JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER™
JURISTS ONLINE ADVANCE PREBAR REVIEW
SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE
2022 CIVIL LAW MOCK BAR EXAMINATION
Note: Bracketed words are for the reader’s reference only and are not a part of the
suggested answer.
Dayna and Frayna were conversing in a café when Dayna’s phone rang. Dayna
noticed that it was their friend Cibeles who was calling, so she turned on the speaker.
Over the phone, Cibeles said that she had won in the lotto and was giving Dayna half a
million pesos as balato. Dayna replied, “thanks a lot, Cibeles.” The next day, Cibeles
perished in a car crash. Dayna filed a money claim for the ₱500,000 in the probate
proceedings for the settlement of Cibeles’ estate. Should the court grant Dayna’s money
claim?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the court should not grant Dayna’s money claim.
Under the Civil Code provisions on Property, if the value of the personal property
donated exceeds ₱5,000, the donation and the acceptance must be in writing; otherwise
the donation is void. [Art. 748, Civil Code]
Here, the donation and the acceptance of the ₱5,000 cash, which is personal
property, were not in writing since a telephone conversation is merely an ephemeral
electronic communication which is not considered a writing or document. [Sec. 2, Rule
11, Rules on Electronic Evidence] Thus, the donation is void.
Hence, the court should not grant Dayna’s money claim.
Andrea filed a complaint for recovery of ownership against the spouses Ellen and
Derek Adarna over a parcel of land that Andrea and her siblings had inherited from their
mother, Doña Angelica Cruz. The spouses Adarna moved for the dismissal of the
complaint for having been filed by Andrea alone, without impleading her siblings. Should
the complaint be dismissed?
Suggested Answers to the 2022 JOAP Civil Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2022 by Jurists Review Center
Inc. Copying, dissemination, storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express
written consent of Jurists Review Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal
prosecution and administrative charges, including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office
and IBP.
Page 1 of 15
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the complaint should not be dismissed.
Under the Civil Code provisions on Property, anyone of the co-owners may bring
an action to recover ownership of the co-owned property without joining the other co-
owners. [Art. 487, Civil Code]
Here, Andrea as a co-heir is also a co-owner of the property. Thus, she may
properly bring an action for recovery of ownership of the property even without joining all
the other co-owners.
Hence, the complaint should not be dismissed.
Atty. Aoife Capablanca filed a petition with the RTC to change her surname from
Capablanca (her father’s surname) to Manalaysay, the maiden surname of her mother.
An ardent feminist, Aoife alleged in her petition that pursuant to the State’s declared policy
to ensure the fundamental equality of women and men before the law, a legitimate child
is entitled to use the surname of either parent as a last name, and that she was choosing
her mother’s surname in accordance with her strong belief in gender equality. May
Aoife’s petition to change her surname be granted based on the ground that she invoked?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Aoife’s petition to change her surname to that of her mother’s should not be
granted.
Under the Civil Code provisions on surname, a legitimate child shall principally use
the surname of the father. [Art. 364, Civil Code] The Supreme Court has stated that while
this provision does not mean that the legitimate child shall exclusively use the surname
of the father, there must be proper and reasonable cause for a legitimate child to use the
mother’s surname. [Alanis v. Court of Appeals, 11 November 2020, Leonen, J.]
Here, there was no proper and reasonable cause for the legitimate child to use the
mother’s surname. Mere invocation of gender equality does not amount to a proper and
reasonable cause because of the express terms of the Civil Code provision.
Hence, Aoife’s petition to change her surname should not be granted.
Suggested Answers to the 2022 JOAP Civil Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2022 by Jurists Review Center
Inc. Copying, dissemination, storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express
written consent of Jurists Review Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal
prosecution and administrative charges, including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office
and IBP.
Page 2 of 15
4
B, C, and D executed a deed of extrajudicial settlement over the estate of their
deceased father F which they then registered with the register of deeds. By virtue of the
deed’s registration, B, C, and D were able to procure the cancellation of F’s certificate of
title over a parcel of land and to have a new certificate of title issued in their name.
