1

Significant decisions updates and potential questions in the 2024 BAR EXAMS in
CIVIL LAW
Dean Nenita D.C. Tuazon

A. SALES

Q1. Is EARNEST MONEY given in Contract to Sell?

Ans. Earnest money, under Article 1482 of the Civil Code, is ordinarily given in a
perfected contract of sale. However, earnest money may also be given in a contract to
sell. Earnest money given in a contract to sell as "consideration for [seller's] promise to
reserve the subject property for the buyer." In a contract to sell, earnest money is generally
intended to compensate the seller for the opportunity cost of not looking for any other
buyers. It is part of the purchase price while at the same time proof of commitment by
the potential buyer. (Kim vs. Quicho, G.R. No. 249247, March 15, 2021, J . Lopez)

Q2. Will partial payments be retained or return in case the sale failed to proceed?
No. the SC held that "partial payments may be retained and considered as rentals by the
seller if the buyer was given possession or was able to use the property prior to transfer
of title." t it is only proper that respondents reciprocate their use of the premises with the
payment of rentals while full payment on their contract was still pending, to compensate
petitioners' inability to enjoy or use their own property (Kim vs. Quicho, Ibid)

Q3. What is the effect of rescission of a contract under Article 1191 of the Civil Code?
Ans. It will result in the mutual restitution of the benefits which the parties
received, except in the following instances: (Kim vs.Quicho
Ans.
• 1) when there is an express stipulation to the contrary by way of a forfeiture or
penalty clause in recognition of the parties' autonomy to contract; or
• 2) if the buyer was given possession or was able to use the property prior to
transfer of title, where in such case partial payments may be retained and
considered as rentals by the seller to avoid unjust enrichment.

Q4. Will there be unjust enrichment on the part of the seller should the initial payment
in sale such as earnest money be deemed forfeited in case the sale did not proceed?
Ans. Absent proof of a clear agreement to the contrary, it is intended to be forfeited if
the sale does not happen without the seller's fault. For this reason, the Court, held that
[t]here is no unjust enrichment on the part of the seller should the initial payment be
deemed forfeited. After all, the owner could have found other offers or a better deal. The
earnest money given by respondents is the cost of holding this search in abeyance." (Kim
vs. Quicho, G.R. No. 249247, March 15, 2021, J . Lopez)

Q5. What is required for sellers' cancellations under the Maceda Law to be effective?
Ans. of Sections 3 and 4. This Court clarifies here that with respect to notices of
cancellation or demands for rescission by notarial act, an acknowledgement is
 2

imperative. Moreover, when these are made through representatives of juridical persons
selling real property, the authority of these representatives must be duly demonstrated.
(Orbe vs. Filinvest Land, Inc., G.R. No. 208185, Sept. 06, 2017, J. Leonen)

Q6. What is the meaning of paying "at least two years of installments" to benefit from
R.A. 6552, or Maceda Law?
Ans. When Republic Act No. 6552 or the Maceda Law speaks of paying "at least two years
of installments" in order for the benefits under its Section 3 to become available, it refers
to the buyer's payment of two (2) years' worth of the stipulated fractional, periodic
payments due to the seller. Down payments, deposits or options on the contract shall be
included in the computation of the total number of installment payments made. (Orbe
vs. Filinvest Land, Inc. - G.R. No. 208185, Sept. 06, 2017, J. Leonen)

Q7. Conventional redemption.

Will the mortgagor's default operates to automatically vest on the mortgagee the
ownership of the encumbered property?
Ans. No. The mortgagor's default does not operate to automatically vest on the
mortgagee the ownership of the encumbered property, for any such effect is against
public policy. Art. 2088 of the New Civil Code provides that a creditor cannot appropriate
or consolidate ownership over a mortgaged property merely upon failure of the
mortgagor to pay a debt obligation. The essence of pactum commissorium is that
ownership of the security will pass to the creditor by the mere default of the
debtor. Incidentally, the only right of a mortgagee in case of nonpayment of debt secured
by mortgage would be to foreclose the mortgage and have the encumbered property sold
to satisfy the outstanding indebtedness. (Singson vs. Carpio,
G.R. No. 238714. August 30, 2023, CJ Gesmundo)

