2015 PHILIPPINE BAR EXAMINATIONS (POLITICAL LAW)

2015 POLITICAL LAW Bar Exam Questions

JUSTICE TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Chairperson
2015 Bar Examinations

I. 

The Philippines and the Republic of Kroi Sha established diplomatic relations and immediately their respective Presidents signed the following: (1) Executive Agreement allowing the Republic of Kroi Sha to establish its embassy and consular offices within Metro Manila; and (2) Executive Agreement allowing the Republic of Kroi Sha to bring to the Philippines its military complement, warships, and armaments from time to time for a period not exceeding one month for the purpose of training exercises with the Philippine military forces and exempting from Philippine criminal jurisdiction acts committed in the line of duty by foreign military personnel, and from paying custom duties on all the goods brought by said foreign forces into Philippine territory in connection with the holding of the activities authorized under the said Executive Agreement.

Senator Maagap questioned the constitutionality of the said Executive Agreements and demanded that the Executive Agreements be submitted to the Senate for ratification pursuant to the Philippine Constitution. Is Senator Maagap correct? Explain. (4%)

II.

(1) A bill was introduced in the House of Representatives in order to implement faithfully the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to which the Philippines is a signatory. Congressman Pat Rio Tek questioned the constitutionality of the bill on the ground that the provisions of UN CLOS are violative of the provisions of the Constitution defining the Philippine internal waters and territorial sea. Do you agree or not with the said objection? Explain. (3%)

(2) Describe the following maritime regimes under UNCLOS (4%)

(a) Territorial sea

(b) Contiguous zone

(c) Exclusive economic zone

(d) Continental shelf

III.

Professor Masipag who holds a plantilla or regular item in the University of the Philippines (UP) is appointed as an Executive Assistant in the Court of Appeals (CA). The professor is considered only on leave of absence in UP while he reports for work at the CA which shall pay him the salary of the Executive Assistant. The appointment to the CA position was questioned, but Professor Masipag countered that he will not collect the salary for both positions; hence, he can not be accused of receiving double compensation. Is the argument of the professor valid? Explain. (4%)

IV.

When is a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a law on the ground of violation of the Bill of Rights traditionally allowed? Explain your answer. (3%)

V.

BD Telecommunications, Inc. (BDTI), a Filipino-owned corporation, sold its 1,000 common shares of stock in the Philippine Telecommunications Company (PTC), a public utility, to Australian Telecommunications (AT), another stockholder of the PTC which also owns 1,000 common shares. A Filipino stockholder of PTC questions the sale on the ground that it will increase the common shares of AT, a foreign company, to more than 40% of the capital (stock) of PTC in violation of the 40% limitation of foreign ownership of a public utility. AT argues that the sale does not violate the 60-40 ownership requirement in favor of Filipino citizens decreed in Section II, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution because Filipinos still own 70% of the capital of the PTC. AT points to the fact that it owns only 2,000 common voting shares and 1,000 non-voting preferred shares while Filipino stockholders own 1,000 common shares and 6,000 preferred shares, therefore, Filipino stockholders still own a majority of the outstanding capital stock of the corporation, and both classes of shares have a par value of Php 20.00 per share. Decide. (5%)

VI.

(1) Distinguish the President's authority to declare a state of rebellion from the authority to proclaim a state of national emergency. (2%)

(2) What are the limitations, if any, to the pardoning power of the President? (3%)

VII.

Senator Fleur De Lis is charged with plunder before the Sandiganbayan. After finding the existence of probable cause, the court issues a warrant for the Senator's arrest. The prosecution files a motion to suspend the Senator relying on Section 5 of the Plunder Law. According to the prosecution, the suspension should last until the termination of the case. Senator Lis vigorously opposes the motion contending that only the Senate can discipline its members; and that to allow his suspension by the Court would violate the principle of separation of powers. Is Senator Lis's contention tenable? Explain. (4%)

VIII.

