TITLE I.

CHAPTER 1 (OBLICON)
BAR QUESTIONS FROM MARIA ANGELICA VALENCIA
SAMPLE BAR QUESTION NO. 1
A leased to B a parcel of agricultural land with total land area of 3,002 of
square meters. The lease contract was for six years ending in 1990. Said
lease contract contained an option to buy clause. Under the said option, B
had the exclusive and irrevocable right to buy 2,000 square meters five (5)
years from a year after the effectivity of the contract, at P200 per square
meter. A died on 1989. Thereafter, B informed the heirs of A that they are
willing and ready to purchase the property under the option to buy clause.
The heirs however refused to sell the same. Said refusal to sell prompted B
to file a complaint for specific performance against the heirs of A.
A. Can the heirs of A be required to sell the portion of the property to B?
B. In this case, is B already obliged to make actual payment to the heirs
of A?
SAMPLE BAR QUESTION NO. 2
Sometime in 1989, Willbert Barns Construction Corporation (WBCC) and
the
Philippine Commerce Bank (PCB) entered into a contract for the
construction of the extension of PCB Tower II. The project included, among
others, the application of a granitite wash-out finish on the exterior walls of
the building. In a letter, PCB, with the concurrence of its consultant TCGI
Engineers (TCGI), accepted the turnover of the completed work by WBCC. To
answer for any defect arising within a period of one year, WGCC submitted a
guarantee bond dated July 1, 1992 in compliance with the construction
contract.
The controversy between the parties arose when portions of the granitite
wash-out finish of the exterior of the building began peeling off and falling
from the walls in 1993. WBCC made minor repairs after PCB requested it to
rectify the construction defects. In 1994, PCB entered into another contract
with Brain Shaw Construction and Development Corporation to re-do the
entire granitite wash-out finish.
PCIB filed a request for arbitration with the Construction Industry Arbitration
Commission (CIAC) for the reimbursement of its expenses for the repairs
made by another contractor. It complained of WBCCs alleged noncompliance with their contractual terms on materials and workmanship.
A. Should the WGCC be held liable for the construction defects in the
project? Why or why not? Explain your answer briefly.
B. Did WGCC acted in good faith in fulfilling its obligation with PBC?
SAMPLE BAR QUESTION NO. 3
Castaeda, an employee of the City of Canlas who has been illegally
dismissed, sued for backwages by way of mandamus and made as
defendants thereto the City Mayor and other local officials. But the City of
Canlas itself was not made a defendant. After trial, the lower court found
that Castaeda was unjustly removed from his position hence Judge Picho,
ordered the reinstatement of Caballero and that he be paid for back wages
reaching as far back from his date of removal. When Castaeda was later

paid, the City of Canlas brought an action for the refund of the payment on
the ground that the payment was illegal.
A. Is the City of Canlas correct in its demand for refund of the payment to
Castaeda? Explain your answer briefly.
B. If you were the judge in this case, will you grant the demand of
Castaeda for reimbursement of his backwages against the City of
Canlas? Why or why not? Explain your answer briefly.

TITLE I. CHAPTER 2 (OBLICON)

BAR QUESTIONS FROM JOSEFINA VALDEZ
1. A delivered a motorcycle to B for repair, B did not finish the job. Finally,
despite repeated reminders of A for B to finish the repair, B returned the
motorcycle with his job undone and where some parts were missing. C
then repaired the said motorcycle. C charged A the amount of Php500.00
for the repair and the amount of Php300.00 for the missing parts. A
contends that it should be B liable for the amount of Php300.00 for the
missing parts. Is the contention of A that B is liable for the amount of
Php300.00 for the cost of the repair of the missing parts.
2. AAA sold his dog to BBB for Php30,000.00. No date or condition was
stipulated for the delivery of the dog.
While still in the possession of
AAA, the dog gave birth. Who has the rights to the puppies?
3. SSS obliged himself to deliver ZZZ 20 bottles of wine, of a particular
brand. SSS delivered 20 bottles knowing that they contain cheaper wine.
Is SSS is guilty of fraud and is liable for damages to ZZZ.