Subsequently, E filed with the RTC a complaint to annul the deed of extrajudicial
settlement and certificate of title, claiming that he is an illegitimate child of F and was
fraudulently excluded from the extrajudicial settlement. B, C, and D filed an answer in
which they raised the defense that the complaint fails to state a cause of action since F’s*
heirship should have been previously declared in an appropriate proceeding for the
settlement of F’s estate. Is the defense meritorious?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the defense that the complaint fails to state a cause of action since E’s heirship
should have been previously declared in an appropriate proceeding for the settlement of
F’s estate is not meritorious.
The Supreme Court has held that a prior determination of the status as a legal or
compulsory heir in a separate special proceeding is not a prerequisite to an ordinary civil
action seeking the enforcement of ownership rights given by the law of succession since
the rights to the succession are transmitted to the heirs from the moment of the decedent’s
death. [Treyes v. Larlar, 8 September 2020, e.b., Caguioa, J.]
X was a former Filipino who became a naturalized American citizen in 1995. She
was based in Pennsylvania, USA, and she worked as a paralegal in a law firm handling
estate matters. As paralegal, she knew that there is no system of legitimes under the laws
of Pennsylvania. In November 2012, X went back to the Philippines to establish a hotel
business with her sister. To properly manage the business, X decided to stay in the
Philippines in the long term. She remained unmarried and did not have any children. In
2018, she executed a will, giving all her properties to her sister. In June 2020, she died
after contracting COVID-19. She was survived by her sister and father. In the probate of
X’s will, her father opposed the allowance of the will on the ground of preterition. Rule on
the opposition.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
*
This should read “E’s”.
Suggested Answers to the 2022 JOAP Civil Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2022 by Jurists Review Center
Inc. Copying, dissemination, storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express
written consent of Jurists Review Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal
prosecution and administrative charges, including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office
and IBP.
Page 3 of 15
The opposition to the will’s allowance on the ground of preterition should be
denied.
Under Conflict of Laws, the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions and the
capacity to succeed the decedent are governed by the decedent’s national law.
Here, the national law of the decedent is that of Pennsylvania, USA, which does
not provide for a system of compulsory heirs and legitimes. [Articles 16 and 1039, Civil
Code]. Thus, under Pennsylvanian law, a will is intrinsically valid even if it omits an heir
of the testator.
Hence, the opposition to the will’s allowance should be denied.
Peter, Andy, and Beth had an agreement wherein Peter lent his Nissan Sentra to
Andy and Beth for their free use for one week. Twelve days later, while Beth was
driving the car at the South Super Highway with due care, she met an accident in which
she had no fault. The car was a total wreck. Peter then sued Andy for payment of the
P500,000 value of the car. Andy countered that he should not be liable as the loss of
the car was due to a fortuitous event and the one actually using it was Beth. Andy also
argued that assuming he could be held liable, it should only be for the amount of
P250,000.
a) What is the name or the designation of the contract entered into among Peter,
Andy, and Beth? Explain.
b) Should Andy be held liable to Peter for the value of the car? If so, for how
much? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The name of the contract entered into among Peter, Andy, and Beth is the
contract of commodatum.
Under the Civil Code provisions on loan, there is commodatum when a person
gratuitously lends to another a non-consumable thing for the latter to use for a certain
time and to return it.
Here, Peter lent his car, a non-consumable thing, for Andy and Beth’s free or
gratuitous use for one week.
Hence, there was a contract of commodatum entered into among them.
Suggested Answers to the 2022 JOAP Civil Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2022 by Jurists Review Center
Inc. Copying, dissemination, storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express
written consent of Jurists Review Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal
prosecution and administrative charges, including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office
and IBP.
Page 4 of 15
b) Yes, Andy should be held liable to Peter for the full value of the car or P500,000.