B. FAMILY RELATIONS - FILIATION

Q8. Richelle Ordona was married to Ariel but eventually got separated when she
discovered that Ariel Fulgueras had an illicit relationship while Richell was in Qatar.
She has not yet filed a petition for annulment of her marriage to Ariel. Thereafter,
Richelle met Allan and were engaged in an intimate relationship which resulted in her
pregnancy with Allan as the purported father. In the Certificate of Live Birth, the child
was given the name "Alrich Paul Ordoña Fulgueras” with "Allan Demen Fulgueras" as
the purported father. Richell then filed before the RTC the Rule 108 petition seeking
the corrections among others on the change of last name of Alrich Paul from
"Fulgueras" to "Ordoña," Rickelle's maiden name. Will her petition prosper?
Ans. No, Richelle is not the proper party to file this Petition. To impugn the legitimacy
of a child must be brought by the proper parties and within the period limited by law.
She is barred from impugning Alrich Paul's presumed legitimacy considering the
prohibition under Article 167 of the Family Code which provides that "[t]he child shall
be considered legitimate although the mother may have declared against its legitimacy
 3

or may have been sentenced as an adulteress." (Ordona vs. LCR of Pasig, EN BANC,
G.R. No. 215370, November 09, 2021, J. Inting ]

Q9. Who should file the petition if not the mother?

Ans. Still, the rule is that the mother is barred from impugning or declaring against the
legitimacy of her child, and only the father, or in exceptional instances, his heirs, can
contest in an appropriate action the legitimacy of a child born to his wife based on any of
the grounds enumerated under Article 166 of the Family Code. (Ordona vs. LCR of Pasig,
EN BANC, G.R. No. 215370, November 09, 2021, J. Inting ]

Q10. May a Petition for Judicial Approval for Voluntary Recognition of a Minor Child
filed by the child’s putative father and with mother’s declaration that the child was not
fathered by the first husband prosper?
Ans. No. Article 170 provides that only the husband and, in some instances, his heirs can
bring this direct action but only on specified grounds. Even the mother is prohibited by
law from declaring against her child's legitimacy. The presumption of legitimacy where
the child was declared legitimate by virtue of the mother's first marriage is unaffected
despite the mother's declaration that her child was not fathered by her first husband.
Even the putative father is prohibited from impugning the legitimacy of the child
because he is not the husband allowed by law to do so. (Cua Ko v. Republic,
G.R. No. 210984. April 12, 2023, J. Leonen)

Q11. Does the law requires a clinical diagnosis of a mental or personality disorder to
obtain a decree of nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity?
Ans. As contemplated under the law, psychological incapacity plainly depicts an
enduring aspect of a spouse's personality structure, existing at the time of the celebration
of marriage, that render [them] incapable of understanding and complying with [their]
essential marital obligations, manifested through clear acts of dysfunctionality that
undermines the family. In other words, the law does not require a clinical diagnosis of a
mental or personality disorder to obtain a decree of nullity on the ground of
psychological incapacity. (Dedicatoria vs. Dedicatoria,
G.R. No. 250618, July 20, 2022, J. Lopez)

Q12.. May petitioner filed a petition to declare their marriage as null and void under
Art. 36 of the Family Code where he came to court with unclean hands?
Ans. A petition for nullity of marriage may be filed by either spouses, whether
incapacitated or not. What is relevant is for the petition to contain specific allegations of
the incapacity of either or both spouses from complying with the essential marital
obligations at the time of the marriage. The only requirement is that at least one of them
is psychologically incapacitated to comprehend and discharge their marital obligations.
(Clavecilla vs. Clavecilla, G.R. No. 228127, March 6, 2023, CJ Gesmundo)

Q13. May sexual infidelity which is a ground for legal separation under Art. 55 of the
Family Code, be deemed as a manifestation of psychological incapacity?
 4

Ans. The allegation of marital infidelity cannot be automatically ruled as an invalid

ground to declare a marriage void ab initio. In order for sexual infidelity to constitute as
psychological incapacity, the respondent's unfaithfulness must be established as a
manifestation of a disordered personality, completely preventing the respondent from
discharging the essential obligations of the marital state. There must be proof of a natal
or supervening disabling factor that effectively incapacitated him from complying with
the obligation to be faithful to his spouse between the acts that manifest psychological
incapacity and the psychological disorder itself. As long as the alleged sexual infidelity
stemmed from the psychological incapacity of the unfaithful spouse, then it can be a valid
ground for declaration of nullity of marriage under Art. 36 of the Family Code.
(Clavecilla vs. Clavecilla, G.R. No. 228127, March 6, 2023, CJ Gesmundo)

