2018 Civil Law Bar Questions With Suggested Answers

4SBCE 2018-2019 2018 CIVIL LAW BAR QUESTIONS WITH SUGGESTED ANSWERS I.

Sidley and Sol were married with one (1) daughter, Solenn. Sedfrey and Sonia were another couple with one son, Sonny. Sol and Sedfrey both perished in the same plane accident. Sidley and Sonia met when the families of those who died sued the airlines and went through grief-counseling sessions. Years later, Sidley and Sonia got married. At that time, Solenn was four (4) years old and Sonny was five (5) years old. These two (2) were then brought up in the same household. Fifteen (15) years later, Solenn and Sonny developed romantic feelings towards each other, and eventually eloped. On their own and against their parents' wishes, they procured a marriage license and got married in church. a. Is the marriage of Solen and Sonny valid, voidable or void?

The Marriage is voidable. Under Article 45 of the Family Code, a marriage may be annulled when, at the time of the marriage, the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was eighteen years of age or over but below twenty-one, and the marriage was solemnized without the consent of the parents, guardian guardian or or person having having substitute substitute parental parental authority authority over the party, in that that order. Here, since Solen is 19 years old and Sonny is 20 years old, they should have sought the consent of their parents, guardians, guardians, or persons having substitute parental authority over them. Failing to do that, their their marriage is voidable. b. If the marriage is defective, can the marriage be ratified by the free cohabitation of the spouses?

Yes. Under Article 45 of the Family Code, such marriage may ratified by the cohabitation of the Contracting parties after attaining the age of twenty-oneas husband and wife.

II.

After finding out that his girlfriend Sandy was four (4) months pregnant, Sancho married Sandy. Both were single and had never been in any serious relationship in the past. Prior to the marriage, they agreed in a marriage settlement that the regime of conjugal partnership of gains shall govern their property relations during marriage. Shortly after the marriage, their daughter, Shalimar, was born. Before they met and got married, Sancho purchased a parcel of land on installment, under a Contract of Sale, with the full purchase price payable in equal annual amortizations over a period of ten (10) years, with no down payment, and secured by a mortgage on the land. The full purchase price was PhP1 million, with interest at the rate of 6% per 6% per annum. After paying the fourth (4th) annual installment, Sancho and Sandy got married, and Sancho completed the payments in the subsequent years from his salary as an accountant. The previous payments were also paid out of his salary. During their marriage, Sandy also won PhP1 million in the lottery and used it to purchase jewelry. When things didn't work out for the couple, they filed an action for declaration of nullity of their marriage based on the psychological incapacity of both of them. When the petition was granted, the parcel of land and the jewelry bought by Sandy were found to be the only properties of the couple. 1 of 14

The world's largest digital library

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.







4SBCE 2018-2019 a) What is the filiation status of Shalimar?

Shalimar is a legitimate child of Sancho and Sandy. Under Art. 164 of the Family Code (FC), children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are legitimate. Since Sancho and Sandy had been married when Shalimar was born, Shalimar is a legitimate child.

b) What system of property relationship will be liquidated following declaration of nullity of their marriage?

The regime of conjugal partnership of gains is the system of property relationship that governed the marriage of Sancho and Sandy. Art. 75 of the FC provides that the future spouses may, in the marriage settlements, agree upon the regime of conjugal partnership of gains. Here, Sancho and Sandy agreed in their marriage settlement, which they executed prior to their marriage, that the regime of conjugal partnership partnership of gains s hall govern their property relations. Therefore, the conjugal partnership of gains is the property regime that will be liquidated upon the declaration of nullity of their marriage.

c) In the liquidation, who should get the parcel of land? The jewelry?