A law provides that the Secretaries of the Departments of Finance and Trade and Industry, the Governor of the Central Bank, the Director General of the National Economic Development Authority, and the Chairperson of the Philippine Overseas Construction Board shall sit as ex-officio members of the Board of Directors (BOD) of a government owned and controlled corporation (GOCC). The other four (4) members shall come from the private sector. The BOD issues a resolution to implement a new organizational structure, staffing pattern, a position classification system, and a new set of qualification standards. After the implementation of the Resolution, Atty. Dipasupil questioned the legality of the Resolution alleging that the BOD has no authority to do so. The BOD claims otherwise arguing that the doctrine of qualified political agency applies to the case. It contends that since its agency is attached to the Department of Finance, whose head, the Secretary of Finance, is an alter ego of the President, the BOD's acts were also the acts of the President. Is the invocation of the doctrine by the BOD proper? Explain. (4%)

IX.

Several senior officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines received invitations from the Chairperson of the Senate Committees on National Defense and Security for them to appear as resource persons in scheduled public hearings regarding a wide range of subjects. The invitations state that these public hearings were triggered by the privilege speeches of the Senators that there was massive electoral fraud during the last national elections. The invitees Brigadier General Matapang and Lieutenant Coronel Makatuwiran, who were among those tasked to maintain peace and order during the last election, refused to attend because of an Executive Order banning all public officials enumerated in paragraph 3 thereof from appearing before either house of Congress without prior approval of the President to ensure adherence to the rule of executive privilege. Among those included in the enumeration are "senior officials of executive departments who, in the judgment of the department heads, are covered by executive privilege." Several individuals and groups challenge the constitutionality of the subject executive order because it frustrates the power of the Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation under Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. Decide the case. (5%)

X.

The Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) issued Memorandum Circular No. 123-15 prescribing the administrative requirements for the conversion of a timber license agreement (TLA) into an Integrated Forestry Management Agreement (IFMA). ABC Corporation, a holder of a TLA which is about to expire, claims that the conditions for conversion imposed by the said circular are unreasonable and arbitrary and a patent nullity because it violates the non-impairment clause under the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution. ABC Corporation goes to court seeking the nullification of the subject circular. The DENR moves to dismiss the case on the ground that ABC Corporation has failed to exhaust administrative remedies which is fatal to its cause of action. If you were the judge, will you grant the motion? Explain. (4%)

XI.

(1) What is the concept of expanded judicial review under the 1987 Constitution? (3%)

(2) Differentiate the rule-making power or the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules under Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution and judicial legislation. (2%)

XII.

Discuss the evolution of the principle of jus sanguinis as basis of Filipino citizenship under the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions. (3%)

XIII.

On August 15, 2015, Congresswoman Dina Tatalo filed and sponsored House Bill No. 5432, entitled "An Act Providing for the Apportionment of the Lone District of the City of Pangarap." The bill eventually became a law, R.A. No. 1234. It mandated that the lone legislative district of the City of Pangarap would now consist of two (2) districts. For the 2016 elections, the voters of the City of Pangarap would be classified as belonging to either the first or second district, depending on their place of residence. The constituents of each district would elect their own representative to Congress as well as eight (8) members of the Sangguniang Panglungsod. R.A. No. 1234 apportioned the City's barangays. The COMELEC thereafter promulgated Resolution No. 2170 implementing R.A. No. 1234.

Piolo Cruz assails the COMELEC Resolution as unconstitutional. According to him, R.A. No. 1234 cannot be implemented without conducting a plebiscite because the apportionment under the law falls within the meaning of creation, division, merger, abolition or substantial alteration of boundaries of cities under Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution. Is the claim correct? Explain. (4%)

XIV.

Congress enacted R.A. No. 14344 creating the City of Masuwerte which took effect on September 25, 2014. Section 23 of the law specifically exempts the City of Masuwerte from the payment of legal fees in the cases that it would file and/or prosecute in the courts of law. In two (2) cases that it filed, the City of Masuwerte was assessed legal fees by the clerk of court pursuant to Rule 141 (Legal Fees) of the Rules of Court. The City of Masuwerte questions the assessment claiming that it is exempt from paying legal fees under Section 23 of its charter. Is the claim of exemption tenable? Explain. (4%)

XV.