Under the Civil Code provisions on loan, the bailee in commodatum is liable for the
loss of the thing even if through a fortuitous event if the bailee keeps it for a period longer
than that stipulated.
Here, Beth kept the car longer than one week.
Hence, Beth is liable.
Andy should also be liable.
Under the Civil Code provisions on loan, when there are two or more bailees to
whom a thing is loaned in the same contract, they are liable solidarily. In solidary liability
the fault of one is the fault of all.
Here, the car was lent to Andy and Beth; hence they are liable solidarily.
The liability being solidary, Andy is liable for the full value of the car or P500,000,
even if the one at fault was Beth.
Principo authorized Argento in writing to sell, on Principo’s behalf, the land of
Principo for ₱1 million. Argento, in his own name, sold the land through a deed of
absolute sale to Vindo for ₱1 million. Argento obtained the cash payment from Vindo
and absconded with it. When Vindo learned that the land belonged to Principo, Vindo
filed a suit for specific performance against Principo to enforce the sale. Will the suit
prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Vindo’s suit for specific performance against Principo to enforce the sale will
prosper.
Under the Civil Code provisions on Agency, even if an agent acts in his own name,
the person with whom he has contracted has a right of action against the principal if the
contract involves a thing belonging to the principal. [Art. 1883, Civil Code]
Here, the contract of sale involves a land belonging to the principal Principo.
Thus, Vindo has a right of action against Principo even if Argento had acted in his own
name.
Suggested Answers to the 2022 JOAP Civil Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2022 by Jurists Review Center
Inc. Copying, dissemination, storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express
written consent of Jurists Review Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal
prosecution and administrative charges, including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office
and IBP.
Page 5 of 15
Hence, Vindo’s suit for specific performance against Principo will prosper.
Oskee owned a valuable Amorsolo painting which was stolen from his house. A
year later, Oskee saw the painting hanging in the office of Braulio. When queried,
Braulio said that he bought the painting in a gallery auction.
a) Could Oskee recover the painting from Braulio?
b) Supposing Braulio had bought the painting from a friend. Would your answer
be the same?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Yes, Oskee could recover the painting from Braulio provided he reimburses
Braulio the price he paid for the painting.
Under the Civil Code provisions on Property, an owner who has been unlawfully
deprived of a movable may recover it from a possessor in good faith who had acquired
the movable at a public sale provided the owner reimburses the possessor the price paid.
[Art. 559, Civil Code]
Here, Oskee was unlawfully deprived of a movable, his painting, by theft. He may
recover it from Braulio, a possessor or buyer in good faith who had acquired it at a gallery
auction, which is a public sale. There being no showing of Braulio’s bad faith, he is
presumed to be in good faith.
Hence, Oskee may recover the painting from Braulio provided that Oskee
reimburses Braulio the price paid.
b) If Braulio had bought the painting from a friend, my answer would not be the
same. In such a case, Oskee may recovery it from Braulio without reimbursing the latter
the price he paid.
Under the Civil Code provisions on Property, an owner who has been unlawfully
deprived of a movable may recover it from a possessor thereof without need of
reimbursing the price paid, unless the possessor had acquired the movable at a public
sale. [Art. 559, Civil Code]
Here, Oskee was unlawfully deprived of a movable, his painting, by theft.
Suggested Answers to the 2022 JOAP Civil Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2022 by Jurists Review Center
Inc. Copying, dissemination, storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express
written consent of Jurists Review Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal
prosecution and administrative charges, including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office
and IBP.
Page 6 of 15
Hence, Oskee may recover it from the possessor Braulio without need of
reimbursing the latter since Braulio did not acquire the painting at a public sale.
Lavinia married Humbert in a church ceremony. Humbert discovered that five
years before, Lavinia had married Soros in a civil ceremony. Lavinia, however, did not
know at the time she married Soros that the latter was already married. Upon learning
that Soros was already married, Lavinia immediately left Soros and since then had not
seen nor heard from him. Lavinia, however, did not take any step to have her marriage
with Soros judicially declared void before she married Humbert.
a) Could Humbert successfully sue for a declaration of nullity of his marriage to
Lavinia?
b) May Lavinia be prosecuted for bigamy?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Yes, Humbert could successfully sue for a declaration of nullity of his marriage
to Lavinia.