The parcel of land is a conjugal property of Sancho and Sandy. Art. 118 of the FC states that property bought on installments installments paid partly from exclusive exclusive funds of either or both spouses and partly from conjugal funds belongs to the conjugal partnership if such ownership was vested during the marriage. Any amount advanced by either spouse shall be reimbursed by the owners upon the liquidation of the partnership. partnership. In the present present case, the parcel of land was bought by Sancho Sancho on installment installment prior to his marriage with Sandy. As full payment was completed during their marriage, the ownership of the land was vested during their marriage. Hence, the parcel of land is a conjugal property subject to Sancho’s right of reimbursement for what he has paid prior to the marriage. The jewelry is also a conjugal property. According to Art. 117(1) of the FC, those which are acquired by onerous title during the marriage at the expense of the common fund, whether the acquisition be for the partnership partnership or for only one of the spouses are conjugal properties. properties. In the case at bar, what was used by Sandy to purchase the jewelry is the Php1 million that she won from the lottery which as provided by par. 7 of the same article is part of the conjugal properties. Since the common fund was used to acquire the jewelry, jewelry, the latter latter is a conjugal conjugal property. property. Upon dissolution of the conjugal partnership regime, the net remainder of the conjugal properties shall constitute the profits which shall be divided equally between Sandy and Sancho, unless a different proportion or division was agreed upon the marriage settlement settlement or unless unless there has been a voluntary waiver or forfeiture of such share (Art. 129, par. 7 FC). d) Is Shalimar entitled to payment of presumptive legitime? If yes, how much should be her share and from where should this be taken?

Yes, Shalimar is entitled to the payment of presumptive legitime amounting to onehalf her parents’ estate as their legitimate child. Under Art. 888 of the NCC, the legitime of legitimate children consists of onehalf of the estate of the parents. This presumptive legitime will then be taken from the net estate of the







4SBCE 2018-2019 III.

Silverio was a woman trapped in a man's body. He was born male and his birth certificate indicated his gender as male, and his name as Silverio Stalon. When he reached the age of 21, he had a sex reassignment surgery in Bangkok, and, from then on, he lived as a female. On the basis of his sex reassignment, he filed an action to have his first name changed to Shelley, and his gender, to female. While he was following up his case with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, he met Sharon Stan, who also filed a similar action to change her first name to Shariff, and her gender, from female to male. Sharon was registered as a female upon birth. While growing up, she developed male characteristics and was diagnosed to have congenital adrenal hyperplasia ("CAH") which is a condition where a person possesses possesses both male and female characteristics. characteristics. At puberty, tests revealed that her ovarian structures structures had greatly minimized, and she had no breast or menstrual development. Alleging that for all intents and appearances, as well as mind and emotion, she had become a male, she prayed that her birth certificate be corrected such that her gender should be changed from female to male, and that her first name should be changed from Sharon to Shariff. Silverio and Sharon fell in love and decided to marry. Realizing that their marriage will be frowned upon in the Philippines, they travelled to Las Vegas, USA where they got married based on the law of the place of celebration of the marriage. They, however, kept their Philippine citizenship. (a) Is there any legal bases b ases for the court to approve Silverio's petition for correction of entries in his birth certificate? (b) Will your answer be the same in the case of Sharon's S haron's petition? (c) Can the marriage of Silverio (Shelley) and Sharon (Shariff) be legally recognized as valid in the Philippines?

a. In both instances, No.A No. A person’s first name cannot be changed on the ground of sex reassignment since it is not among the grounds stated under R.A 9048. Likewise, with respect to the change of sex from male to female, there is no law which allows the change of entry in the birth certificate as to sex on the same ground, ground, the determination of a person’s sex is that which appears in his birth certificate. (SI LVERIO VS REPUBLIC) b. No, where where the person is afflicted with CAH or is biologically biologically or naturally naturally intersex the determining determining factor in his gender classification would be what the individualhaving reached the age of majority, with good reason thinks of his/her sex. (REPUBLIC VS CAGANDAHAN) c. No, Since Silverio is still a man and Sharon, upon approval of her petition is now considered as a man,the marriage between them shall be void ab initio as it is classified as same sex marriage violating Arts. 15 and 17 par. 3 of the new civil code, as well as Art. 1 and 2 of the Family Code.