The President appointed Dexter I. Ty as Chairperson of the COMELEC on June 14, 2011 for a term of seven (7) years pursuant to the 1987 Constitution. His term of office started on June 2, 2011 to end on June 2, 2018. Subsequently, the President appointed Ms. Marikit as the third member of the COMELEC for a term of seven (7) years starting June 2, 2014 until June 2, 2021. On June 2, 2015, Chairperson Ty retired optionally after having served the government for thirty (30) years. The President then appointed Commissioner Marikit as COMELEC Chairperson. The Commission on Appointments confirmed her appointment. The appointment papers expressly indicate that Marikit will serve as COMELEC Chairperson "until the expiration of the original term of her office as COMELEC Commissioner or on June 2, 2021." Matalino, a tax payer, files a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court asserting that the appointment of Marikit as COMELEC Chairperson is unconstitutional for the following reasons: (1) The appointment of Marikit as COMELEC Chairperson constituted a reappointment which is proscribed by Section 1 (2), Article IX of the 1987 Constitution; and (2) the term of office expressly stated in the appointment papers of Marikit likewise contravenes the aforementioned constitutional provision. Will the constitutional challenge succeed? Explain. (4%)

XVI.

(1) Gandang Bai filed her certificate of candidacy (COC) for municipal mayor stating that she is eligible to run for the said position. Pasyo Maagap, who also filed his COC for the same position, filed a petition to deny due course or cancel Bai's COC under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code for material misrepresentation as before Bai filed her COC, she had already been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Hence, she is disqualified perpetually from holding any public office or from being elected to any public office. Before the election, the COMELEC cancelled Bai' s COC but her motion for reconsideration (MR) remained pending even after the election. Bai garnered the highest number of votes followed by Pasyo Maagap, who took his oath as Acting Mayor. Thereafter, the COMELEC denied Bai's MR and declared her disqualified for running for Mayor. P. Maagap asked the Department of Interior and Local Government Secretary to be allowed to take his oath as permanent municipal mayor. This request was opposed by Vice Mayor Umaasa, invoking the rule on succession to the permanent vacancy in the Mayor's office. Who between Pasyo Maagap and Vice Mayor Umaasa has the right to occupy the position of Mayor? Explain your answer. (5%)

(2) How do you differentiate the petition filed under Section 68 from the petition filed under Section 78, both of the Omnibus Election Code? (3%)

XVII.

The Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Youth Association (GBTYA), an organization of gay, bisexual, and transgender persons, filed for accreditation with the COMELEC to join the forthcoming party-list elections. The COMELEC denied the application for accreditation on the ground that GBTY A espouses immorality which offends religious dogmas. GBTY A challenges the denial of its application based on moral grounds because it violates its right to equal protection of the law.

(1) What are the three (3) levels of test that are applied in equal protection cases? Explain. (3%)

(2) Which of the three (3) levels of test should be applied to the present case? Explain. (3%)

XVIII.

Around 12:00 midnight, a team of police officers was on routine patrol in Barangay Makatarungan when it noticed an open delivery van neatly covered with banana leaves. Believing that the van was loaded with contraband, the team leader flagged down the vehicle which was driven by Hades. He inquired from Hades what was loaded on the van. Hades just gave the police officer a blank stare and started to perspire profusely. The police officers then told Hades that they will look inside the vehicle. Hades did not make any reply. The police officers then lifted the banana leaves and saw several boxes. They opened the boxes and discovered several kilos of shabu inside. Hades was charged with illegal possession of illegal drugs. After due proceedings, he was convicted by the trial court. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.

In his final bid for exoneration, Hades went to the Supreme Court claiming that his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated when the police officers searched his vehicle without a warrant; that the shabu confiscated from him is thus inadmissible in evidence; and that there being no evidence against him, he is entitled to an acquittal.

For its part, the People of the Philippines maintains that the case of Hades involved a consented warrantless search which is legally recognized. The People adverts to the fact that Hades did not offer any protest when the police officers asked him if they could look inside the vehicle. Thus, any evidence obtained in the course thereof is admissible in evidence.

Whose claim is correct? Explain. (5%)

XIX.

Pursuant to its mandate to manage the orderly sale, disposition and privatization of the National Power Corporation's (NPC) generation assets, real estate and other disposable assets, the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management (PSALM) started the bidding process for the privatization of Angat Hydro Electric Power Plant ( AHEPP). After evaluation of the bids, K-Pop Energy Corporation, a South Korean Company, was the highest bidder. Consequently, a notice of award was issued to K-Pop. The Citizens' Party questioned the sale arguing that it violates the constitutional provisions on the appropriation and utilization of a natural resource which should be limited to Filipino citizens and corporations which are at least 60% Filipino-owned. The PSALM countered that only the hydroelectric facility is being sold and not the Angat Dam; and that the utilization of water by a hydroelectric power plant does not constitute appropriation of water from its natural source of water that enters the intake gate of the power plant which is an artificial structure. Whose claim is correct? Explain. (4%)

XX.