Under the Family Code, the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked
for purposes of remarriage if there is a final judgment declaring the previous marriage
void; otherwise, the subsequent marriage is also void.
Here, there was no final judgment declaring Lavinia’s prior marriage to Soros void.
Hence, the subsequent marriage between Lavinia and Humbert is also void and
Humbert could thus successfully sue for its nullification. [Art. 40, Family Code; Wiegel
v. Sempio-Diy, 143 SCRA 499]
b) No, Lavinia may not be prosecuted for bigamy.
The Supreme Court has held that a person is not liable for bigamy if the prior
marriage is void, even if the person contracted a second marriage without a prior judicial
declaration of nullity of the first marriage. The reason is that such judicial declaration is
required only for purposes of remarriage but not for avoiding criminal liability for bigamy.
Here, Lavinia’s prior marriage to Soros is void for being bigamous. It does not
matter that there was no judicial declaration of its nullity.
Hence, Lavinia may not be prosecuted for bigamy. [Pulido v. People, 27 July 2021,
e.b., Hernando, J.]
Suggested Answers to the 2022 JOAP Civil Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2022 by Jurists Review Center
Inc. Copying, dissemination, storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express
written consent of Jurists Review Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal
prosecution and administrative charges, including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office
and IBP.
Page 7 of 15
10
Macario bought a titled lot from Ramon, got the title and took possession of the
lot. Since Macario did not have the money to pay the taxes, fees and registration
expenses, he was not able to register the deed of absolute sale. Upon advice, he
merely executed an affidavit of adverse claim and had it annotated at the back of the
title. A few years after, he received a notice of levy on attachment and writ of execution
in favor of Alex. The notice, writ and certificate of sale were annotated at the back of
the title still in Ramon's name. Who has the superior right over the disputed property
- Macario or Alex? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It is Alex who has the superior right over the disputed property as against Macario.
The Supreme Court has held that an adverse claim which was registered even if
there is an available provision under the Property Registration Decree for the registration
of the adverse claimant’s interest is ineffective and will not confer a better right as against
third persons.
Here, the adverse claim was registered even if there was an available provision in
the Property Registration Decree for the registration of the adverse claimant Mario’s
interest, that is, the registration of the deed of absolute sale.
Hence, Mario’s adverse claim is ineffective and will not confer a better right as
against Alex who had registered his levy and writ of execution. Thus, it is Alex who has
a better right. [Sec. 70, Property Registration Decree; L.P. Leviste & Co. v. Noblejas, 89
SCRA 520 (30 April 1979)]
11
ABC Construction Corporation and Northville Properties entered into a
construction contract whereby ABC agreed to construct a 10-storey condominium for
Northville Properties for P50 million. The contract stipulated that a pre-condition for the
full payment of the price was the submission by ABC of a performance bond and an “as-
built” drawing or a drawing of the condominium as constructed by ABC. Northville paid
the initial billings amounting to P30 million but refused to pay the balance of P20 million,
although ABC had finished the construction of the condominium, on the ground that ABC
had failed to submit the performance bond and the “as-built” drawing as required by the
contract. During the trial ABC’s chief project engineer testified that they did not submit
the performance bond and “as-built” drawing because they though it was no longer
necessary since the condominium project had been completed in accordance with
Suggested Answers to the 2022 JOAP Civil Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2022 by Jurists Review Center
Inc. Copying, dissemination, storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express
written consent of Jurists Review Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal
prosecution and administrative charges, including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office
and IBP.