4SBCE 2018-2019 the older siblings Soler, Sulpicio, and Segundo sold the land to Dr. Santos for PhP500,000 with a right to repurchase, at the same price, within five (5) years from the date of the sale. The deed of sale was signed only by the three (3) older siblings, and covered the entire property. Before the five (5) years expired, Sole and Sulpicio tendered their respective shares of PhP166,666 each to redeem the property. Since Segundo did not have the means because he was still unemployed, Saturnina paid the remaining PhP166,666 to redeem the property. After the property was redeemed from Dr. Santos, the three (3) older children and Saturnina, for herself and on behalf of the twins who were still minors, sold the property to Dr. Sazon, in an absolute sale, for PhP1 million. In representing the twins, Saturnina relied on the fact that she was the natural guardian of her minor children. (a) Was the first sale to Dr. Santos, and the subsequent s ubsequent repurchase, valid? (b) Was the second sale to Dr. Sazon valid? May the twins redeem their share after they reach the age of majority?

a. Yes, the first sale is valid but only insofar as the share of the older siblings. Article 777 of the NCC provides that the rights to the succession succession ar e transmitted from the moment moment of the death of the decedent. The heirs can convey their rights to third persons even before the settlement of the estate of the deceased. However, the effect of the alienation is limited to what is ultimately adjudicated to the heir who made made the alienation. In this case, the sale by the older siblings affects only their respective shares. Also, the subsequent repurchase is valid. Article 1088 of the NCC provides that should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a stranger before the partition, any or all of the co-heirs may be subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by reimbursing him for the price of the sale, provided they do so within one month from notice.

b. Yes, the s econd sale is valid in so far as the sale of the shares of the older siblings siblings and their mother. mother. The twins may redeem their share at the age of majority. Article 412 of the NCC provides that the father and the mother shall jointly exercise legal guardianship over the property of the unemancipated unemancipated common child without the necessity of court appointment. Saturnina, being the mother of the twins indeed had legal guardianship over the property of the twins while they are still minors. However, the Supreme Court held in the case of Neri vs Heirs Heirs of Uy ( GR No. No. 194366, 194366, October 10, 10, 2012), the parents’ the parents’ authority authority is only for acts of administration and does not include acts of ownership. A father or a mother, as natural guardian of the minor under parental authority, does not have the power to dispose or encumber the property of the latter. Such power is granted by law only to a judicial guardian of the ward’s property and even even then only only eith the court’s prior court’s prior approval secured in accordance with the proceedings set by the Rules Rules of Court. Court. Therefore, the mother having no judicial authority to sell the property of the twins, the sale as to does not include the share of the twins.







4SBCE 2018-2019 V.

Sol Soldivino, widow, passed away, leaving two (2) legitimate children: a 25- year old son, Santino (whom she had not spoken to for five [5] years prior to her death since he attempted to kill her at that time), and a 20-year-old daughter, Sara. She left an estate worth PhP8 million and a will containing only one provision: that PhP1 million should be given to "the priest who officiated at my wedding to my children's late father." Sara, together with two (2) of her friends, acted as an attesting witness to the will. On the assumption that the will is admitted for probate and that there are no debts, divide the estate and indicate the heirs/legatees entitled to inherit, the amount that each of them will inherit, and where (i.e., legitime/free legitime/free portion/intestate share) their shares should be charged.

Santino and Sara shall be entitled to half of the estate as their legitime. Thus, they are entitled to 4M collectively, or 2M each. The legitime of legitimate children and descendants consists of one-half of the hereditary estate of the father and of the mother (Art. 888). The priest, being a legatee, is entitled to his 1M as provided by the decedent’s last will and testament. This share is chargable to the Free Portion of the hereditary estate. The remaining 3M shall be subjected to the rules of intestate succession. Sara is incapacitated to inherit since she was an attesting witness.

VI.

Sammy and Santi are cousins who separately inherited two (2) adjoining lots from their grandfather. Sammy is based overseas but wants to earn income from his inherited land, so he asked a local contractor to build a row of apartments on his property which he could rent out. The contractor sent him the plans and Sammy noticed that the construction encroached on a part of Santi's land but he said nothing and gave approval to construct based on the plans submitted by the local contractor. Santi, based locally, and who loved his cousin dearly, did not object even if he knew of the encroachment since he was privy to the plans and visited the property regularly. Later, the cousins had a falling out and Santi demanded that the portion of the apartments apartments that that encroached encroached on his his land be demolished. demolished. Can Santi successfully file legal action to require demolition?