Typhoon Bangis devastated the Province of Sinagtala. Roads and bridges were destroyed which impeded the entry of vehicles into the area. This caused food shortage resulting in massive looting of grocery stores and malls. There is power outage also in the area. For these reasons, the governor of the province declares a state of emergency in their province through Proclamation No. 1. He also invoked Section 465 of the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160) which vests on the provincial governor the power to carryout emergency measures during man-made and natural disasters and calamities, and to call upon the appropriate national law enforcement agencies to suppress disorder and lawless violence. In the same proclamation, the governor called upon the members of the Philippine National Police, with the assistance of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, to set up checkpoints and chokepoints, conduct general searches and seizures including arrests, and other actions necessary to ensure public safety. Was the action of the provincial governor proper? Explain. (4%)

XXI.

The Partido ng Mapagkakatiwalaang Pilipino (PMP) is a major political party which has participated in every election since the enactment of the 1987 Constitution. It has fielded candidates mostly for legislative district elections. In fact, a number of its members were elected, and are actually serving, in the House of Representatives. In the coming 2016 elections, the PMP leadership intends to join the party-list system.

Can PMP join the party-list system without violating the Constitution and Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7941? (4%)

XXII.

The President appoints Emilio Melchor as Chairperson of the Civil Service Commission. Upon confirmation of Melchor's appointment, the President issues an executive order including him as Ex-Officio member of the Board of Trustees of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), Employees Compensation Commission (ECC), and the Board of Directors of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHILHEALTH). Allegedly, this is based on the Administrative Code of 1997 (E.O. No. 292), particularly Section 14, Chapter 3, Title I-A, Book V. This provision reads: "The chairman of the CSC shall be a member of the Board of Directors of other governing bodies of government entities whose functions affect the career development, employment, status, rights, privileges, and welfare of government officials and employees... " A taxpayer questions the designation of Melchor as ex-officio member of the said corporations before the Supreme Court based on two (2) grounds, to wit: (1) it violates the constitutional prohibition on members of the Constitutional Commissions to hold any other office or employment during his tenure; and (2) it impairs the independence of the CSC. Will the petition prosper? Explain. (4%)

For the bar exam questions on the other subjects, click on the following links:

• CIVIL LAW
• LABOR LAW
• TAXATION LAW
• MERCANTILE LAW
• CRIMINAL LAW
• REMEDIAL LAW

2015 PHILIPPINE BAR EXAMINATIONS (CIVIL LAW)

2015 CIVIL LAW Bar Exam Questions

JUSTICE TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Chairperson
2015 Bar Examinations

I.

Alden and Stela were both former Filipino citizens. They were married in the Philippines but they later migrated to the United States where they were naturalized as American citizens. In their union they were able to accumulate several real properties both in the US and in the Philippines. Unfortunately, they were not blessed with children. In the US, they executed a joint will instituting as their common heirs to divide their combined estate in equal shares, the five siblings of Alden and the seven siblings of Stela. Alden passed away in 2013 and a year later, Stela also died. The siblings of Alden who were all citizens of the US instituted probate proceedings in a US court impleading the siblings of Stela who were all in the Philippines.

a) Was the joint will executed by Alden and Stela who were both former Filipinos valid? Explain with legal basis. (3%)

b) Can the joint will produce legal effect in the Philippines with respect to the properties of Alden and Stela found here? If so, how? (3%)

c) Is the situation presented in Item I an example of depe9age? (2%)

II.

Marco and Gina were married in 1989. Ten years later, or in 1999, Gina left Marco and lived with another man, leaving their two children of school age with Marco. When Marco needed money for their children's education he sold a parcel of land registered in his name, without Gina's consent, which he purchased before his marriage. Is the sale by Marco valid, void or voidable? Explain with legal basis. (4%)

III.

