Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

PARTNERSHIP Q: Henry and Lyons are engaged in real estate business and are coowners of a parcel of land.

Henry, with the consent of Lyons, mortgaged the property to raise the funds sufficient to buy and develop the San Juan Estate. Lyons expressed his desire not to be part of the development project, but Henry, nevertheless, pursued the business alone. When the business prospered, Lyons demanded for a share in the business. Is Lyons entitled to the shares in San Juan Estate? A: No. Lyons himself manifested his desire not to be part of the development project. Thus, no partnership was formed. The mortgage of the land was immaterial to the existence of the partnership. It is clear that Henry, in buying the San Juan Estate, was not acting for any partnership composed of himself and Lyons, and the law cannot be distorted into a proposition which would make Lyons a participant in this deal contrary to his express determination. (Lyons v. Rosenstock, G.R. No. 35469, Mar. 17, 1932) Q: A partnership was entered into between Mauricio and Severino to operate a fishpond. Neither partner contributed a fishpond or a real right over any fish pond. Their capital contributions were in cash in the amount of P1,000 each. While the partnership contract was done in a public instrument, no inventory of the fishpond to be operated was attached in the said instrument. Is there a valid contract of partnership? A: Yes. There is a valid contract of partnership despite the lack of inventory. The purpose of the partnership was not to engage in the fishpond business but to operate a fishpond. Neither said fishpond nor a real right to any fish pond was contributed to the partnership or become part of the capital thereof. (Agad v. Mabato, G.R. No. L24193, June 28, 1968) Q: Who is a partner by estoppel? A: One who, by words or conduct does any of the following: 1. Directly represents himself to anyone as a partner in an existing partnership or in a nonexisting partnership 2. Indirectly represents himself by consenting to another representing him as a partner in an existing partnership or in a nonexisting partnership Q: What are the elements before a partner can be held liable on the ground of estoppel? A: 1. Defendant represented himself as partner or is represented by others as such, and did not deny/refute such representation. 2. Plaintiff relied on such representation. 3. Statement of defendant is not refuted. Q: What is the nature of a partner's right in specific partnership property? A: 1. Equal right to possession for partnership purposes 2. Right is not assignable, except in connection with assignment of rights of all partners in the same property 3. Right is limited to his share of what remains after partnership debts have been paid 4. Right is not subject to attachment or execution except on a claim against the partnership 5. Right is not subject to legal support Q: When does a general partner need consent or ratification of all the limited partners? A: When he: 1. does any act in contravention of the certificate; 2. does any act which would make it impossible to carry on the ordinary business of the partnership; 3. confesses judgment against partnership; 4. possesses partnership property / assigns rights in specific partnership property other than for partnership purposes; 5. admits person as general partner; 6. admits person as limited partner unless authorized in certificate; or 7. continues business with partnership property on death, retirement, civil interdiction, insanity or insolvency of general partner unless authorized in the certificate.

AGENCY Q: When is there an agency by estoppel? A: When one leads another to believe that a certain person is his agent, when as a matter of fact such is not true, and the latter acts on such misrepresentation, the former cannot disclaim liability, for he has created an agency by estoppel. (Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, Vol. V, p. 558, 6th ed) Q: What is the scope of the agents authority as to third persons? A: It includes not only the actual authorization conferred upon the agent by his principal but also that which is apparent or impliedly delegated to him. Q: What are the instances when the agent may retain in pledge the object of the agency? A: 1. If principal fails to reimburse the agent the necessary sums, including interest, which the latter advanced for the execution of the agency (Art. 1912, NCC); or 2. If principal fails to indemnify the agent for all damages which the execution of the agency may have caused the latter, without fault or negligence on his part. (Art. 1913, NCC) Q: What is presumption of continuance of agency? A: It means that when once shown to have existed, an agency relation will be presumed to have continued, in the absence of anything which shows its termination. Q: How is agency impliedly revoked? A: Principal: 1. appoints a new agent for the same business or transaction (Art. 1923, NCC); 2. directly manages the business entrusted to the agent (Art. 1924, NCC); or 3. after granting general power of attorney, grants a special one to another agent which results in the revocation of the former as regards the special matter involved in the latter. (Art. 1926, NCC) Q: What is the effect of the direct management by the principal? A: GR: The agency is revoked for there would no longer be any basis for the representation previously conferred. But the principal must act in good faith and not merely to avoid his obligation to the agent. X: The only desire of the principal is for him and the agent to manage the business together. Q: What is the effect of a change of circumstance surrounding the transaction? A: GR: The authority of the agent is terminated. X: 1. If the original circumstances are restored within a reasonable period of time, the agent's authority may be revived; 2. Where the agent has reasonable doubts as to whether the principal would desire him to act, his authority will not be terminated if he acts reasonably; or 3. Where the principal and agent are in close daily contact, the agent's authority to act will not terminate upon a change of circumstances if the agent knows the principal is aware of the change and does not give him new instructions. (De Leon, pp. 616617, 2005 ed) LAND TITLES
Q: Is the right of the public to rely on the face of a certificate of title absolute? A: No. This is unavailing when the party concerned has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that should imply a reasonably cautious man to make such further inquiry.