No, Santi cannot successfully successfully file a legal action action to require demolition. Art. 453 of the NCC provides provides that if there was bad faith, not only on the part of the person who built on the land of another, but also on the part of the owner of such land, the rights of one and the other shall be the same as though both had acted in good faith. There is bad faith on the part of the landowner whenever the act was done with his knowledge and without the opposition on his part. Here, Sammy acted in bad faith when he approved the construction despite knowing that it encroached upon Santi’s land. Santi also acted in bad faith for he did not object even if he knew of the encroachment. Therefore, both of them is deemed to have acted in good faith. Demolition, consequently, cannot be had.







4SBCE 2018-2019 VII.

Sydney, during her lifetime, was a successful lawyer. By her own choice, she remained unmarried and devoted all her time to taking care of her nephew and two (2) nieces: Socrates, Saffinia, and Sophia. She wrote a will giving all her properties remaining upon her death to the three (3) of them. The will was admitted to probate during her lifetime. Later, she decided to make a new will giving all her remaining properties properties only to the two (2) girls, Saffinia and Sophia. She then tore up the previously pr eviously probated will. The second will was presented for probate only after her death. However, the probate court found the second will to be void for failure to comply with formal requirements. (a) Will the doctrine of dependent relative revocation apply? (b) Will your answer be the same if the second will was found to be valid but both Saffinia and Sophia renounce their inheritance?

a. Yes, the doctrine of relative revocation will apply. Under this doctrine, when a first will is revoked to connect with the making of the new will so as to fairly raise the inference that the testator meant the revocation of the old will to depend upon the efficacy of the new disposition, if for any reason the new will becomes inoperative, the old will shall remain in force and the prior revocation is deemed void. b. No, even if the instituted heirs in the second will renounced their r ights to the inheritance, it does not have the effect of revocation of the will as would permit the application of the doctrine of dependent relative revocation . The effect will just pave the way for intestate succession and not the revival of the previously revoked will. will.

VIII.

Sofronio was a married father of two when he had a brief fling with Sabrina, resulting in her pregnancy and the birth of their son Sinforoso. Though his wife knew nothing of the affair, Sofronio regretted it, but secretly provided child support for Sinforoso. Unfortunately, when Sinforoso was 10 years old, Sofronio died. Only Sofronio's father, Salumbides, knew of Sabrina and Sinforoso. For the purpose of providing support to Sinforoso, Salumbides gave Sabrina usufructruary · rights over one of his properties - a house and lot - to last until Sinforoso reaches the age of majority. Sabrina was given possession of the property on the basis of caucion juratoria. Two (2) years after the creation of the usufruct, the house accidentally burned down, down, and three three (3) years years thereafter, thereafter, Sinforoso died died before he he could reach the age of 18. Will the usufruct continue after the house has burned down? If yes, will it continue after Sinforoso's death?

Suggested Answers









4SBCE 2018-2019 In this case, since the usufruct was constituted on the house and lot, the usufructuary eill continue even after the house has burned down. 2. No, the usufructuary will not continue after the death of Sinforoso. Article 603 of the NCC provides that a usufruct is extinguished, among others, by the termination of the right of the person constituting the usufruct. In this case, it is clear from the agreement that the usufruct was instituted for the benefit of the minor until he reaches the age of majority. Since the minor died before reaching the age of majority, the usufruct is extinguished because the purpose for which it was constituted was already extinguished.

IX.

Newlyweds Newlyweds Sam and Sienna Sienna had contracted with Sangria Hotel for their their wedding reception. reception. The couple was so unhappy with the service, claiming, among other things, that there was an unreasonable delay in the service of dinner and that certain items promised were unavailable. The hotel claims that, while there was a delay in the service of the meals, the same was occasioned by the sudden increase of guests to 450 from the guaranteed expected number of 350, as stated in the Banquet and Meeting Services Contract. In the action for damages for breach of contract instituted by the couple, they claimed that the Banquet and Meeting Services Contract was a contract of adhesion since they only provided the number of guests and chose the menu. On the other hand, the hotel's defense was that the proximate cause of the complainant's injury was the unexpected increase in their guests, and this was what set the chain of events that resulted in the alleged inconveniences. a. Does the doctrine if proximate cause apply?