Page 8 of 15
specifications. The president of Northville on the other hand testified that ABC is not
entitled to the balance since it failed to comply with its contractual undertaking to submit
the performance bond and “as-built” drawing which is a condition for full payment. Is
ABC entitled to the payment of the balance of P20 million? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, ABC is entitled to the payment of the balance of P20 million.
Under the Civil Code provisions on Obligations and Contracts, if the obligation has
been substantially performed in good faith, the obligor may recover payment as though
there had been a strict and complete fulfillment. [Art. 1234, Civil Code]
Here, there was a substantial performance by ABC as it was able to complete the
construction of the condominium and its failure to submit the performance bond and the
“as-built” drawing was in good faith as it though the same were not necessary. Thus, ABC
may recover payment as though here had been a strict and complete fulfillment.
Hence, ABC is entitled to the payment of P20 million.
12
Ted, married to Annie, went to Canada to work. Five years later, Ted became a
naturalized Canadian citizen. He returned to the Philippines to convince Annie to settle
with him in Canada. Unfortunately, Ted discovered that Annie and his friend Louie were
carrying on an affair. Deeply hurt, Ted returned to Canada and filed a petition for divorce
which was granted. In December 2013, Ted decided to marry his childhood friend
Corazon in the Philippines. In preparation for the wedding, Ted went to the Local Civil
Registry of Quezon City where his marriage contract with Annie was registered. He
requested the Civil Register to annotate the decree of divorce on his marriage contract
with Annie, which request was granted. May Ted now legally marry Corazon?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Ted may not now legally marry Corazon.
Under Private International Law, a foreign judgment may not be legally given effect
in the Philippines unless there has been a judgment by a Philippine court recognizing
such foreign judgment.
Here, there was no judgment by a Philippine court recognizing the Canadian
divorce decree which is a foreign judgment. Mere annotation of the divorce decree on the
Suggested Answers to the 2022 JOAP Civil Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2022 by Jurists Review Center
Inc. Copying, dissemination, storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express
written consent of Jurists Review Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal
prosecution and administrative charges, including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office
and IBP.
Page 9 of 15
marriage contract does not amount to a judgment. Thus, the Canadian divorce decree
has no legal effect in the Philippines.
Hence, Ted may not now legally marry Corazon.
13
The Aegis Nursing Institution, Inc. (ANI) was lambasted by Ding in a radio
broadcast as operating a diploma mill churning out ill-trained nursing graduates who had
paid their way through. ANI sued Ding for moral damages. Ding filed an answer where
he raised the defense that a juridical person is not entitled to moral damages because it
cannot experience physical suffering or wounded feelings. Is Ding’s defense
meritorious? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Ding’s defense that a juridical person is not entitled to moral damages is not
meritorious.
Under the Civil Code provisions on Torts, moral damages may be recovered in
cases of libel, slander, or any other form of defamation. The Supreme Court has held
that the law does not distinguish whether the plaintiff is a natural or juridical person.
Here, Ding was guilty of libel or defamation when he lambasted ANI in a radio
broadcast.
Hence, he is liable for moral damages to ANI. [Filipinas Broadcasting Corp. v.
Ago Medical and Educational Center, G.R. 141994, 17 Jan 2005; Article 2219(17)]
14
Sam offered to sell a diamond-studded ring to Benjie for P350,000 to be delivered
after 30 days from payment. Benjie paid Sam P350,000. Thirty days later Sam
delivered the ring to Benjie but it turned out to be a fake. May Benjie sue for the
annulment of the contract on the ground of vitiated consent? If not, what is the remedy,
if any, available to Benjie in order to set aside the contract? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Benjie may not sue for the annulment of the contract on the ground of vitiated
consent.
Suggested Answers to the 2022 JOAP Civil Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2022 by Jurists Review Center
Inc. Copying, dissemination, storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express
written consent of Jurists Review Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal
prosecution and administrative charges, including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office
and IBP.
