2000 BAR EXAMINATION

I
a) As finance officer of K and Co., Victorino arranged a loan of
P5MillionfromPNBforthecorporation. However,hewas required by the bank to sign a
Continuing Surety Agreement to secure the repayment of the loan. The corporation
failed to pay the loan, and the bank obtained a judgment against it and Victorino,
jointly and severally. To enforce the judgment, the sheriff levied on a farm owned by
the conjugal partnership of Victorino and his wife Elsa. Is the levy proper or not?
(3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The levy is not proper there being no showing that the surety agreement executed by the
husband redounded to the benefit of the family. An obligation contracted by the husband
alone is chargeable against the conjugal partnership only when it was contracted for the
benefit of the family. When the obligation was contracted on behalf of the family business
the law presumes that such obligation will redound to the benefit of the family. However,
when the obligation was to guarantee the debt of a third party, as in the problem, the
obligation is presumed for the benefit of the third party, not the family. Hence, for the
obligation under the surety agreement to be chargeable against the partnership it must be
proven that the family was benefited and that the benefit was a direct result of such
agreement,
(Ayala Investment v. Ching, 286 SCRA 272)

b) On April 15, 1980, Rene and Angelina were married to each other without a
marriage settlement. In 1985, they acquired a parcel of land in Quezon City. On June
1, 1990, when Angelina was away in Baguio, Rene sold the said lot to Marcelo. Is the
sale void or voidable? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The sale is void. Since the sale was executed in 1990, the Family Code is the law
applicable. Under Article 124 of the FC, the sale of a conjugal property by a spouse
without the consent of the other is void.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The sale is voidable. The provisions of the Family Code may apply retroactively but
only if such application will not impair vested rights. When Rene and Angelina got
married in 1980, the law that governed their property relations was the New Civil
Code. Under the NCC, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Heirs of Felipe v.
Aldon, 100 SCRA 628 and reiterated in Heirs of Ayuste v. Malabonga, G.R No, 118784, 2
September 1999, the sale executed by the husband without the consent of the wife is
voidable. The husband has already acquired a vested right on the voidable nature of
dispositions made without the consent of the wife. Hence, Article 124 of the Family
Code which makes the sale void does not apply.
II
For five years since 1989, Tony, a bank Vice-president, and Susan, an entertainer,
lived together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage although they
were capacitated to many each other. Since Tony's salary was more than enough for
their needs, Susan stopped working and merely "kept house". During that period,
Tony was able to buy a lot and house in a plush subdivision. However, after five
years, Tony and Susan decided to separate.
a) Who will be entitled to the house and lot? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Tony and Susan are entitled to the house and lot as coowners in equal shares. Under
Article 147 of the Family Code, when a man and a woman who are capacitated to
marry each other lived exclusively with each other as husband and wife, the property
acquired during their cohabitation are presumed to have been obtained by their joint
efforts, work or industry and shall be owned by them in equal shares. This is true
even though the efforts of one of them consisted merely in his or her care and
maintenance of the family and of the household.
b) Would it make any difference if Tony could not marry Susan because he was
previously married to Alice from whom he is legally separated? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, it would make a difference. Under Article 148 of the Family Code, when the
parties to the cohabitation could not marry each other because of an impediment,
only those properties acquired by both of them through their actual joint
contribution of money, property, or Industry shall be owned by them in common in
proportion to their respective contributions. The efforts of one of the parties in
maintaining the family and household are not considered adequate contribution in the
acquisition of the properties.
Since Susan did not contribute to the acquisition of the house and lot, she has no
share therein. If Tony cohabited with Susan after his legal separation from Alice, the
house and lot is his exclusive property. If he cohabited with Susan before his legal
separation from Alice, the house and lot belongs to his community or partnership
with Alice.

