that for which it has been loaned.

Here, A delivered to B his van to be used by the latter to take his wife
to the Medical Center in BGC for treatment. Since a commodatum is
personal, and the reason that it was lent by A to B is just for the taking
of the wife to the Medical Center for treatment, then it should only
be used for that purpose alone. When B used the van as a passenger
vehicle, he violated the terms and conditions of the contract which
makes him liable for damages or loss even in case of fortuitous event.
So, even if the van was damage by a flash flood, a fortuitous event, B
is still liable.
(Art. 1933 and Art. 1942)

8
A and B were husband and wife. A was pregnant at the time of their
wedding but contrary to what she made B believe, he was not the
father of her baby. C, A’s ex- fiancé, was the father. Shortly after the
wedding, A gave birth to a baby girl named D. B doted on D but as
she grew up, he could not help but notice how she did not look like
him or A at all. Acting on his suspicion about D’s true paternity, B
had a DNA test in secret where it was confirmed that he was not D’s
father. B thus filed for annulment of marriage, which was granted. In
view of the annulment decree, what is the status of D—legitimate,
legitimated, or illegitimate? Reason(s).

Suggested Answer:

D is a legitimate child.

When a voidable marriage is thereafter annulled, the status of the

child conceived or born of that marriage is legitimate.

Here, D was born during the marriage of A and B, and so she is

presumed to be the legitimate child of A and B. Although the fact
states that she was just born shortly after the wedding, still she was
still born during the marriage. Although there is a DNA test proving
that D is not the biological father of B, no petition to impugn the
legitimacy of D was filed by B, the putative father. This being so, D
remains to be the legitimate child of A and B despite the result of the
DNA test showing that his biological father is not B.
(Art. 54 FC Art. 164 FC,)

Answers of most of the students:

D is a legitimate child of A and B.

Under the Family code, a child born or conceived during the

marriage is considered legitimate.

Here, D was born when A and B were already married and hence
she is presumed to be the legitimate daughter of A and B.

(Note: You have to include in your answer the issue about the DNA
test. Do not just skip the facts given in the problem. It was placed
there for a reason. The examiner here wanted to know your
knowledge about the presumption of legitimacy and impugning the
legitimacy of the child)

9
A was adopted by X, the owner of a local chicken and beer
restaurant. For several years, X’s business had been struggling. To
keep the business afloat, X incurred several loans from banks in the
total amount of PHP 2.5 million. One day, X figured in an accident
which caused his death, leaving A as his sole heir. Upon inventory,
X’s estate was appraised at PHP 1 million. Subsequently, the estate
of X paid the banks the entire value of the estate in the amount of
PHP 1 million. But the banks still sued A for the unpaid portion of
PHP 1.5 million. Will the action prosper? Decide with reason(s).

Suggested Answer:

No, the action will not prosper.

Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property,

rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance, of
a person are transmitted through his death to another or others
either by his will or by operation of law. The heir however, is not
liable beyond the value of the property he received from the
decedent.

Here, X left only 1M but the debt amounted to 2.5M, which exceeds
the value of the estate of X. Since the law says that what is
transmitted is the rights and obligations to the extent of the value of
inheritance, then A cannot be made to pay the deficiency of 1.5M.
The heir only receives the residue of the estate after payment of all
debts, charges, and taxes and in this case, none was actually
inherited by A since nothing was left of the estate. To add, succession
is essentially gratuitous so that to make A liable for the unpaid
portion of X’s debt would make it burdensome, which should not be.

Therefore, the suit of the bank against A will not prosper because A
cannot be held personally liable of the debts of X.
(Art. 774 CC in relation to Art. 1311 CC)

10.
Childhood best friends, A, B, and C took out a business loan from
XYZ Bank in the amount of PHP 3 million for their joint venture
project. They executed a promissory note binding them to jointly
and severally pay the loan on December 1, 2024, without need of
demand. On due date, A, B, and C defaulted in the payment of their
loan, prompting XYZ Bank to demand the full amount of the loan,
but only against A. A opposed the claim, arguing that XYZ Bank
should have demanded payment not just from him but from the three
of them as co-debtors. Is A correct? Reason(s).