Q14. Marian got married to Dingdong in 1987 prior to the effectivity of the Family
Code on August 03, 1988. When she filed a Petition for Nullification of their marriage,
the OSG opposed since psychological incapacity is not among the grounds under the
Civil Code which is the governing law at the time of their marriage , hence cannot be
be given retroactive effect? Is the OSG correct in its contention?
Ans. No. A plain reading of the above provisions would reveal that the Family Code,
including its concept of psychological incapacity as a ground to nullify marriage, shall be
given retroactive effect, to the extent that no vested or acquired rights under relevant
laws will be prejudiced or impaired. In this regard, even if the marriage took place before
the effectivity of the Family Code, the same can be declared void on the ground of the
parties' psychological incapacity, as long as no vested or acquired rights are disturbed.
Nowhere does it state that Art. 36 cannot be retroactively applied to marriages that were
celebrated prior to the effectivity of the Family Code. Candelario v. Candelario,
G.R. No. 222068. July 25, 2023, J. Hernando)

Q15. In case an action for legal separation is granted, what will happen to a child below
the age of seven (7)?
Ans. As a rule, the custody of the child shall be awarded to the innocent spouse, except
if the child is below the age of seven (7) where the law says that the child cannot be
separated from the mother. However, if there is a compelling reason to wrest away
custody from a mother over her child although under seven (7) years of age: such as
neglect, abandonment, unemployment, immorality, habitual drunkenness, drug
addiction, maltreatment of the child, insanity or affliction with a communicable disease,
the child even below the age of 7 can be taken against her. (Masbate vs. Relucio,
G.R. No. 235498, 30 July 2018, J. Perlas-Bernabe)

Q16. May a father of an illegitimate child exercise substitute parental authority in case
of case of the death, absence, or unsuitability of the mother?
Ans. No. In case of the death, absence, or unsuitability of the parents or the mother in the
case of illegitimate children, substitute parental authority shall be exercised by the
surviving grandparent pursuant to Article 214 of the Family Code, or to the specified
persons in the order provided under Article 216 thereof. The father of an illegitimate child
 5

may only exercise substitute parental authority and be given custody in situations where
he is the "child's actual custodian," as provided under Article 216 of the Family Code.
Spouses Gabun v. Stolk, Sr., G.R. No. 234660, June 26, 2023, J. Kho, Jr.,)

Q17. What are the Substantial Effects of a Decree of Adoption under RA 11642?
Ans. 1) As to Extension of Filiation - The adoptee shall be considered the legitimate child
of the adopter for all intents and purposes and as such in entitled to all the rights and
obligations provided by law to legitimate children born to them without discrimination
of any kind. The legitimate filiation that is created between the adopter and adoptee shall
be extended to the adopter’s parents, adopter’s legitimate siblings, and legitimate
descendants.
2) As to support- iven that the adopted child now has relatives, support may come
not only from the adopter, as a parent, but should likewise be demandable from the
adoptee’s other relatives in accordance with Article 195 of the Family Code.
3) As to inclusion in the Family Relations - In view of established relationship of
the adoptee with the adopter’s legitimate descendants where the adoptee becomes a
brother or sister to the adopter’s legitimate children, the adopted child is legally included
within the definition of family relations under Article 150 of the Family Code. Therefore,
any suit between the adoptee and the legitimate children of the adopter should be
compulsorily preceded by earnest efforts towards a compromise following Article 151 of
the Family Code under the penalty of dismissal of a suit between family members.
4) As to Substitute Parental Authority With the extension of the legitimate filiation
of adoption to the adopter’s parents where the adoptee is now considered the legitimate
grandchild of the adopter’s parents. There is a sufficient legal basis to conclude that
substitute parental authority may be exercised by the adopter’s parents over the adoptee
in the absence of the adopter.
5)As to parental authority - The new adoption law grants full parental authority to
the adopter over the adoptee, unless the biological parent is the spouse of the adopter. If
the spouses adopted jointly, it follows that parental authority belongs to both.