Page 10 of 15
Under the Law on Obligations and Contracts, annulment of contract on the ground
of vitiated consent is not available if the fraud involved was not used to obtain the consent
of the aggrieved party but was done during the performance of the contract. [Art. 1170,
cf. with Art. 1338, Civil Code]
Here, the fraud employed by Sam was fraud in the performance or delivery of the
object of the sale or the ring and not used to obtain the consent of Benjie.
Hence, Benjie may not sue for the annulment of the contract.
The remedy available to Benjie to set aside the contract is an action for rescission.
Under the Law on Obligations and Contracts, rescission is available in case of
material breach of a contract. [Art. 1191, Civil Code]
Here, there was a material breach by Sam of the contract of sale when he delivered
a fake ring to Benjie.
Hence, Benjie may avail of the remedy of rescission of contract.
15
Doroy borrowed ₱3 million from Crito, evidenced by a promissory note with due
date on 31 January 2022. Doroy did not pay the promissory note on 31 January 2022.
On 21 February 2022, without any prior written or oral demand on Doroy, Crito filed an
action against Doroy with the RTC to collect on the note. Doroy filed an answer raising
the affirmative defense of failure to state a cause of action since there was no prior
demand. Is Doroy’s defense meritorious?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Doroy’s defense that there was a failure to state a cause of action since there
was no prior demand is not meritorious.
Under the Civil Code provisions on Obligations and Contracts, the debtor incurs
delay from the time the creditor judicially or extrajudicially demands from him the
fulfillment of the obligation. [Art. 1169, Civil Code]
Here, the debtor Doroy incurred delay from the time the creditor Crito judicially
demanded from him the fulfillment of the obligation by filing a court case. The law does
not require that a judicial demand be preceded by an extrajudicial one.
Suggested Answers to the 2022 JOAP Civil Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2022 by Jurists Review Center
Inc. Copying, dissemination, storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express
written consent of Jurists Review Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal
prosecution and administrative charges, including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office
and IBP.
Page 11 of 15
Hence, since Doroy was already in delay, the complaint states a cause of action
and Doroy’s defense is not meritorious.
16
In December 2019, BoardBusters, Inc, a company engaged in providing board
review classes to graduates reviewing for board examinations, signed a contract with
ABC Co. for the lease of various units in ABC’s building for the period May 2020 to
November 2020. The units would serve as the venue of BoardBusters’ in-person review
classes. Pursuant to the lease contract, BoardBusters delivered to ABC checks
representing the first three months’ rentals plus the security deposit. However, the
COVID-19 pandemic struck and the government imposed a lock-down from 15 March
2020 to 15 May 2020. Although the lockdown was subsequently relaxed to a so-called
community quarantine, the government still retained its ban on mass gatherings which
included in-person review classes. You are the lawyer for BoardBusters, Inc. and in
June 2020, it asked for your advice on whether it can demand for the refund or return of
the checks. What would be your advice?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
My advice to BoardBusters Inc. is that it can demand for the refund or return of the
checks.
Under the Law on Obligations and Contracts, obligations are deemed extinguished
when it becomes legally impossible to fulfill the same and hence whatever has been
received by virtue of the obligation should be restituted.
Here, it is legally impossible for ABC to deliver possession of the leased premises
pursuant to the contract and for BoadBusters to enjoy possession of the premises.
Thus the obligations of the parties under the reciprocal contract of lease are extinguished
by force majeure and legal impossibility.
Hence, the check payments received by ABC by virtue of the lease contract should
be restituted or refunded to BoardBusters.
17
On 1 January 2012, David borrowed ₱1,000,000 from Charles and they orally
agreed upon an interest rate of 15% per annum and that the loan would mature in a year.
On the maturity date of 1 January 2013, Charles served a demand letter upon David to
pay but the latter was ready to pay only 1 year thereafter or on 1 January 2014. How
much is the total amount that David should pay Charles on 1 January 2014? Explain
how you arrived at the answer.
Suggested Answers to the 2022 JOAP Civil Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2022 by Jurists Review Center
Inc. Copying, dissemination, storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express
written consent of Jurists Review Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal
prosecution and administrative charges, including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office
and IBP.