Suggested Answer:

No, A is not correct.

The concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or more debtors

in one and the same obligation does not imply that each one of the
former has a right to demand, or that each one of the latter is bound
to render, entire compliance with the prestation. There is a solidary
liability only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law
or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity.

Here, A, B, and C oblige themselves jointly and severally to pay XYZ

Bank. By agreeing to this, A, B, and C has bound themselves
individually to render entire compliance of the obligation so that
XYZ bank can demand the entire amount from any of them. Since
XYZ chose A to pay the entire amount of 3M, he cannot claim the
defense that it is not just him who is liable for the entire obligation.
Therefore, A is wrong because being a solidary debtor he can be
made to pay the entire 3M obligation but subject to reimbursement
from B and C, in the amount of 1M each.
(Art. 1207 CC)

11.
A had three children, X, Y, and Z. In her will, A instituted only X and
Y as her heirs to her entire estate. She disinherited Z because Z
married a drug addict who was disrespectful. Is Z’s disinheritance
valid? Reason(s).

Suggested Answer:
No, Z’s disinheritance is not valid.

Under the Civil Code on succession, one of the grounds for

disinheriting a child or descendant is that when a child or
descendant leads a dishonorable or disgraceful life. Disgraceful and
Immoral Conduct has been defined as act which violates the basic
norm of decency, morality and decorum abhorred and condemned
by the society. It is such conduct that is willful, flagrant, or
shameless, which shows moral indifference to the opinion of the
good and respectable members of the community, and that is
indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness.

Here, Z married a drug addict. This act or decision made by Z may

be considered wrong or an exercise of a poor choice or judgment, to
some or most of the parents who just want what is best for their
children, but this cannot be considered as dishonorable nor
disgraceful under the law. There is just no corruption, indecency,
depravity, and dissoluteness in choosing to marry a drug addict. In
fact, in one of the decisions of the Supreme Court, drug addiction is
even dealt with, not as a crime, but a disease that needs to be treated.

Therefore, since the ground relied upon by A in disinheriting Z is not

among the grounds enumerated under the law, such disinheritance
is invalid.
[Art. 919(7)]
Common answers of students:

No, Z’s disinheritance is not valid.

Under the Civil Code, disinheritance without a specification

of the cause, or for a cause the truth of which, if contradicted,
is not proved, or which is not one of those set forth in the
Code, shall not be valid.

Here, the disinheritance of Z was because he married a drug

addict who was disrespectful to the testator. This is not
among the valid grounds for disinheritance; hence the
disinheritance is invalid.

(Take note that it is not enough to say that it is not one of the
valid grounds. You must cite/identify the particular ground
to which the testator had relied upon)

12.
A and B got married in 2018. It was only after the marriage that A
discovered B’s true colors. He refused to look for gainful
employment and instead relied on A’s salary for all his needs.
Worse, he would entertain drinking sprees for his barkada day in
and day out in their home. One time, he even asked A to dance for
them while they drank. A consequently filed a petition for declaration
of nullity of her marriage with B on the ground of B’s psychological
incapacity. In his answer, B opposed the petition on the ground that
since he was mentally healthy, he cannot be declared
psychologically incapacitated. Is B’s argument in accordance with
prevailing jurisprudence? Reason(s).

Suggested Answer:

No, B’s argument is not in accordance with the prevailing

jurisprudence.

In Tan-Andal vs Andal, the Supreme Court has defined psychological

incapacity as acts of dysfunctionality that show a lack of
understanding and concomitant compliance with one's essential
marital obligations due to psychic causes. It is not a medical illness
that has to be medically or clinically identified; hence, expert opinion
is not required. It is not also a personality disorder, but it is having
that "personality structure," which manifests itself through clear acts
of dysfunctionality that undermines the family.

