I.

I will not grant the petition on the ground that it lacks the standard to annul a marriage on the ground of Psychological
incapacity. The psychiarist proved juridical anticidence of Ariz psychological incapacity, however failed to establish the
gravity and incurrability of such psychological incapacity.
o. The petition does not fall under any of the grounds for the declaration of nullity of marriage as enumerated by the
family code. Art. 35-38 and 41. Psychological Incapacity as a ground will not prosper because it falls short of any of
the requisites (grave, judicial antecedence and incurability) listed. Decision of NMAT shall be afforded respect but is
not decisive in the case.

II
Valid. Testator may leave to a person the whole or part of the inheritance, and to another the usufruct (art. 869)
But since there is a fideicommisary substitution, the period not to alienate it shall last only up to the lifetime of the first
heir Alex and Rene. (Art. 870)
Observe the rule in 863, one degree transfer only.
3. No. In order that the donation of an immovable may be valid, it must be made in a public document. Noncompliance with the requirement of such solemn contract will render the deed of donation void. Here, Don Mariano
could not possibly take oath before a Notary Public by reason of his death. The deed of donation hence is void or
invalid for not being in a public document. Donation of immovable objects must be maid in public instruments in order
to be valid. Furthermore notarization is a mandatory requirement for all public instruments. In this case, the deed of
donation has not been notarized prior to the death of Don Mariano and hence it is not a public instrument and the
donation is void
4. No. In a contract to sell, the vendee reserves the right to transfer the ownership of the property until the full
payment of the agreed price; the non-payment of which would give right to the vendor to recover the property. Here,
the deed is clearly one of sale, and not to sell, for the intention of Nante is clear to transfer the ownership to Monica
for and in consideration of the agreed contract price; the non-payment of which would give the right to Nante to
demand specific performance or rescission of the contract with damages.
5.b
6. he motion for partial reconsideration must be granted. Article 147 of the Family Code applies to those who lived as
husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. Here, Miko and Dinah were married. While liquidation, partition and
distribution of properties apply, it should have been under Arts. 102 and 104, and not Art. 147 of the Family Code.
7. A) The contract is one of deposit made by travellers in hotels or inns. Here, Cris and Square One Hotel entered into
a contract of deposit when the former gave his key to the latter's parking attendant which in turn gave him a valet
parking stub. It is considered a necessary deposit.
(B) The liability of the Hotel is governed by voluntary deposit and not that of necessary deposit if the deposit takes

place on the occasion of calamity such as flood. The Hotel is not liable for loss from force mejeure. Here, the
carnapping incident cannot be considered as force majeure unless it is with the use of arms or irresistable force.
Hence, the liability of Hotel will depend upon the excercise of the degree of care required of him.
8. No, what happened in the case is a mere unilateral promise to sell the property but since Ruth did not give any
consideration different from the supposed purchase price of the property, the promise should not be binding on Tess.
No. Right of first refusal only gives the lessee the right to purchase the property subject of lease in a form of a
continuing offer for a period. Here, Ruth failed to exercise the right in one year. She cannot thereafter invoke the right
of first refusal, thus making her complaint untenable.
9. maceda law is not applicable for it excludes industrial lot
10. No. The SC has held that notice is, among others, a mandatory requirement to effect a valid consignation, such
that the absence thereof would make the consignation invalid.
11.d
12. No. There was no novation. Partial payment does not cause novation. Novation cannot be presumed but must be
expressly intended by the parties.
13. The contention of Edith and Philip is not valid as reserva troncal, in the case at bar, cannot apply. First, Peachy is
not the ascendant (reservista) within the purview of Article 891 of the Civil Code. She is a collateral relative of Cesar
(prepositus) who acquired the subject properties by inheritance from his father Jun (ascendant). Ownership of the
property must be reckoned from Jun whom the subject properties were adjudicated in his favor and from whom the
first transmission under reserva troncal occured. Second, Edith and Philip are not relatives within the third degree of
Cesar from whom the property came, thus, cannot be the reservistas as contemplated under the law. Again, reserva
troncal is not applicable in the instant case.
14.c
15.
16. A. Yes, hidden treasure as described in the Civil Code, refers to hidden money, jewelry and other precious objects
in which lawful ownership over such objects are unknown. In the facts, the treasure chest was discovered in the
backyard and the lawful owner of the chest cannot be identified.
B. The law says that the owner of the property in which the treasure was discovered has right of ownership over such
treasure. But the finder, if not the owner, is entitled to a share of the treasure. In the case, Spouses Manuel being the
owner of the property owns the treasure but Maria who is a stranger to the property but not a trespasser by virtue of
the commodatum, is entitled to an equal share of the treasure.
17.
18. The act of Francisco and his men is unlawful. The law provides for remedies to a person being deprived of the
possession and enjoyment of his property by another. In the case at bar, if the written demand of Francisco against
spouses Magtanggol remains unheeded, a case for unlawful detainer should have been resorted to by Francisco in
order to restore unto him the physical possession of the subject property instead of using force by the aid of the group

of armed men to wrest physical possession of the said property. By taking the law into their own hands, Francisco and
his men committed an unlawful act.
19.a
20. No valid waiver, a person cannot waive a right not yet accorded to him. When the waiver was signed, the right to
sue is not yet present. Exam ni atty lopez-rosario 'to
21.B
22. (A) I will not grant the petition. A presidential declaration is not sufficient to convert the agricultural land to A&D.
(See Roxas vs Damba)
(B) No. he cannot. Possession of agri lands of the public domain no matter how long cannot ripen into ownership
MALABANAN CASE
23.c
24. Yes, it is necessary for Ted to file a petition for the judicial recognition of the divorce decree he obtained abroad.
Well-settled in our jurisdiction that our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws, such as the divorce judgment
obtained by Ted in Canada in the case at bar. Like any other facts, the fact of divorce must be presented and proved.
25.yes
26.c
27.
28. Petition Denied. Sec 7 and 9 of Domestic Adoption Act. Husband and wife SHALL jointly adopt, and spouse
consent is necessary.
29.Partnership
30.