I.

Cristy and her late husband Luis had two children, Rose and Patrick, One summer, her mother-
in-law, aged 70, took the two children, then aged 10 and 12, with her on a boat trip to Cebu.
Unfortunately, the vessel sank en route, and the bodies of the three were never found. None of
the survivors ever saw them on the water. On the settlement of her mother-in-law's estate, Cristy
files a claim for a share of her estate on the ground that the same was inherited by her children
from their grandmother in representation of their father, and she inherited the same from them.
Will her action prosper?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, her action will not prosper. Since there was no proof as to who died first, all the three are
deemed to have died at the same time and there was no transmission of rights from one to
another, applying Article 43 of the New Civil Code.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

No, her action will not prosper. Under Article 43 of the New Civil Code, inasmuch as there is no
proof as to who died first, all the three are presumed to have died at the same time and there
could be no transmission of rights among them. Her children not having inherited from their
grandmother. Cristy has no right to share in her mother-in-law's estate. She cannot share in her
own right as she is not a legal heir of her mother-in-law. The survivorship provision of Rule 131
of the Rules of Court does not apply to the problem. It applies only to those cases where the
issue involved is not succession.

II.

Gene and Jane, Filipino, met and got married in England while both were taking up post-graduate
courses there. A few years after their graduation, they decided to annul their marriage. Jane filed
an action to annul her marriage to Gene in England on the ground of latter’s sterility, a ground
for annulment of marriage in England. The English court decreed the marriage annulled.
Returning to the Philippines, Gene asked you whether or not he would be free to marry his former
girlfriend. What would your legal advice be?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Gene is not free to marry his former girlfriend. His marriage to Jane is valid according to the
forms and solemnities of British law, is valid here (Article 17, 1st par.,NCC). However, since Gene
and Jane are still Filipinos although living in England, the dissolution of their marriage isstill
governed by Philippine law (Article 15, NCC). Since, sterility is not one of the grounds for the
annulment of a marriage under Article 45 of the Family Code, the annulmen tof Gene’s marriage
to Jane on that ground is not valid in the Philippines (Article 17, NCC)

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Yes, Gene is free to marry his girlfriend because his marriage was validly annulled in
England. The issue of whether or not a marriage is voidable, including the grounds therefore, is
governed by the law of the place where the marriage was solemnized (lex loci
celebrationis). Hence, even if sterility is not a ground to annul the marriage under the Philippine
law, the marriage is nevertheless voidable because sterility makes the marriage voidable under
English law. Therefore, annulment of the marriage in England is valid in the Philippines.

III.

The Roman Catholic Church accepted a donation of a real property located in Lipa City. A deed
of donation was executed, signed by the donor, Don Mariano, and the donee, the Church, as
represented by Fr. Damian. Before the deed could be notarized, Don Mariano died. Is the donation
valid?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The donation is void. The donation of an immovable property must be in
a public instrument in order for it to be valid. In this case, the donor died even before the
notarization of the deed of donation. Hence, it does not satisfy the requirement of being in a
public instrument for the donation to be valid.

IV.

Dorotea leased portions of her 2,000 sq. m. lot to Monet, Kathy, Celia, and Ruth for five (5) years.
Two (2) years before the expiration of the lease contract, Dorotea sold the property to PM Realty
and Development Corporation. The following month, Dorotea and PM Realty stopped accepting
rental payments from all the lessees because they wanted to terminate the lease contracts. Due
to the refusal of Dorotea to accept rental payments, the lessees , Ruth, et al., filed a complaint
for consignation of the rentals before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila without notifying
Dorotea. Is the consignation valid?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the consignation is not valid. For consignation of the thing or sum due
to be proper, there must be prior notice to the creditor that the debtor is going to consign the
payment in court. This notice is intended to give the creditor the opportunity to accept payment
and thus avoid liability for costs in case it is found that the act of consignation was properly made.
Even on the assumption that Dorotea was no longer the creditor as she had already sold the
property to DM Realty, the facts do not state that the realty corporation was also given notice
before filing the case for consignation.

V.

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.
Whenthatthe buyer discovered 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.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The contract of sale was voidable on the ground that Jackie is incapable
of giving consent at the time of the execution of the sale. (Article 1390 and Article 1327) Jackie
can no longer recover the townhouse unit because if a contract is voidable on the ground of
minority, the action to annul it must be filed within four (4) years from attainment of the age of
majority. Since Jackie was already 25 years old, the action has clearly prescribed because she
should have filed it before she reached the age of 22. (Article 1391, Civil Code)