In psychological incapacity, the question of mental health is not an

issue since psychological incapacity is not a medical illness but an
illness understood in a legal sense. The incapacity here must refer to
the essential obligations of marriage: the conjugal act, the
community of life and love, the rendering of mutual help, the
procreation and education of offspring; and this does not just refer
to the obligation of the husband and wife to each other but also the
obligation of the couple towards their children. There are only three
elements of psychological incapacity that must be proved, (a) the
gravity of the acts complained of, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c)
incurability; mental health is not included. Hence it was wrong for B
to say that just because he mentally healthy, he is not psychological
incapacitated as this runs counter to the prevailing jurisprudence.
(Tan-Andal vs Andal, GR No. 196359 May 11, 2021)

13.
X hired Yu as her driver for her daily commute to work. One Monday,
X woke up an hour late. To get to work on time, she instructed Y
to step on the pedal and drive fast. She also threatened to fire him
if she got to work late or if he damaged her brand-new car during
the drive. Afraid to lose his job, Y beat a red light along Osmeña
Avenue. As a result, he hit a motorcycle, resulting in the death
of the motorcycle driver. The bereaved family of the victim sued
both X and Y for damages. X raised the defense that she was
merely a passenger. As such, she could not be held liable for Y’s
negligence. Is X correct? Reason(s).

Suggested Answer:

No, X is not correct.

Under the Civil Code, on vicarious liability, employers shall be liable

for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers
acting within the scope of their assigned task, even though the
former are not engaged in any business or industry, unless said
employers can prove that they observed all the diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent damage. Under the said rule, it is the
employer who becomes primarily liable for the acts of the employee
should damages result from an act within the scope of their assigned
task.

Here, Yu is the employed driver of X. The incident happened while

Yu was doing his task as a driver, that is driving X to her work. It was
even her instruction for X to speed up as she was going to be late. X,
being the employer, is vicariously liable for the damage caused by
Yu to the family of the motorcycle driver.

Since X is the employer of Yu, her liability to the family of Yu’s victim
is primary, it is wrong then for X to say that she could not be liable
because she is just a mere passenger.
(2180 in relation to Article 2176 of the Civil Code)

14.
On March 15, 2025, A and B got married before Judge C as the
solemnizing officer inside her chambers in the Regional Trial Court
for Makati City. Unknown to both A and B, Judge C was dismissed
from the service by the Supreme Court on March 14, 2025 due to
grave misconduct. Judge C was only able to gain access to her
chambers on the day of the wedding to collect her things. What is
the status of A and B’s marriage? Reason(s).

Suggested Answer:

The marriage of A and B is valid.

Under the Family Code, a marriage solemnized by any person not

legally authorized to perform a marriage is considered void unless
such marriage was contracted with either or both parties believing
in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to
do so.

Here, it appears that Judge C has no authority anymore to solemnize

the marriage of A and B on account of his dismissal from the service.
This fact however is not known to both A and B. The couple believed
in good faith that Judge C has an authority to solemnize their
wedding and for this the marriage between them is considered as
valid even if the formal element of the authority of the solemnizing
officer is absent.
[Art. 35(2)]

15.
A died intestate and without any ascendants, descendants, and
surviving spouse. A was survived by B, his cousin, and C, his sister.
Can B demand from C to split A’s estate in half ? Reason(s).

Suggested Answer:

No, B cannot demand from C to split A’s estate in half.

Under the Civil Code on intestate succession, in every inheritance,

the relative nearest in degree excludes the more distant ones, saving
the right of representation when it properly takes place. This is what
we refer to as the rule of proximity. This rule ensures that the nearest
relative is given a preference over the distant ones.

In this case, since C, the sister is the nearer relative to the decedent
A, she excludes C, the cousin, being the farther relative. This being
so, C cannot demand from C to split the estate in half with him/her.
(Art. 962 CC)

16.
A and B got married in 1991 without a pre-nuptial agreement. In
1997, A forged B’s signature on the promissory note covering the
loan she obtained from Commercial Bank (PCB) for her printing
business. She also forged his signature on the real estate mortgage
constituted over three parcels of land which were acquired during
their marriage. A subsequently failed to pay the loan, so PCB
foreclosed the mortgage.