Julie had a relationship with a married man who had legitimate children. A son was born out of that illicit relationship in 1981. Although the putative father did not recognize the child in his certificate of birth, he nevertheless provided the child with all the support he needed and spent time regularly with the child and his mother. When the man died in 2000, the child was already 18 years old so he filed a petition to be recognized as an illegitimate child of the putative father and sought to be given a share in his putative father's estate. The legitimate family opposed, saying that under the Family Code his action cannot prosper because he did not bring the action for recognition during the lifetime of his putative father.

a) If you were the judge in this case, how would you rule? (4%)

b) Wishing to keep the peace, the child during the pendency of the case decides to compromise with his putative father's family by abandoning his petition in exchange for 1/2 of what he would have received as inheritance if he were recognized as an illegitimate child. As the judge, would you approve such a compromise? (2%)

IV.

Bert and Joe, both male and single, lived together as common law spouses and agreed to raise a son of Bert's living brother as their child without legally adopting him. Bert worked while Joe took care of their home and the boy. In their 20 years of cohabitation they were able to acquire real estate assets registered in their names as co-owners. Unfortunately, Bert died of cardiac arrest, leaving no will. Bert was survived by his biological siblings, Joe, and the boy.

a) Can Article 147 on co-ownership apply to Bert and Joe, whereby all properties they acquired will be presumed to have been acquired by their joint industry and shall be owned by them in equal shares? (2%)

b) What are the successional rights of the boy Bert and Joe raised as their son? (2%)

c) If Bert and Joe had decided in the early years of their cohabitation to jointly adopt the boy, would they have been legally allowed to do so? Explain with legal basis. (3%)

V.

Mrs. L was married to a ship captain who worked for an international maritime vessel. For her and her family's support, she would claim monthly allotments from her husband's company. One day, while en route from Hong Kong to Manila, the vessel manned by Captain L encountered a severe typhoon at sea. The captain was able to send radio messages of distress to the head office until all communications were lost. In the weeks that followed, the search operations yielded debris of the lost ship but the bodies of the crew and the passengers were not recovered. The insurance company thereafter paid out the death benefits to all the heirs of the passengers and crew. Mrs. L filed a complaint demanding that her monthly allotments continue for the next four years until her husband may be legally presumed dead because of his absence. If you were the magistrate, how would you rule? (3%)

VI.

Kardo met Glenda as a young lieutenant and after a whirlwind courtship, they were married. In the early part of his military career, Kardo was assigned to different places all over the country but Glenda refused to accompany him as she preferred to live in her hometown. They did not live together until the 12th year of their marriage when Kardo had risen up the ranks and was given his own command. They moved to living quarters in Fort Gregorio. One day, while Kardo was away on official business, one of his military aides caught Glenda having sex with the corporal assigned as Kardo's driver. The aide immediately reported the matter to Kardo who rushed home to confront his wife. Glenda readily admitted the affair and Kardo sent her away in anger. Kardo would later come to know the true extent of Glenda's unfaithfulness from his aides, his household staff, and former neighbors who informed him that Glenda has had intimate relations with various men throughout their marriage whenever Kardo was away on assignment.

Kardo filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36. Based on interviews from Kardo, his aide, and the housekeeper, a psychologist testified that Glenda's habitual infidelity was due to her affliction with Histrionic Personality Disorder, an illness characterized by excessive emotionalism and uncontrollable attention-seeking behavior rooted in Glenda's abandonment as a child by her father. Kardo himself, his aide, and his housekeeper also testified in court. The RTC granted the petition, relying on the liberality espoused by Te v. Te and Azcueta v. Republic. However, the OSG filed an appeal, arguing that sexual infidelity was only a ground for legal separation and that the RTC failed to abide by the guidelines laid down in the Molina case. How would you decide the appeal? (5%)

VII.

Mr. and Mrs. X migrated to the US with all their children. As they had no intention of coming back, they offered their house and lot for sale to their neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. A (the buyers) who agreed to buy the property for 128 Million. Because Mr. and Mrs. A needed to obtain a loan from a bank first, and since the sellers were in a hurry to migrate, the latter told the buyers that they could already occupy the house, renovate it as it was already in a state of disrepair, and pay only when their loan is approved and released. While waiting for the loan approval, the buyers spent .Pl Million in repairing the house. A month later, a person carrying an authenticated special power of attorney from the sellers demanded that the buyers either immediately pay for the property in full now or vacate it and pay damages for having made improvements on the property without a sale having been perfected.

a) What are the buyers' options or legal rights with respect to the expenses they incurred in improving the property under the circumstances? (3%)

b) Can the buyers be made to immediately vacate on the ground that the sale was not perfected? Explain briefly. (3%)

VIII.