Q: What are the exceptions to the application of the mirror doctrine? A: BOB LIKA 1. Where the purchaser or mortgagee is a Bank/financing institution; 2. Where the Owner still holds a valid and existing certificate of title covering the same property because the law protects the lawful holder of a registered title over the transfer of a vendor bereft of any transmissible right; 3. Purchaser in Bad faith; 4. Purchases land with a certificate of title containing a notice of Lis pendens; 5. Sufficiently strong indications to impel closer Inquiry into the location, boundaries and condition of the lot; 6. Purchaser had full Knowledge of flaws and defects in the title; or 7. Where a person buys land not from the registered owner but from whose rights to the land has been merely Annotated on the certificate of title. Q: When may a forged document become the root of a valid title? A: When the seller thru insidious means obtains the owners duplicate certificate of title, converts it in his name, and subsequently sells or otherwise encumbers it to an innocent purchaser for value. Q: X, who did not know how to read and write was, made to sign by her adopted son a paper which turned out to be a deed of sale of her house and lot. She now questions the sale of the properties in favor of the vendee. Who has a better right? A: The vendee has a better right. This is so because, although generally a forged fraudulent deed is nullity and conveys no title, there are instances when such a fraudulent document may become the root of a valid title . One such instance is where the certificate of title was already transferred from the name of the owner to the forger, and while it remained that way, the land was subsequently sold to an innocent purchaser. For then, the vendee had the right to rely upon what appeared in the certificate. (Fule v. Legare, G.R. No. L17951, Feb. 28, 1963) Q: What laws govern land registration? A: Property Registration Decree (PD 1529, as amended) 1. Cadastral Act (Act 2259, as amended) 2. Public Land Act (CA No. 141,as amended) 3. Emancipation Decree (PD 27, as amended) 4. Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (R.A. 6657) 5. Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (R.A. 8371) Q: May private corporations hold alienable lands of public domain? A: No. The word persons refers to natural persons who are citizens of the Philippines. Juridical or artificial persons are excluded. Sec. 3, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution prohibits private corporations or associations from holding alienable lands of the public domain except by lease. Q: Noynoy, Erap, Manny and Gibo are coowners of a parcel of land. May Manny seek registration in his name of the land in its entirety? A: Since a coowner cannot be considered a true owner of a specific portion until division or partition is e ffected, he cannot file an application for registration of the whole area without joining the coowners as applicants. (Agcaoili reviewer, p. 19, 2008 ed) Q: When may an amendment of the application be had? A: Amendments to the application including joinder, substitution, or discontinuance as to the parties may be allowed by the court at any stage of the proceedings upon just and reasonable terms. (Sec. 19, PD 1529) Q: Who may order that an amendment be done? A: The court may at anytime, order an application to be amended by striking out one or more parcels of land or by severance of the application. (Sec.18, PD 1529) Q: May a private person oppose registration on the ground that the land sought to be registered is owned by the government? A: No. A private person may not oppose an application for registration on the ground that the land applied for is a property of the government. (Agcaoili, p. 172, 2006) Q: Are tax declarations or payment of realty tax conclusive evidence of ownership? A: No. Tax declarations or realty tax payment of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership. However, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or at least constructive possession. They constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property.

SUCCESSION Q: How are wills revoked by operation of law? A: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

When after the testator has made a will, he sells or donates the legacy or devise; Provisions in a will in favor of a spouse who has given cause for legal separation; When an heir, legatee or devisee commits an act of unworthiness; When a credit that has been given as a legacy is judicially demanded by the testator; When one, some or all the compulsory heirs have been preterited or omitted

Q: What are the grounds for disallowance of a will? A: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

The Formalities required by law have not been complied with; The testator was Insane or mentally incapable of making will; The will was executed through Force or under duress, or influence of fear or threats; The will was procured by Undue and improper pressure and influence, on part of the beneficiary or some other person; The Signature of testator was procured by fraud. The testator acted by Mistake or did not intend that the instrument he signed should be his will (Art. 839, NCC)