No. The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable applicable only in actions for quasi-delicts, quasi-delicts, not in actions involving breach of contract. The doctrine is a device for imputing liability to a person where there is no relation between him and another party. In such a case, the obligation is created by law itself. But, where there is a pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, it is the parties themselves who create the obligation, and the function of the law is merely to regulate the relation thus created. What applies in the present case is Article 1170 of the Civil Code which reads: “Those who in the performance performance of their







4SBCE 2018-2019 X.

Sinclair and Steffi had an illicit relationship while Sinclair was married to another. The relationship produced a daughter daughter Sabina, who grew up with her her mother. For most parts of Sabina's youth, Steffi spent for her support and education. When Sabina was 21 years old, Sinclair's wife of many years died. Sinclair and Steffi lost no time in legitimizing their relationship. After the 40-day prayers for Sinclair's late wife, Sinclair and Steffi got married without a marriage license, claiming that they have been cohabiting for the last 20 years. After graduating from college, Sabina decided to enroll in law school. Sinclair said that he was not willing to pay for her school fees since she was no longer a minor. Sinclair claimed that, if Sabina wanted to be a lawyer, she had to work and spend for her law education. a) What is Sabina’s filiation status?

Sabina is an illegitimate child under Article 165 of the Family Code.Article 165 states that children who are conceived and born outside a valid marriage are illegitimate. Sabina’s father Sinclair was married to another woman at the time she was conceived and born. As no valid marriage could have existed between her parents during her conception and birth, Sabina is clearly born outside of a valid wedlock. Hence, Sabina is an illegitimate child. Her parents’ subsequent marriage cannot accord to her legitimation. Under Article 177 of the Family Code, only children conceived and born outside of wedlock of parents who, at the time of the conception of the former, were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other may be legitimated. At the time of Sabina’s conception her father Sinclair is married to another woman which means one of her parents has as an impediment to marry the other. Hence, Sabina cannot be legitimated under Article 177. b) Is Sinclai S inclair r legally required to finance Sabina’s law education?

No. Under Under Article 194 of the FC, the education education of the person entitled entitled to be supported shall include schooling or training for some profession, trade or vocation even beyond the age of majority. The obligation of the parent to provide support for the educational needs of the child is only up to tertiary education. Since Sabina has necessarily finished obtaining a profession before entering law school, Sinclair is no longer obliged to finance the former’s law education. Thus, Sabrina can no longer demand support for her law education from her father.







4SBCE 2018-2019 (a) What is the effect of payment made by Sergio without the knowledge and consent of Samantha? (b) Is Samantha guilty of mora accipiendi?

a. Under Art. 1236(2) of the Civil Code, whoever pays for another may demand from the debtor what he has paid, except that if he has paid without the knowledge or against the will of the debtor, he can only recover insofar as the payment has been beneficial to the debtor. In the problem, Sergio paid the utility bills without the consent of Samantha. He cannot demand from the latter what he has paid because the payment here cannot be said to have been beneficial to Samantha because it can be inferred from from the facts facts that she has the resources to do so. b. Yes, Yes, Samantha Samantha is guilty guilty of mora accipiendi accipiendi.. Under the Civil Code, mora accipiendi is delay on the part of the creditor without justifiable reason to accept performance of an obligation. In the problem, Samantha has the obligation, as a creditor in the sale of business of sole proprietorship to accept the payment of Sergio representing P950,000. The fact that Sergio paid her prior unpaid utility bills against her will will is not a justifiable reason to refuse acceptance of compensation to their binding contract of sale. The following are the requisites of Mora Accipiendi,(1) Offer of performance by the debtor who has the required capacity; (2) Offer is to comply with the prestation as it should be performed; and (3) creditor refuses the performance without just cause.

XII.