Page 12 of 15
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The total amount that David should pay Charles on 1 January 2014 is ₱1,090,000
computed as follows:
-Principal: ₱1,000,000
-Contractual interest: None because there was no
express stipulation in writing. [Art. 1956] 0
- Punitive interest: ₱1,000,000 x 12% x ½ (CB Cir. 416) 60,000
from 1 January 2013 (date of demand) up to 30 June 2013.
₱1,000,000 x 6% x ½ (BSP Cir. 799 eff. 1 Jul 2013) 30,000
from 1 July 2013 up to 31 December 2013.
TOTAL ₱1,090,000
18
Acme Corporation mortgaged its building to the Bank of the Philippine Archipelago
in order to secure a loan of P50,000,000. The building was built by Delta Builders, Inc.
using material furnished by Altis Corporation. The contract price for the construction, the
price of the materials, and the 6-month’s wages of the workers of Acme are all unpaid.
Acme also has unpaid income taxes owing to the BIR. Since Acme failed to pay the
loan, the bank foreclosed on the mortgage and the building was sold at the foreclosure
sale for P40,000,000 to Value Partners, Ltd. Who would have a right to the
P40,000,000? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Bank of the Philippine Archipelago would have the right to the P40,000,000
proceeds of the foreclosure sale.
The Supreme Court has held that the Civil Code provisions on concurrence and
Suggested Answers to the 2022 JOAP Civil Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2022 by Jurists Review Center
Inc. Copying, dissemination, storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express
written consent of Jurists Review Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal
prosecution and administrative charges, including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office
and IBP.
Page 13 of 15
preference of credit apply only to an in rem proceeding where the claims of all creditors
would be adjudicated, such as an insolvency proceding, and not to an action quasi in rem.
[Phil. Savings Bank v. Lantin, 124 SCRA 476].
Here, there was no binding in rem proceeding, but only a foreclosure suit which is
a quasi in rem action.
Hence, it is only the mortgagee Bank of the Philippine Archipelago who would have
a right to the foreclosure proceeds.
19
On 15 June 2021, Jesus sold a parcel of registered land to Jaime. On 30 June
2021, Jesus sold the same land to Jose. Who has a better right if:
a) the sale to Jaime is registered ahead of the sale to Jose, but with Jaime
knowing of the sale to Jose?
b) the sale to Jose is registered ahead of the sale to Jaime and with Jose not
knowing of the sale to Jaime?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Jaime has a better right if the sale to him is registered ahead of the sale to
Jose, even if Jaime knows of the sale to Jose.
Under the Civil Code provisions on double sale of an immovable property, the
ownership thereof shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first registered
the sale in the register of deeds. [Art. 1544, Civil Code]
Here, it was Jaime the first buyer who in good faith first registered the sale in his
favor. Jaime’s knowledge of the second sale to Jose would not put Jaime in bad faith
because he was the earlier buyer. [See Carbonell v. Court of Appeals, 69 SCRA 99
(1976)]
Hence, it is Jaime who has a better right.
b) Jose has a better right.
Under the Civil Code provisions on double sale of an immovable property, the
ownership thereof shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first registered
the sale in the register of deeds. [Art. 1544, Civil Code]
Suggested Answers to the 2022 JOAP Civil Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2022 by Jurists Review Center
Inc. Copying, dissemination, storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express
written consent of Jurists Review Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal
prosecution and administrative charges, including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office
and IBP.
Page 14 of 15
Here, it was Jose who in good faith first registered the sale in his favor. Jose’s
registration was in good faith since he did not know of the earlier sale to Jaime.
Hence, Jose has a better right.
-oOo-
Suggested Answers to the 2022 JOAP Civil Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2022 by Jurists Review Center
Inc. Copying, dissemination, storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express
written consent of Jurists Review Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal
prosecution and administrative charges, including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office
and IBP.
Page 15 of 15