Note: The list is exclusive. A will is either valid or void. There is no such thing as a voidable will. Q: What is the effect of preterition on the will itself? A: GR: The effect of annulling the institution of heirs will be, necessarily, the opening of a total intestacy except that proper legacies and devises must be respected. Here, the will is not abrogated. X: If the will contains a universal institution of heirs to the entire inheritance of the testator, the will is totally abrogated. Reason: The nullification of such institution of the universal heirs without any other testamentary disposition in the will amounts to a declaration that nothing at all was written. Q: What are the requisites that must exist in order that a property may be impressed with a reservable character? A: 1. That the property was acquired by a descendant (called praepositus or propositus) from an ascendant or from a brother or sister by gratuitous title when the recipient does not give anything in return; 2. That said descendant (praepositus) died without an issue; 3. That the same property (called reserva) is inherited by another ascendant (called reservista) by operation of law (either through intestate or compulsory succession) from the praepositus; and 4. That there are living relatives within the third degree counted from the praepositus and belonging to the same line from where the property originally came (called reservatarios). (Art. 891; Chua v. CFI of Negros Occidental, Branch V, 78 SCRA 412; Rabuya, Civil Law Reviewer, pp. 634635) Q: Suppose the property bequeathed or devised has been pledged or mortgaged, who has the obligation to free the property from such encumbrance? A: GR: The pledge or mortgage must be paid by the estate. X: If the testator provides otherwise. However, any other charge such as easements and usufruct, with which the thing bequeathed is burdened, shall be respected by the legatee or devisee.

Q: What is the order of payment of legacies and devises? A: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Remuneratory legacies or devises Legacies or devises declared by testator to be preferential Legacies for support Legacies for education Legacies or devises of a specific determinate thing which forms part of the estate All others pro rata

Q: What is the order of intestate succession to a legitimate child? A: In general, and without prejudice to the concurrent right of other heirs in proper cases, the order of intestate succession to a legitimate child is as follows: 1. legitimate children and descendants; 2. legitimate parents and ascendants; 3. illegitimate children; 4. the surviving spouse; 5. collaterals up to the fifth degree; and 6. the State. (Rabuya, Civil Law Reviewer, p. 678) Q: In testamentary succession, in what instances may accretion take place? A: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Predecease Incapacity Renunciation Nonfulfillment of suspensive condition imposed upon instituted heir Ineffective testamentary disposition

Q: Who are incapacitated to succeed by reason of unworthiness? A: PCAVAFPF 1. Parents who have abandoned their children or induced their daughters to lead a corrupt or immoral life, or attempted against their virtues; 2. Persons Convicted of an attempt against the life of the testator, his or her spouse, descendants or ascendants; 3. Persons who Accused the testator of a crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment for six years or more, if the accusation has been found to be groundless; 4. Heir of full age who, having knowledge of the Violent death of the testator, should fail to report it to an officer of the law within a month unless the authorities have already taken action. 5. Person convicted of Adultery or concubinage with the spouse of the testator; 6. Person who by Fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence should cause the testator to make a will or to change one already made; 7. Person who by the same means Prevents another from making a will, or from revoking one already made, or who supplants, conceals, or alters the latter's will; 8. Person who Falsifies or forges a supposed will of the decedent. (Art. 1032) Q: When partition cannot be demanded? A: Partition cannot be demanded when: PAPU 1. Expressly Prohibited by testator for a period not more than 20 years 2. Coheirs Agreed that estate not be divided for period not more than 10 years, renewable for another 10 yrs 3. Prohibited by law 4. To partition estate would render it Unserviceable for use for which it was intended

Q: What are the rules governing the probate of holographic wills? A: In the post mortem probate of holographic wills, the following rules are to be observed as to the number of witnesses to be presented: 1. If the will is not contested, it shall be necessary that at least one witness who knows the handwriting and signature of the testator explicitly declares that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator. 2. If the will is contested, at least three of such witnesses shall be required. 3. In the absence of any competent witness and if the court deems it necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to. (Art. 811; Rabuya, Civil Law Reviewer, p. 563) Q: What are the rules in case of insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration? A: In case of insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration in a holographic will, the testator must authenticate the same by his full signature. (Art. 814) Note: Full signature refers to the testators habitual, usual and customary signature. (Rabuya, Civil Law Reviewer, p. 565) Q: What is the effect if the insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration is not authenticated with the testators full signature? A: It is considered as not made, but the will is not invalidated. (id.) Note: Where the testator himself crossed out the name of the heir named, and substituted the name of another, without authentication, it was held that this did not result in making the person whose name was crossed as heir. (Kalaw v. Relova, 132 SCRA 237; id.) Q: What are the requisites of incorporation by reference? A: EDIS 1. Document referred to in the will must be in Existence at the time of the execution of the will; 2. The will must clearly Describe and identify the same; 3. It must be Identified by clear and satisfactory proof as the document or paper referred to therein; 4. It must be Signed by the testator and the witnesses on each and every page, except in case of voluminous books of account or inventories. (Art. 827) Q: Can there be an instance where a subsequent will, which is incompatible with the prior will, and such prior will subsist at the same time? A: Yes. The fact that the subsequent will is posterior and incompatible with the first does not mean that the first is entirely revoked because the revocation may be total or partial. Note: The execution of a subsequent will does not ipso facto revoke a prior will. In case of inconsistent wills, the subsequent will prevails over the prior will because it is the latest expression of testamentary intent of the testator. The subsequent will which do not revoke the previous will in an express manner, only annuls the dispositions in the previous will which are inconsistent with or contrary to those contained in the subsequent will. (Art. 831)