X, Y, Z are siblings who inherited a IO-storey building from their parents. They agreed in writing to maintain it as a co-owned property for leasing out and to divide the net profits among themselves equally for a period of 20 years. On the 8th year, X wanted to get out of the co-ownership so he could get his 1/3 share in the property. Y and Z refused, saying X is bound by their agreement to keep the co-ownership for 20 years. Are Y and Z correct? Explain. (3%)

IX.

Jose, single, donated a house and lot to his only niece, Maria, who was of legal age and who accepted the donation. The donation and Maria's acceptance thereof were evidenced by a Deed of Donation. Maria then lived in the house and lot donated to her, religiously paying real estate taxes thereon. Twelve years later, when Jose had already passed away, a woman claiming to be an illegitimate daughter of Jose filed a complaint against Maria. Claiming rights as an heir, the woman prayed that Maria be ordered to reconvey the house and lot to Jose's estate. In her complaint she alleged that the notary public who notarized the Deed of Donation had an expired notarial commission when the Deed of Donation was executed by Jose. Can Maria be made to reconvey the property? What can she put up as a defense? (4%)

X.

X, a dressmaker, accepted clothing materials from Karla to make two dresses for her. On the day X was supposed to deliver Karla's dresses, X called up Karla to say that she had an urgent matter to attend to and will deliver them the next day. That night, however, a robber broke into her shop and took everything including Karla's two dresses. X claims she is not liable to deliver Karla's dresses or to pay for the clothing materials considering she herself was a victim of the robbery which was a fortuitous event and over which she had no control. Do you agree? Why? (3%)

XI.

Jackie, 16, inherited a townhouse. Because she wanted to study in an exclusive school, she sold her townhouse by signing a Deed of Sale and turning over possession of the same to the buyer. When the buyer discovered that she was still a minor, she promised to execute another Deed of Sale when she turns 18. When Jackie turned 25 and was already working, she wanted to annul the sale and return the buyer's money to recover her townhouse. Was the sale contract void, voidable or valid? Can Jackie still recover the property? Explain. (4%)

XII.

A. Iya and Betty owed Jun P500,000.00 for advancing their equity in a corporation they joined as incorporators. Iya and Betty bound themselves solidarily liable for the debt. Later, Iya and Jun became sweethearts so Jun condoned the debt of P500,000.00. May lya demand from Betty P250,000.00 as her share in the debt? Explain with legal basis. (2%)

B. Juancho, Don and Pedro borrowed P150,000.00 from their friend Cita to put up an internet cafe orally promising to pay her the full amount after one year. Because of their lack of business know-how, their business collapsed. Juancho and Don ended up penniless but Pedro was able to borrow money and put up a restaurant which did well. Can Cita demand that Pedro pay the entire obligation since he, together with the two others, promised to pay the amount in full after one year? Defend your answer. (2%)

XIII.

A. X and Y are partners in a shop offering portrait painting. Y provided the capital and the marketing while X was the portrait artist. They accepted the P50,000.00 payment of Kyla to do her portrait but X passed away without being able to do it. Can Kyla demand that Y deliver the portrait she had paid for because she was dealing with the business establishment and not with the artist personally? Why or why not? (3%)

B. In this jurisdiction, is a joint venture (i.e., a group of corporations contributing resources for a specific project and sharing the profits therefrom) considered a partnership? (3%)

XIV.

A driver of a bus owned by company Z ran over a boy who died instantly. A criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide was filed against the driver. He was convicted and was ordered to pay P2 Million in actual and moral damages to the parents of the boy who was an honor student and had a bright future. Without even trying to find out if the driver had assets or means to pay the award of damages, the parents of the boy filed a civil action against the bus company to make it directly liable for the damages.

a) Will their action prosper? (4%)

b) If the parents of the boy do not wish to file a separate civil action against. the bus company, can they still make the bus company liable if the driver cannot' pay the award for damages? If so, what is the nature of the employer's liability and how may civil damages be satisfied? (3%)

XV.