The three parcels of land were sold to PCB, the highest bidder. Upon
learning of the mortgage and sale, B filed a complaint to nullify the
real estate mortgage and cancel the certificate of sale, contending
that the same were void since he did not consent to the real estate
mortgage. Is B correct? Reason(s).

Suggested Answer:

Yes, B is correct in saying that the real estate mortgage is void.

Under the Family Code the property regime that governs a couple
married during the effectivity of the Family Code is the Absolute
Community of Property. Under the said property regime, all
properties before and during the marriage of the couple are
considered community save for exceptions. In such kind of property
regime, the administration and enjoyment of the community
property shall belong to both spouses jointly. Since the rights of the
spouses over their property is joint, the disposition or encumbrance
of the properties should be with the consent of both spouses. In the
absence of the consent of one, the disposition or encumbrance shall
be void.

Here, A and B got married in the year 1991 hence they are governed
by the absolute community property regime. Any disposition or
encumbrance of the community property should necessarily be with
the consent of both. It is clear that A forged the signature of B
showing that there was no consent from B on that contract of real
estate mortgage entered into by A with Commercial Bank (PCB).
This being so, the said contract is void.
(Art. 96 FC)

17.
A was a public school teacher in XYZ Elementary School. She
applied for and was granted several loans on various dates by the
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) amounting to PHP
147,000.00. In 2020, she retired from the service. She was
subsequently informed by the GSIS that her loan accounts were
considered to have been fully settled after her unpaid loans and
interests, amounting to PHP 638,172.59, were deducted from her
retirement benefits. It turned out that GSIS imposed interest on
arrears equivalent to 12% per annum compounded monthly and a
penalty equivalent to 6% per annum compounded monthly on A’s
loans, leading to the increase of her outstanding loan by 432.135%
from the original amount. Failing to obtain a favorable ruling from
the GSIS, A went to court, seeking to reduce the interest on arrears
and penalties for being unconscionable. Is A’s argument meritorious?
Reason(s).

Suggested Answer:

Yes, A’s argument is tenable.

The question of whether a penalty is reasonable or iniquitous is

subject to the sound discretion of the courts. Interest rates become
unconscionable in light of the context in which they were imposed
or applied. Thus, the determination of whether an interest rate or
penalty charge is reasonable or iniquitous rests on the sound
discretion of the courts based on the established facts of a particular
case. In the case of Aclado vs GSIS, the Court declared the interest
on arrears equivalent to 12% per annum compounded monthly and
penalty equivalent to 6% per annum compounded monthly imposed
by the GSIS as unreasonable, iniquitous, and unconscionable.

This case is the same as that of Aclado. To say that the difference is
enormous is an absolute understatement. For A’s loan to increase up
432.135% to that of her original loan is shocking to the conscience
and oppressive. It is repugnant and an iniquitous deprivation of her
property, repulsive to the common sense of man.

The argument therefore of A that the interest imposed upon her loan
is unconscionable is meritorious.
(CLARITA D. ACLADO vs GSIS, G.R. No. 260428. March 01,
2023)

18.
A entered into a contract of sale conveying a house and lot in favor
of B. Unwilling to pay thousands of pesos for notarization fees, A and
B decided not to have the contract of sale notarized. B nonetheless
made C, her nephew, a 2nd year law student, check the contract. C
informed his aunt that the sale was void because it was not in a public
instrument. He thus advised her to file a case in court to declare the
contract of sale void. Is C correct? Reason(s).

Suggested Answer:

No, C is not correct.

Under the Civil code, contracts are perfected by mere consent, and
from that moment the parties are bound not only to the fulfillment
of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the
consequences which, according to their nature, may be in keeping
with good faith, usage and law.

Here, there was a perfected contract of sale between A and B of the

house and lot in favor of B. As to them, the contract is binding and
legal. The requirement of the law for its notarization is only for the
purpose of registration so that the legal effect of the sale will extend
to third persons.