III
Manuel, a Filipino, and his American wife Eleanor, executed a Joint Will in Boston,
Massachusetts when they were residing in said city. The law of Massachusetts allows
the execution of joint wills. Shortly thereafter, Eleanor died. Can the said Will be
probated in the Philippines for the settlement of her estate? (3%)
Yes, the will may be probated in the Philippines insofar as the estate of Eleanor is
concerned. While the Civil Code prohibits the execution of Joint wills here and
abroad, such prohibition applies only to Filipinos. Hence, the joint will which is valid
where executed is valid in the Philippines but only with respect to Eleanor. Under
Article 819, it is void with respect to Manuel whose joint will remains void in the
Philippines despite being valid where executed.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The will cannot be probated in the Philippines, even though valid where executed,
because it is prohibited under Article 818 of the Civil Code and declared void under
Article 819, The prohibition should apply even to the American wife because the
Joint will is offensive to public policy. Moreover, it is a single juridical act which
cannot be valid as to one testator and void as to the other.
IV
In his last will and testament, Lamberto 1) disinherits his daughter Wilma because
"she is disrespectful towards me and raises her voice talking to me", 2) omits entirely
his spouse Elvira, 3) leaves a legacy of P100,000.00 to his mistress Rosa and
P50,000.00 to his driver Ernie and 4) institutes his son Baldo as his sole heir. How
will you distribute his estate of P1,000,000.00? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The disinheritance of Wilma was ineffective because the ground relied upon by the
testator does not constitute maltreatment under Article 919(6) of the New Civil
Code. Hence, the testamentary provisions in the will shall be annulled but only to the
extent that her legitime was impaired.
The total omission of Elvira does not constitute preterition because she is not a
compulsory heir in the direct line. Only compulsory heirs in the direct line may be the
subject of preterition. Not having been preterited, she will be entitled only to her
legitime.
The legacy in favor of Rosa is void under Article 1028 for being in consideration of
her adulterous relation with the testator. She is, therefore, disqualified to receive the
legacy of 100,000 pesos. The legacy of 50,000 pesos in favor of Ernie is not
inofficious not having exceeded the free portion. Hence, he shall be entitled to
receive it.
The institution of Baldo, which applies only to the free portion, shall be respected. In
sum, the estate of Lamberto will be distributed as follows:
Baldo-----------------450,000
Wilma---------------250,000
Elvira-----------------250,000
Ernie-----------------50,000
1,000,000
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The disinheritance of Wilma was effective because disrespect of, and raising of voice to, her father
constitute maltreatment under Article 919(6) of the New Civil Code. She is, therefore, not entitled to
inherit anything. Her inheritance will go to the other legal heirs. The total omission of Elvira is not
preterition because she is not a compulsory heir in the direct line. She will receive only her legitime.
The legacy in favor of Rosa is void under Article 1028 for being in consideration of her adulterous
relation with the testator. She is, therefore, disqualified to receive the legacy. Ernie will receive the
legacy in his favor because it is not inofficious. The institution of Baldo, which applies only to the
free portion, will be respected. In sum, the estate of Lamberto shall be distributed as follows:
Heir Legitime Legacy Institution TOTAL
Baldo 500,000 200.000 700,000 Elvira 250,000 250,000 Ernie 50,000 50,000 TOTAL 750,000 50,000
200,000 1,000,000

V
Sometime in 1990, Sarah, born a Filipino but by then a naturalized American citizen,
and her American husband Tom, filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court of
Makati, for the adoption of the minor child of her sister, a Filipina. Can the petition
be granted? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(per dondee) It depends. Rules on Adoption effective August 22, 2002 provides the
following; SEC. 4. Who may adopt. The following may adopt: Any Filipino Citizen
of legal age, in possession of full civil capacity and legal rights, of good moral
character, has not been convicted of any crime involving moral
turpitude;
(Year 1990-2006)
who is emotionally and psychologically capable of caring for children, at least sixteen (16)
years older than the adoptee, and who is in a position to support and care for his children
in keeping with the means of the family. The requirement of a 16-year difference between
the age of the adopter and adoptee may be waived when the adopter is the biological parent
of the adoptee or is the spouse of the adoptees parent;
Any Alien possessing the same qualifications as above-stated
for Filipino nationals: Provided, a) That his country has
diplomatic relations with the Republic of the Philippines,
b) that he has been living in the Philippines for at least three (3) continuous years prior to
the filing of the petition for adoption and maintains such residence until the adoption decree
is entered,
c) that he has been certified by his diplomatic or consular office or any appropriate
government agency to have
the legal capacity to adopt in his country, d) and that his government allows the adoptee to
enter
his country as his adopted child.
Provided, further, That the requirements on residency and certification of the aliens
qualification to adopt in his country may be waived for the following: a) a former Filipino
citizen who seeks to adopt a relative
within the fourth (4th) degree of consanguinity or affinity; or b) one who seeks to adopt the
legitimate child of his Filipino spouse; or
c) one who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with his spouse a
relative within the fourth (4th) degree of consanguinity or affinity of the Filipino spouse.