C. LEASE

Q18. Will a stipulation in a lease contract that authorizes the lessor to take possession
of the leased premises valid and binding, even when there is no judicial action?
Ans. This Court upheld the contract provision as valid, declaring that since such
stipulations form "the law between the parties, they must be respected." Under Article
1673, "[t]he lessor may judicially eject the lessee" in the following instances:
• (1) if the period agreed upon has expired;
• (2) if the lessee fails to pay the price stipulated;
• (3) if the lessee violates any of the conditions of the contract; and
• (4) if the thing leased suffered deterioration due to use or service not stipulated.
However, judicial action is not always required to eject the lessee. This Court ruled
that such stipulation in a lease contract, which authorized the sublessor to take
possession of the premises without judicial action, is valid and binding because the
 6

stipulation is in the nature of a resolutory condition. This stipulation is in the nature

of a resolutory condition, for upon the exercise by the Sub-lessor of his right to take
possession of the leased property, the contract is deemed terminated. This kind of
contractual stipulation is not illegal, there being nothing in the law proscribing such
kind of agreement. (Aniceto vs. CJH Development Corp.- G.R. No. 224006, July 06,
2020, J. Leonen)

Q19. Is there a consideration for the grant of the right of first refusal if such grant is
embodied in the same contract of lease?
Ans. Yes. Since the stipulation forms part of the entire lease contract, the consideration
for the lease includes the consideration for the grant of the right of first refusal. In entering
into the contract, the lessee is in effect stating that it consents to lease the premises and to
pay the price agreed upon provided the lessor also consents that, should it sell the leased
property, then, the lessee shall be given the right to match the offered purchase price and
to buy the property at that price (Osmena vs. Power Sector Assets and Liabilities
Management Corporation, G.R. No. 212686, September 28, 2015 ]

Q20. What is the rule if of the RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL is incorporated in lease
contracts involving public assets?
Ans. GEN. RULE: The inclusion of a right of first refusal in a government contract
executed post-bidding, as here, negates the essence of public bidding because the
stipulation "gives the winning bidder an x x x advantage over the other bidders who
participated in the bidding x x x." Moreover, a "right of first refusal", " or "right to top,"
whether granted to a bidder or non-bidder, discourages other parties from submitting
bids, narrowing the number of possible bidders and thus preventing the government
from securing the best bid.
XPN. These clauses escape the taint of invalidity only where the right of first refusal (or
"right to top") is founded on the beneficiary's "interest on the object over which the right
of first refusal is to be exercised"

D. PROPERTY (EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY)

Q21. When is a party deemed to acquire title over the use of land (that is, title over the
easement of right of way)?
Ans. Generally, title over the use an easement of right of way is acquired voluntarily (by
contract between the two estates) or legally (by filing a case in court for its conferment)
a) If it had subsequently entered into contractual right of way with the heirs for the
continued use of the land under the principles of voluntary easements or
(b) it had filed a case against the heirs for conferment on it of a legal easement of right
of way under Article 629 of the Civil Code, then title over the use of the land is deemed
to exist. Fernandez vs. Delfin. G.R. No. 227917, March 17, 2021, J. Leonen)

Q22. What are the requirements in the conferment of a legal easement of right of
way?
 7

Ans. Under Article 629 is subject to proof of the following:

• (1) it is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public
highway;
• (2) payment of proper indemnity;
• (3) the isolation is not the result of its own acts; and
• (4) the right of way claimed is at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate,
and, insofar as consistent with this rule, the distance from the dominant estate to
the highway is the shortest.