A. Sara borrowed P50,000.00 from Julia and orally promised to pay it within six months. When Sara tried to pay her debt on the 8th month, Julia demanded the payment of interest of 12o/o per annum because of Sara's delay in payment. Sara paid her debt and the interest claimed by Julia. After rethinking, Sara demanded back from Julia the amount she had paid as interest. Julia claims she has no obligation to return the interest paid by Sara because it was a natural obligation which Sara voluntarily performed and can no longer recover. Do you agree? Explain. (4%)

B. Distinguish civil and natural obligations. (2%)

XVI.

Donna pledged a set of diamond ring and earrings to Jane for P200,000.00 She was made to sign an agreement that if she cannot pay her debt within six months, Jane could immediately appropriate the jewelry for herself. After six months, Donna failed to pay. Jane then displayed the earrings and ring set in her jewelry shop located in a mall. A buyer, Juana, bought the jewelry set for P300,000.00.

a) Was the agreement which Donna signed with Jane valid? Explain with legal basis. (2%)

b) Can Donna redeem the jewelry set from Juana by paying the amount she owed Jane to Juana? Explain with legal basis. (2%)

c) Give an example of a pledge created by operation of law. (2%)

XVII.

Z, a gambler, wagered and lost P2 Million in baccarat, a card game. He was pressured into signing a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the winner covering a parcel of land with improvements worth P20 Million. One month later, the supposed vendee of the property demanded that he and his family vacate the property subject of the deed of sale. Was the deed of sale valid? What can Z do? (4%)

XVIII.

A lawyer was given an authority by means of a Special Power of Attorney by his client to sell a parcel of land for the amount of P3 Million. Since the client owed the lawyer P1 Million in attorney's fees in a prior case he handled, the client agreed that if the property is sold, the lawyer was entitled to get 5% agent's fee plus P1 Million as payment for his unpaid attorney's fees. The client, however, subsequently found a buyer of his own who was willing to buy the property for a higher amount. Can the client unilaterally rescind the authority he gave in favor of his lawyer? Why or why not? (4%)

XIX.

Mr. A, a businessman, put several real estate properties under the name of his eldest son X because at that time, X was the only one of legal age among his four children. He told his son he was to hold those assets for his siblings until they become adults themselves. X then got married. After 5 years, Mr. A asked X to transfer the titles over three properties to his three siblings, leaving two properties for himself. To A's surprise, X said that he can no longer be made to transfer the properties to his siblings because more than 5 years have passed since the titles were registered in his name. Do you agree? Explain. (4%)

XX.

A. Mr. and Mrs. Roman and Mr. and Mrs. Cruz filed an application for registration of a parcel of land which after due proceedings was granted by the RTC acting as a land registration court. However, before the decree of registration could be issued, the spouses Roman and the spouses Cruz sold the lot to Juan. In the notarized deed of sale, the sellers expressly undertook to submit the deed of sale to the land registration court so that the title to the property would be directly issued in Juan's name. Is such a stipulation valid? (2%)

B. Distinguish a direct attack from a collateral attack on a title. (2%)

C. If the title in Item XX.A is issued in the names of the original sellers, would a motion filed by Juan in the same case to correct or amend the title in order to reflect his name as owner be considered a collateral attack? (2%)

For the bar exam questions on the other subjects, click on the following links:

• POLITICAL LAW
• LABOR LAW
• TAXATION LAW
• MERCANTILE LAW
• CRIMINAL LAW
• REMEDIAL LAW

Common Law

Common Law Defined

Common law refers to the body of law based on customs and judicial decisions. In contrast to statutory laws that are enacted by legislatures, common law is unwritten and changes over time. Moreover, common law is developed by the competent court on a case-to-case basis depending on the peculiar circumstances present in individual disputes. Common law originated from the unwritten laws of England, which was later adopted by the United States. As such, all U.S. states, except Louisiana, adopted the English common law as the general law of the state. In contrast, the Philippines is predominantly a civil law country and courts in the Philippines cannot make or create a law. Instead, Philippine courts can only interpret statutes.