TITLE I. CHAPTER 3, Secs. 1-3 (OBLICON)

BAR QUESTIONS FROM JOSEPH MENDOZA
QUESTION NO. 1
Sometime in October 2004, Perilio Tandino and the heirs of Julieta Tandino
filed a complaint for unlawful detainer, with damages, against petitioner
spouses Rogelio and Esther Alvarez. The complaint alleged that the late
Julieta Tandino (the spouse of respondent Perilio Tandino and mother of the
rest of the respondents) leased a house located in Cebu City to the petitioner
spouses. The lease contract was limited to the use and occupancy of the
said residential building and did not include the lot on which it was
constructed because the said lot was then owned by the National Housing
Authority (NHA).
Under the contract, the petitioner spouses bound
themselves for five years to pay Julieta a monthly rental of P4,000.00
beginning November 22, 2001. However, since November 2003, they failed
pay to rent. Thus, as of October 2004, they were in arrears in the amount of
P48,000.00. Despite repeated demands by respondent to pay the rentals in
arrears and to surrender the possession of the residential building, the
petitioner spouses refused to pay the same. The petitioner spouses alleged
that Julito became the new owner of the house after acquiring title to the lot
beginning November 2003. They claim that Julito collected the rentals in his
capacity as a co-owner, and being a son of Julieta (husband of respondent
Perilio Tandino), he (Julito) was also entitled to the rent of the subject house.

1. Are the petitioner spouses Alvarez excused from paying the rent

because of the change of ownership of the land on which the rented

house was built?
2. Would your answer in the above-question be the same in case Julito is
the real owner of the house?
QUESTION NO. 2
A married couple obtained a loan from the Agricultural and Credit Bank of
P37,000.00 with their land given by way of mortgage. The loan was contracted
prior to the war. It was agreed that payment was to be made in Manila. During the
war, the debtors paid not in Manila but in Iloilo, and the recipient of the money was
not the Iloilo branch of the Agricultural and Credit Bank (for it was then closed) but
the Iloilo branch of the Philippine National Bank, which was the depositary in Iloilo of
the funds belonging to the Agricultural and Credit Bank. After liberation, the
married couple went to Manila, and asked for the cancellation of the mortgage on
the ground that the indebtedness of P37,000.00 had already been paid. The
creditor refused. Instead of going to court, the married couple again borrowed from
the creditor the additional amount of P10,000.00 and as security, they offered a
second mortgage on the same land that had been given as security before. Three
years later, the married couple filed in court an action to cancel the mortgage on
the P37,000.00 prewar loan on the ground of payment.
1. Was the payment of the married couple valid?
2. Is the payment valid if the same was made in Iloilo?
QUESTION NO. 3
Purifica Asuncion is a rice dealer/importer. In May 1952, she participated in a public
bidding held by the National Rice and Corn Corporation (NARIC). NARIC was looking
for someone to supply 20,000 metric tons of Burmese Rice. Asuncion was the lowest
bidder at $203.00 per metric ton hence she won the bidding. So a contract was
made whereby Asuncion is to deliver the rice supply and NARIC is to pay for the
imported rice by means of an irrevocable, confirmed and assignable letter of credit
in U.S. currency in favor of the Arrieta and/or supplier in Burma, immediately.
Asuncion then proceeded to contact her supplier in Burma (Thiri Setkya) and
arranged the sale of the 20k metric ton of Burmese Rice, Asuncion promised Setkya
that he will be paid by NARIC on August 4, 1952. Asuncion also made a 5% deposit
(P200k) as advance payment to Setkya. Meanwhile, NARIC tried to open a letter of
credit on the amount of $3,614,000.00 with the Philippine National Bank. PNB
agreed to open the letter of credit but only on the condition that NARIC deposits
50% of the said amount. NARIC failed to do this and the letter of credit was not
opened when the obligation to pay Setkya became due. Because of this, Asuncion
lost the opportunity to profit from the sale as the agreement was eventually
forfeited. Her 5% deposit was likewise forfeited pursuant to Burma laws.
Consequently, NARIC would also have the Court to hold that the subsequent offer to
substitute Thailand rice for the originally contracted Burmese rice amounted to a
waiver by Asuncion of whatever rights she might have derived from the breach of
the contract.
1. Is Purifica Asuncion entitled to damages?
2. Is the National Rice and Corn Corporation (NARIC) liable for damages to
Purifica Asuncion?
3. Is the National Rice and Corn Corporation (NARIC) exempt from its liability
due to the alleged waiver of rights by Asuncion?

TITLE I. CHAPTER 3, SECTIONS 4-6 (OBLICON)

BAR QUESTIONS FROM EDCEL QUIBEN

1. What is the nature of the liability of a franchise holder and the owner of a

vehicle under `the kabit system?

2. X obtained a loan from the bank. X died after and was succeeded by Y. Y
defaulted in the payment from the bank,, BPN, then died after. The bank
filed a suit for its claim. The claim is payable for ten equal yearly
instalments. The daughter of Y, Z, opposed on the said claim on the
ground that all unpaid instalments had already prescribed. Z contends
that obligation is divisible because it was stipulated that its payment is to
be in ten equal yearly instalments. Is the contention proper? Why?
3. When may the court reduce a penalty in a stipulated contract?