Q23. Will the same provision applies if the two (2) estates are owned by one person
and how does it affect the eaement?
Ans. No. If the two estates had previously been owned by one person and established
an apparent sign of an easement between them, Article 624 of the Civil Code applies.
When the ownership of either property is transferred to another, the existence of the
apparent sign of easement shall be considered as a title over an easement, unless the
contrary is provided in the deed of transfer, or if the apparent sign is removed before the
deed of transfer's execution.(Sps. Fernandez vs. Sps. Delfin, G.R. No. 227917, March 17,
2021, J. Leonen)

E. NUISANCE

Q24. Is Noise from blowers a Nuisance Per Se and what is the required test?
Ans. The use of blowers and consequent emission of noise. Is NOT a nuisance per se.
The noise complained of in this case has already been recognized by the SC in the case of
AC Enterprises not to be a nuisance per se. Noise can be considered a nuisance only if it
affects injuriously the health or comfort of ordinary people in the vicinity to an
unreasonable extent. The test is whether rights of property, of health or of comfort are so
injuriously affected by the noise in question that the sufferer is subjected to a loss which
goes beyond the reasonable limit imposed upon him by the condition of living, or of
holding property, in a particular locality in fact devoted to uses which involve the
emission of noise although ordinary care is taken to confine it within reasonable bounds;
or in the vicinity of property of another owner who, though creating a noise, is acting
with reasonable regard for the rights of those affected by it. The determining factor when
noise alone is the cause of complaint is not its intensity or volume. It is that the noise is
of such character as to produce actual physical discomfort and annoyance to a person of
ordinary sensibilities, rendering adjacent property less comfortable and valuable. The
reasonable use of one's property is dependent on the circumstances of each case, taking
into consideration factors such as locality and character of surroundings, the nature,
utility and social value of the use, the extent and nature of the harm involved, the nature,
utility and social value of the use of enjoyment invaded, and the like. If the noise does
that it can well be said to be substantial and unreasonable in degree, and reasonableness
is a question of fact dependent upon all the circumstances and conditions. There can be
no fixed standard as to what kind of noise constitutes a nuisance.
(Frabelle Properties vs. AC Enterprises, G.R. No. 245438, November 03, 2020, CJ. Peralta)
 8

Q25. Since the Makati City Government issued permits and licenses, does it mean that
the LGUs have power to declare a particular thing as a nuisance?
Ans. No. The act of granting permits and licenses is an exercise different and separate
from and notably does not even require a determination of nuisance. More importantly,
the Makati City government cannot through the exercise of granting permits and licenses
determine nuisance in light of the SC pronouncement that local government units do not
have power to declare a particular thing as a nuisance unless such is a nuisance per se.
This matter is to be resolved by the courts in the ordinary course of law.

Q26. Can the registered owner's right to evict an illegal settler be barred by laches?
Ans. No. It is a fundamental principle in land registration that the certificate of title is
evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title over the property in favor of the
person in whose name it is registered. The title serves as conclusive evidence of the
ownership of the land described therein. Thus, the person who has a Torrens title over
the property is entitled to its possession. Likewise, the registered owner's right to evict
the illegal occupant is imprescriptible. This s despite the former's knowledge of the latter's
occupation, and regardless of the length of said occupation. The Court has repeatedly
affirmed that the right of the registered owner to eject any person illegally occupying
his/her property is imprescriptible, and may not be barred by laches. This stems from
the fact that laches cannot be set up to resist the enforcement of an imprescriptible legal
right. Laches, is a principle based on equity, and may not prevail against a specific
provision of law, because equity, which is defined as "justice outside legality," is applied
in the absence of and not against statutory law or rules of procedure (Ebancuel vs.
Acierto, G.R. No. 21454, July 28, 2021, J. Gaerlan)
.
Q27. Co-ownership. Is the sale of a co-owner of his undivided interest valid or void?
Ans. Since a co-owner is entitled to sell his undivided share, a sale of the entire property
by one co-owner without the consent of the other co-owners is not null and void.
However, only the rights of the co-owner-seller are transferred, thereby making the buyer
a co-owner of the property. The proper action in cases like this is not for the nullification
of the sale or for the recovery of the thing owned in common from the third person who
substituted the co-owner or co-owners who alienated their shares, but the DIVISION of
the common property as if it continued to remain in the possession of the co-owners who
possessed and administered it.( Reyes vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 225159, March 21, 2022, J.
Hernando)