The advice therefore of C to her aunt is wrong as it contradicts the

provision of the Civil Code.
(Article 1315 CC)

19.
A leased out his condominium unit for 10 years for PHP 50,000.00 a
month. Meanwhile, A harbored his mistress X in his house while his
wife, B, was in the United States of America. Subsequently, A
donated to X the right to receive all rentals from the lessee of the
condominium unit. B filed an action to declare the donation void as
it was made between A and X who are guilty of concubinage. In their
defense, A and X claimed that the action should be dismissed since
the crime of concubinage should first be proved in a separate
criminal case. Decide with reason(s).

Suggested Answer:

The action should not be dismissed.

Under the Civil Code on Donation, those made between persons

who were guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time of the
donation is considered void. Further, the action for declaration of
nullity may be brought by the spouse of the donor or donee; and the
guilt of the donor and donee may be proved by preponderance of
evidence in the same action.

Here, the donation made by A to X is considered void because the

latter is the mistress of the donor. This is contrary to morals and
public policy. Meanwhile, it is not necessary to prove first the guilt of
A and X for concubinage before the petition to nullify the donation
can proceed because it can be determined in the same petition and
what is only required by law is preponderance of evidence. Hence,
the petition filed by B, the wife, can proceed without the necessary
prosecution of the criminal case of concubinage, what is needed is
just a preponderance of evidence.
(Article 739 CC)

A student answered like this:

The action should not be dismissed.

The rentals of the condominium is considered conjugal.

Under the Family Code, any alienation, encumbrance,
disposition or assignment of the conjugal property shall need
the consent of both spouses. Here, the donation of the rentals
was void because there was no consent from the wife. The
fact that the donation was made to a paramour is not
anymore necessary to discuss considering that the donation
is already void for lack of consent of the wife.
(Note: This may appear correct however, to assume that the
rental is conjugal is a wrong premise. The rental maybe
considered paraphernal if the condominium was acquired by
the husband thru gratuitous title during the marriage and the
couple are governed by the Absolute Community Property:

Art. 92. The following shall be excluded from the community

property:

(1) Property acquired during the marriage by gratuitous title

by either spouse, and the fruits as well as the income thereof,
if any, unless it is expressly provided by the donor, testator
or grantor that they shall form part of the community
property;

(2) Property for personal and exclusive use of either spouse.

However, jewelry shall form part of the community property;

(3) Property acquired before the marriage by either spouse

who has legitimate descendants by a former marriage, and
the fruits as well as the income, if any, of such property)

20.
On October 18, 2022, the Supreme Court En Banc promulgated the
Rule on International Child Abduction Cases (Rule) which
implements the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction of 1980. The Rule provides an
expeditious procedure to facilitate the prompt return of children who
have been wrongfully removed or retained across international
boundaries to their state or country of habitual residence. This is
based on the presumption that, save in exceptional circumstances,
the wrongful removal or retention of the children is not in their best
interests. Which of the Guiding Principles and Outcomes under the
Supreme Court’s Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2022-2027
(SPJI) are sought to be achieved by this Rule? Briefly explain your
answer.

Suggested Answer:

The Supreme Court's Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations (SPJI)

2022-2027 is guided by four principles that aim to modernize and
streamline judicial processes, enhance ethical standards, strengthen
accountability, and ensure timely administration of justice. The four
guiding principles under the SPJI are:
1. Timely and Fair Justice.
2. Transparent and Accountable Justice.
3. Equal and Inclusive Justice.
4. Technologically Adaptive Management.

The Rule on International Child Abduction Cases (Rule) which

implements the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction of 1980 provides an expeditious
procedure to facilitate the prompt return of children who have been
wrongfully removed or retained across international boundaries to
their state or country of habitual residence. The guiding principle
that is sought to be achieved by this rule is Timely and Fair justice
as ensures that the judiciary delivers justice in a timely and fair
manner, balancing efficiency with fairness.

-----END-----

By:

Hon. Minerva A. Viojan-Siosana

SPSPS Civil Law Review Professor