1. Aligada orally offered to sell his two-hectare rice land to Balane for P10 million.

The offer
was orally accepted. By agreement, the land was to be delivered (through execution of a
notarized Deed of Sale) and the price was to be paid exactly one month from their oral
agreement. Which statement is most accurate? 2012
(A) If Aligada refuses to deliver the land on the agreed date despite payment by Balane,
the latter may not successfully sue Aligada because the contract is oral.
(B) If Aligada refused to deliver the land, Balane may successfully sue for fulfillment of
the obligation even if he has not tendered payment of the purchase price.
(C) The contract between the parties is rescissible.
(D) The contract between the parties is subject to ratification by the parties.

2. Which of the following actions or defenses are meritorious: (1%) 2013

(A) An action for recovery of downpayment paid under a rescinded oral sale of real
property.
(B) A defense in an action for ejectment that the lessor verbally promised to extend or
renew the lease.
(C) An action for payment of sum of money filed against one who orally promised to
answer another's debt in case the latter defaults.
(D) A defense in an action for damages that the debtor has sufficient, but unliquidated
assets to satisfy the credit acquired when it becomes due.
(E) None of the above.

3. Michael Fermin, without the authority of Pascual Lacas, owner of a car, sold the same
car in the name of Mr. Lacas to Atty. Buko. The contract between Atty. Buko and Mr.
Lacas is 2012
(A) Void because of the absence of consent from the owner, Mr. Lacas
(B) Valid because all of the essential requisites of a contract are present
(C) Unenforceable because Michael Fermin had no authority but he sold the car in the
name of Mr. Lacas, the owner
(D) Rescissible because the contract caused lesion to Atty. Buko.

4. Roy and Carlos both undertook a contract to deliver to Sam in Manila a boat docked in
Subic. Before they could deliver it, however, the boat sank in a storm. The contract
provides that fortuitous event shall not exempt Roy and Carlos from their obligation.
Owing to the loss of the motor boat, such obligation is deemed converted into one of
indemnity for damages. Is the liability of Roy and Carlos joint or solidary? 2011

(A) Neither solidary nor joint since they cannot waive the defense of fortuitous event to
which they are entitled.
(B) Solidary or joint upon the discretion of Sam.

(C) Solidary since Roy and Carlos failed to perform their obligation to deliver the motor
boat.
(D) Joint since the conversion of their liability to one of indemnity for damages made it
joint.

Jude owned a building which he had leased to several tenants. Without informing his tenants, Jude
sold the building to Ildefonso. Thereafter, the latter notified all the tenants that he is the new owner of
the building. Ildefonso ordered the tenants to vacate the premises within thirty (30) days from notice
because he had other plans for the building. The tenants refused to vacate, insisting that they will
only do so when the term of their lease shall have expired. Is Ildefonso bound to respect the lease
contracts between Jude and his tenants? Explain your answer. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Ildefonso must respect the lease contracts between Jude and his tenants. While it is true that
the said lease contracts were not registered and annotated on the title of the property, Ildefonso is
still not an innocent purchaser for value. He ought to know the existence of the lease because the
building was already occupied by the tenants at the time he bought it. Applying the principle of
caveat emptor, he should have checked and known the status of the occupants or their right to
occupy the building before buying it.

Before migrating to Canada in 1992, the spouses Teodoro and Anita entrusted all their legal papers
and documents to their nephew, Atty. Tan. Taking advantage of the situation, Atty. Tan forged a deed
of sale, making it appear that he had bought the couples property in Quezon City. In 2000, he
succeeded in obtaining a TCT over the property in his name. Subsequently, Atty. Tan sold the same
property to Luis, who built an auto repair shop on the property. In 2004, Luis registered the deed of
conveyance, and title over the property was transferred in his name.
In 2006, the spouses Teodoro and Anita came to the Philippines for a visit and discovered what had
happened to their property. They immediately hire you as lawyer. What action or actions will you
institute in order to vindicate their rights? Explain fully. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will institute the following actions against Atty. Tan:
(a) A civil action for damages for the fraudulent transfer of the title in his name and to recover
the value of the property;
(b) An action against the National treasurer for compensation from the State Assurance Fund
which is set aside by law to pay those who lose their land or suffer damages as a
consequence of the operation of the Torrens system;
(c) A criminal action for forgery or falsification of public document;
(d) A complaint with the Supreme Court, Integrated Bar of the Philippines to disbar or suspend
him or other disciplinary action for violation of the Code of Professional Ethics.
Any action against Luis will not prosper because he is an innocent purchaser for value. The title to
the land he bought was already in the name of the person who sold the property to him and there is
nothing on the title which will make him suspect about the fraud committed by Atty. Tan.

The Ifugao Arms is a condominium project in Baguio City. A strong earthquake occurred which left
huge cracks in the outer walls of the building. As a result, a number of condominium units were

rendered unfit for use. May Edwin, owner of one of the condominium units affected, legally sue for
partition by sale of the whole project? Explain. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Edwin may legally sue for partition by sale of the whole condominium project under the
following conditions: (a) the damages or destruction cause by the earthquake has rendered one-half
(1/2) or more of the units therein untenable, and (b) that the condominium owners holding an
aggregate of more than thirty percent (30%) interest of the common areas are opposed to the
restoration of the condominium project (Sec. 8[b], RA 472 Condominium Act).

In 1972, Luciano de la Cruz sold to Chua Chung Chun, a Chinese citizen, a parcel of land in
Binondo. Chua died in 1990, leaving behind his wife and three children, one of whom, Julian, is a
naturalized Filipino citizen. Six years after Chuas death, the heirs executed an extrajudicial
settlement of estate, and the parcel of land was allocated to Julian. In 2007, Luciano filed suit to
recover the land he sold to Chua, alleging that the sale was void because it contravened the
Constitution which prohibits the sale of private lands to aliens. Julian moved to dismiss the suit on
grounds of pari delicto, laches and acquisitive prescription. Decide the case with reasons. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The case must be dismissed. Julian, who is a naturalized Filipino citizen and to whom the property
was allocated in an extra-judicial partition of the estate, is now the new owner of the property. The
defect in ownership of the property of Julias alien father has already been cured by its transfer to
Julian. It had been validated by the transfer of the property to a Filipino citizen. Hence, there is no
more violation of the Constitution because the subject real property is now owned by a Filipino
citizen (Halili v. CA [1998]). Furthermore, after the lapse of 35 years, laches has set in and the
motion to dismiss may be granted, for the failure of Luciano to question the ownership of Chua
before its transfer to Julian.