Q28. Will an action for ejectment and recovery of possession be the remedy of a co-
owner in case his co-owner sold without his consent their co-owned property?
Ans. No. The action for eject instituted by herein respondents in the lower court is
premature, for what must be settled first is the action for partition. The appropriate
recourse of co-owners in cases where their consent were not secured in a sale of the entire
property as well as in a sale merely of undivided shares of some of the co-owners is an
action for PARTITION under Rule 69 of the Revised Rules of Court, not recovery of
 9

possession or restitution since the defendant buyers are legitimate proprietors and
possessors in joint ownership of the common property claimed Unless a project of
partition is effected, each heir cannot claim ownership over a definite portion of the
inheritance. Without partition, either by agreement between the parties or by judicial
proceeding, a co-heir cannot dispose of a specific portion of the estate. (Reyes vs. Garcia,
G.R. No. 225159, March 21, 2022, J. Hernando)

F. SUCCESSION

Q29. May a child whose parents did not marry each other inherits from their
grandparent by their right of representation? regardless of the grandparent's marital
status at the birth of the child's parent.
Ans. Yes a child whose parents did not marry each other inherits from their grandparent
by their right of representation regardless of the grandparent's marital status at the birth
of the child's parent. Children, regardless of their parents’ marital status, can now inherit
from their grandparents and other direct ascendants by right of representation. Also. SC
held that DNA testing is a valid method of determining filiation in all cases where this is
an issue. Aquino vs. Aquino, G.R. Nos. 208912 and 209018, SC EN BANC
J. Leonen)

Q30. Whether it was proper for the RTC to (1) pass upon the intrinsic validity of the
will during probate proceedings and (2) order the case to proceed intestate because of
preterition.
Ans. The general rule is that in probate proceedings, the scope of the court's inquiry is
limited to questions on the extrinsic validity of the will; the probate court will only
determine the will's formal validity and due execution. However, this rule is not
inflexible and absolute. It is not beyond the probate court's jurisdiction to pass upon the
intrinsic validity of the will when so warranted by exceptional circumstances.
Morales vs. Olondriz, G.R. No. 198994, Feb. 03, 2016, J. Brion)

G. TORTS

Q31. What is required for res ipsa loquitur to apply vehicular accidents?
Ans. It is sufficient that the accident itself be established, and once established through
the admission of evidence, whether hearsay or not, the rule on res ipsa loquitur already
starts to apply. Since it is clearly established that there was a vehicular accident that
caused injuries, then the rule on res ipsa loquitur shall apply. An inference of negligence
on the part of driver the person who controls the instrumentality (vehicle) causing the
injury, arises, and he has the burden of presenting proof to the contrary. Jurisprudence
has established that under Article 2180, "when an injury is caused by the negligence of
the employee, there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on
the part of the master or employer either in the selection of the servant or employee, or
in supervision over him after selection or both.” The responsibility treated of in this article
shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence
 10

of a good father of a family to prevent damage. "The liability of the employer under
Article 2180 is direct and immediate; it is not conditioned upon prior recourse against the
negligent employee and a prior showing of the insolvency of such employee.” (Maitim
vs. Aguila, G.R. No. 218344, March 21, 2022, J. Hernando)

H. MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE & MALPRACTICE

Q32. What is medical malpractice, how to pursue, and what are the four (4) elements
involved in medical negligence cases?
Ans. Medical malpractice is a particular form of negligence which consists in the failure
of a physician or surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine that degree of care and skill
which is ordinarily employed by the profession generally, under similar conditions, and
in like surrounding circumstances. In order to successfully pursue such a claim, a patient
must prove that the physician or surgeon either failed to do something which a
reasonably prudent physician or surgeon would have done, or that he or she did
something that a reasonably prudent physician or surgeon would not have done, and
that the failure or action caused injury to the patient. There are thus four elements
involved in medical negligence cases, namely: (1) duty, (2) breach, (3) injury, and (4)
proximate causation. (De Jesus vs. Dr. Uyloan, G.R. No. 234851,Feb. 15, 2022, C.J.
Gesmundo)

I. COMPROMISE AGREEMENT

Q33. May a compromise agreement be entered even after final judgment?

Ans. Yes. There is no justification to disallow a compromise agreement, solely because it
was entered into after final judgment. The validity of the agreement is determined by
compliance with the requisites and principles of contracts, not by when it was entered
into. There was nothing to prevent the parties from entering into a new or modified
compromise agreement even after the subject judgment based on compromise agreement
attained finality. (Sps. Garcia vs. Sps. Soriano G.R. No. 219431, Aug. 24, 2020, J. Inting)