Joint Obligation vs. Solidary Obligation

The distinction between Joint and Solidary Obligations are very important in civil law. The following shows the basic differences between the two obligations:

JOINT OBLIGATION - it is one wherein a debtor is obliged to pay a portion of the full amount of debt that corresponds only to his share. Likewise, the joint creditor can only demand a portion of the full amount that corresponds to his share.

For an instance, A and B contracted a loan amounting to P10 million from X. A received a share amounting to P6 million while B received an amount equal to P4 million. When the obligation came due, A is only obliged to pay an amount corresponding to his share of the loan, which is P6 million.

SOLIDARY OBLIGATION - refers to a kind of obligation wherein either one of the creditors has the right to demand full compliance of the obligation from either one of the solidary debtors.

For an instance, in a loan contract, A and B borrowed an amount equal to P10 million and agreed to pay the said amount solidarilly to X and Y, who are also solidary creditors. A received P6 million while B received P4 million. When the contract came due, either X or Y can compel any of A and B to pay the whole amount of P10 million, regardless of their share. The one who paid the whole amount will just reimburse the share received by the other debtor.

Any solidary debtor may be compelled to pay the whole amount, not only his share, whether or not he benefitted from the said debt. Solidary obligation is never presumed. The main reason for this is that solidarity gives huge right to the creditor to demand full compliance of the obligatiom from any of the debtors.

The use of the term "solidary" is not required by law to make a contract or agreement solidary. It is enough that the parties include other terms which also mean the same thing, such as "jointly and severally".

The three sources of solidarity are: (1) by law; (2) by stipulation of the parties to the contract, and; (3) by the nature of the obligation.

U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on civil rights

BROWN vs. BOARD OF EDUCATION

Date Decided: May 17, 1954
Chief Justice Presiding: Earl Warren
Vote Split: 9-0

On this landmark case in the United States, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on May 17, 1954 that it state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white children are unconstitutional. The Court ordered the removal of race-based segregation in public schools mainly because it has a permanent detrimental impact on minority children. This controversial decision, though not welcomed by many politicians and school administrators, set the stage for Civil Rights Movement and paved the way for integration.

The court's ruling on Brown vs. Board of Education essentially reversed an earlier, but equally controversial, decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on the case of Plessy vs. Ferguson. In 1896, the Supreme Court ruled that segregation was constitutional. More specifically, the Court said that the 14th Amendment on equal protection clause guaranteed legal, but not social, equality. Therefore, states can legally offer separate facilities to whites and blacks, provided that said facilities were identical, embodying the concept of "separate but equal".

U.S. Supreme Court's decision on abortion

ROE vs. WADE

Date Decided: January 22, 1973
Chief Justice Presiding: Warren E. Burger
Vote Split: 7-2.

Roe v. Wade is considered as one of the most controversial cases in the United States. This became a battle between an unborn child's right to life and a woman's right to choose.

In the early 1970s, Norma McCorvey, a single mother living in Texas, was pregnant for a third time, McCorvey decided she did not want to bear a third child, but Texas state law prevented her from having an abortion. After almost three years, the U.S. Supreme Court finally released its decision on the case asserting that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a decision of a woman to have an abortion. In effect, this court ruling legalized first trimester abortion. A woman's choice to have an abortion within her first trimester of pregnancy is still within her constitutional right.

Qualifications for Senators and House Representatives

SENATORS AND HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES 

The Philippine Congress is divided into the Upper House and the Lower House. Lawmakers in the Upper House are called Senators while those in the Lower House are called Representatives or Congressmen.

Senators are elected at large by qualified voters to a six-year term. Senators can serve for not more than two consecutive terms. On the other hand, Representatives are elected to a three-year term by voters in their respective legislative districts. They can serve for not more than three consecutive terms.

Qualifications for Senators

1. a natural-born Filipino citizen
2. a registered voter
3. a resident of the Philippines for at least two (2) years before the day of the election
4. at least thirty-five (35) years old

Qualifications for House Representatives

1. a natural-born citizen of the Philippines
2. a registered voter in the district in which they seek to be elected
3. a resident therein for not less than one (1) year before the day of the election
4. at least twenty-five (25) years of age

To know the basic requirements for the highest office of the land, read the article entitled Qualifications for the President of the Philippines.