Saachi opened a savings bank account with Shanghainese Bank. He made an initial deposit of PhP100,000. Part of the bank opening forms that he was required to sign when he opened the account was a Holdout Agreement which provided that, should he incur any liability or obligation to the bank, the bank shall shall have the right to immediately immediately and automatically automatically take over over his savings savings account account deposit. deposit. After he opened his deposit account, the Shanghainese Bank discovered a scam wherein the funds in the account of another depositor in the bank was withdrawn by an impostor. Shanghainese Bank suspected Saachi to be. the impostor, impostor, and filed a criminal criminal case of of estafa against against him. While the case was was still pending with with the







4SBCE 2018-2019 the depositor is only suspected of estafa by another bank in the Prosecutor’s office. Prosecutor’s office. Absent a court order, the bank cannot withhold the deposit of the depositor.

* A nswe nswer to Questio Question n XI X I I I , to follo follow w. I t is i s unde under consult consulta ation wi wi th C i vil L aw Advi Advi ser ser s. I n any any eve event nt,, i t is und under Ci vrev I I . XIV.

Socorro is the registered owner of Lot A while Segunda is the registered owner of the adjoining Lot B. Lot A is located at an elevated plateau of about 15 feet above the level of Lot B. Since Socorro was allegedly removing portions of the land and cement that supported the adjoining property, Segunda caused the annotation of an adverse claim against 50 sq. m. on Lot A's Transfer Certificate of Title, asserting the existence of a legal easement. a) Does a legal easement in fact exist? If so, what kind?

Yes. An easement for subjacent support exists. An easement for subjacent support exists when a supported land is above and the supporting land is beneath. In this kind of easement, any stipulation or testamentary provision allowing excavations that cause danger to an adjacent land or building shall be void. b) If a legal easement does in fact exist, is is an annotation annot ation of an adverse claim on the title of the servient estate proper?

No, the annotation annotation of an adverse claim claim on the title is is not proper. It is well-settled well-settled in the case of Castro vs. Mo M onso nsod (G.R. 183719, February 2, 2011)that 2011) that an annotation of the existence of the subjacent support is no longer necessary. It exists whether or not it is annotated or registered in the registry of property. A judicial judicial recognition of the same already binds the property and the owner of the same, same, including including his successors-in-interests.

XV.

Simon owned a townhouse that he rented out to Shannon, a flight attendant with Soleil Philippine Airlines







4SBCE 2018-2019 In this problem, the lease agreement between Simon and Shannon over a townhouse is for a period of 3 years. This gives Simon the right to compel the lease agreement into writing because the same is within the purview of Statute of Frauds. b. Yes. Yes. Under Sec. 8 of RA 9653 or the Rent Control Act of 2009, subleasing a residential units in whole or in part without the written written consent consent of the lessor is prohibited. prohibited. Accordingly, Accordingly, this gives the lessor lessor a ground for terminating the lease as well as a ground for ejectment.

XVI.

Selena was a single 18-year old when she got pregnant and gave birth to Suri. She then left to work as a caregiver in Canada, leaving Suri with her parents in the Philippines. Selena, now 34 years old and a permanent permanent resident in Canada, Canada, met and married married Sam who is a 24-year old Canadian Canadian citizen who works as a movie star in Canada. Sam's parents are of Filipino ancestry but had become Canadian citizens before Sam was born. Wanting Suri to have all the advantages of a legitimate child, Selena and Sam decided to adopt her. Sam's parents, already opposed to the marriage of their son to someone significantly older, vehemently objected to the adoption. They argued that Sam was not old enough and that the requisite age gap required by the Inter-Country Adoption Act between Sam as adopter and Suri as adoptee was not met. Are Sam's parents correct?

No, the parents of Sam are not correct. As a general general rule, the Inter-Country Inter-Country Asoption Act of 1995 provides that any alien or Filipino citizen permanently permanently residing abroad may file an application for intercountry adoption, if, the adopter is at least 27 years of age and at least 16 years older than the child to be adopted, at the time of the application unless the adopter is the parent of the child to be adopted or the spouse of such parent. XVII.

Sofia and Semuel, both unmarried, lived together for many years in the Philippines and begot three children. While Sofia stayed in the Philippines with the children, Semuel went abroad to work and became a naturalized naturalized German citizen. He met someone in Germany whom he wanted to marry. Semuel









4SBCE 2018-2019 ownership.For purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall shall be deemed deemed to have contributed jointly jointly in the acquisition acquisition thereof if the former's efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household. b. Should Semuel be required to support s upport minor children?

Yes. Parents and their illegitimate children and the legitimate and illegitimate children of the latter are obliged to support each other to the whole extent set forth in Art. 194 of the FC (Article 195, FC).

XVIII.

Shasha purchased an airline ticket from Sea Airlines (SAL) covering Manila-Bangkok- Hanoi-Manila. The ticket was exclusively endorsable to Siam Airlines (SMA). The contract of air transportation was between between Shasha and and SAL, with with the latter latter endorsing to SMA the Hanoi-Manila Hanoi-Manila segment segment of the the journey. journey. All her flights were confirmed by SAL before she left Manila. Shasha took the flight from Manila to Bangkok on board SAL using the ticket. When she arrived in Bangkok, she went to the SAL ticket counter and confirmed her return trip from Hanoi to Manila on board SMA Flight No. SA 888. On the date of her return trip, she checked in for SMA Flight No. SA 888, boarded the plane, and before she could even settle in on her assigned seat, she was off-loaded and treated rudely by the crew. She lost her luggage and missed an important business meeting. She thereafter filed a complaint solely against SAL and argued that it was solidarily liable with SMA for the damages she suffered since the latter was only an agent of the former. a) Should either, or both, SAL and SMA be held liable for damages that Shasha suffered?







4SBCE 2018-2019 XIX.

Sebastian, who has a pending assessment from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), was required to post a bond. He entered into an agreement with Solid Surety Company (SSC) for SSC to issue a bond in favor of the BIR to secure payment of his taxes, if found to be due. In consideration of the issuance of the bond, he executed executed an a n Indemni I ndemnity ty Agreement Agreement with SSC whereby he agreed to indemnify indemnify the latter in the event that he was found liable to pay the tax. The BIR eventually decided against Sebastian, and judicially commenced action against both Sebastian and SSC to recover Sebastian's unpaid taxes. Simultaneously, BIR also initiated action to foreclose on the bond. Even before paying the BIR, SSC sought indemnity from Sebastian on the basis of the Indemnity Agreement. Sebastian refused to pay since SSC had not paid the BIR anything yet, and alleged that the provision in the Indemnity Agreement which allowed SSC to recover from him, by mere demand, even if it (SSC) had not yet paid the creditor, was void for being contrary to law and public policy. Can Sebastian legally refuse to pay SSC?

No, Sebastian’s Sebastian’s argument argument has has no merit. merit. Under Art. 2073 of the Civil Code, when there are two or more guarantors for the same debtor for the same debt, the one among them who has paid may demand each of the others the share which is proportionately proportionately owing from him. him. In the problem, SSC as guarantor who bound to be solidarity liable with Sebastian, its cause of action is based on the surety bond that it posted to accommodate accommodate Sebastian pending assessment assessment by the BIR. Sebastian’s argument that SSC cannot recover from him because SSC has not paid anything from BIR is







4SBCE 2018-2019 of the orders of the common carriers. The liability if the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees. As to the actual damages, Article 2199 of the NCC provides that except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. In this case, the actual damages are luco cesante, or the Loss of a benefit that the plaintiff plaintiff failed to receive. As to moral damages, the same may be recovered in breach of contract of carriage only if the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. In this case, since the accident was caused by the truck and not the driver of the bus, SBL is not liable to pay moral damages.

b.) Yes, Yes, SBL will be liable to pay interest if a judgment judgment to pay damages damages is given and it delays in the payment payment of such damages. damages. When the judgment of the t he court awarding a sum of money becomes becomes final and executory, the rate of the legal interest, shall be 6% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction.

Speciall tha Specia thanks nks to the A d H oc Com Comm mitt itte ee co com mpose sed d of rep repre rese sent nta ative ivess from from 4SB 4SBCE CE who came up wi th the sug suggg este sted d answe answerr s for for our be bene neffi t.

2018 Civil Law Bar Questions With Suggested Answers

Recommend Documents