Legal Research Prelims
Legal Research Prelims
Legal Research Prelims
2.) Rei and Tine, Filipinos, both 18 years of age, were passengers of Flight No. 317 of
Oriental Airlines and was of Philippine registry. While en route, Rei suffered heart attack
and was on the verge of death, Tine then asked the co-pilot to marry them. Without any
marriage license, is the marriage valid?
3.) A is the owner of an apartment, which is being leased to B, who has not been paying his
rental for the last ten months. A while B was away, entered into the premises, brought
out the things belonging to B and padlocked the premises preventing B from entering
into it. B sued for damages. A interposed the defense that he was just exercising his
rights as owner of the premised. Decide.
4.) While in USA, a Japanese by the name of Kukuro sold to Philipe, a Filipino, a parcel of
land situated in the which Kukuro inherited from his Filipino mother.
a.) What law governs the formality in the execution of the contract of sale? Explain your
answer and give its legal basis.
b.) What law governs the capacity of the Japanese to sell the land? Explain your answer
and give its legal basis.
c.) What law governs the capacity of the Filipino to buy the land? Explain your answer
and give its legal basis.
5.) Phi was found to be positive for HIV virus, considered sexually transmissible. His
girlfriend, Delila was aware of his condition and yet married him. After two years of
cohabiting with Phi, and in her belief that she would probably never be able to bear him
a healthy child, Delila wants to have her marriage annulled. Can the action of Delila for
annulment of his marriage with Phi prosper?
6.) A and B married. A has been absent for a period of five (5) years without B knowing his
whereabouts. B then got married to C, without prior declaration of A’s presumptive
death
a.) Is the marriage valid?
b.) Suppose, in the problem given above, it was A who got married. Is the marriage
valid?
7.) X, MTC judge of Manila, was invited to attend a marriage celebration in Tawi-Tawi. Since
Y, the judge who was supposed to solemnize the marriage was unable to attend, he was
asked to solemnize the marriage. Is the marriage valid? Why?
8.) Suppose A justice of the Court of Appeals, who is a resident of Quezon City, solemnize a
marriage in Davao City. Is the marriage valid?
9.) A and B are married. Their marriage was declared void. After the decision become final,
A got married C. Is the marriage valid? Why?
10.) A, an American citizen married B, a Filipino, while the former was vacationing in
manila. When they went to the US. A was divorced by B due to irreconcilable conflicts.
The decree capacitated A to remarry under US laws. Can B get married in the
Philippines? Why?
11.) Jeff and Juniffer were sweethearts for 1 year, Jeff promised to marry Juniffer
with a condition to cohabit with him. Thereafter, Juniffer went to live with Jeff due to
his promise. After a year of cohabiting with each other, Jeff admitted to Juniffer that he
cannot marry her because he’s still married to his former wife. After knowing the said
issue, Juniffer stayed with Jeff and had several carnal knowledge with him. Juniffer then
went to RTC to file a Breach of promise to marry. Is it actionable? why?
12.) Zhon is set to inherit real property from Yie. Zhon wanted to buy a car, but lack
funds for the down payment (DP). In order to pay the DP, Zhon mortgaged his
inheritance from Yie. Can Zhon do this?
13.) Suppose Charm and Reiniel were married, Reiniel was absent for 10 years,
Charm filed for a declaration of presumptive death. Can Charm remarry?
14.) Before Tomas and Dea got married, Tomas did not liquidate the marriage
settlement of absolute community in the previous marriage. What will property regime
will govern the marriage settlement of the subsequent marriage?
15.) If B and C had cohabited for 5 years while B was still married for 2 of those years,
can B and C apply for a common law marriage?
Criminal Law 1
1.) Jud, married to Faith, contracted another marriage with Lila in Singapore. Thereafter,
Jud and Lila returned to the Philippines and lived as husband and wife in the hometown
of Jud in Calamba, Laguna.
a.) Can Jud be prosecuted for bigamy?
Answer: No, Jud may not be prosecuted for bigamy since the bigamous marriage was
contracted or solemnized in Singapore, hence such violation is not one of those where the
Revised Penal Code, under Art. 2 thereof, may be applied extra-territorially. The general rule on
territoriality of criminal law governs the situation.
2.) After drinking one (1) case of San Miguel beer and taking two plates of "pulutan", Binoy,
a Filipino seaman, stabbed to death Sio My, a Singaporean seaman, aboard M/V
"Princess of the Pacific", which was sailing in the open sea. The vessel, although
Panamanian registered, is owned by Lucio Sy, a rich Filipino businessman. When the
vessel reached a Philippine Port at Cebu City, the Captain of the vessel turned over the
assailant Binoy to the Philippine authorities. An information for homicide was filed
against Binoy in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. He moved to quash their
information for lack of jurisdiction. If you were the Judge, will you grant the motion?
Why?
Answer: Yes, the Motion to Quash the Information should be granted. The Philippine court has
no jurisdiction over the crime committed since it was committed on the high seas or outside of
Philippine territory and on board a vessel not registered or licensed in the Philippines
(US vs. Fowler, 1Phil 614)
It is the registration of the vessel in accordance with the laws of the Philippines, not the
citizenship of the owner, which makes it a Philippine ship. The vessel being registered in
Panama, the laws of Panama govern while it is in the high seas.
3.) Alexander, an escaped convict, ran amuck on board a Superlines Bus bound for Manila
from Bicol and killed ten (10) persons. Terrified by the incident, Carol and Benjamin who
are passengers of the bus, jumped out of the window and while lying unconscious after
hitting the pavement of the road, were ran over and crushed to death by a fast moving
Desert Fox bus tailing the Superlines Bus. Can Alexander be held liable for the death of
Carol and Benjamin?
Answer: Yes, Alexander can be held liable for the death of Carol and Benjamin because of
felonious act of running was the proximate cause of the victim's death. The rule is that when a
person, by a felonious act, generates in the mind of another a sense of imminent
danger, prompting the latter to escape from or avoid such danger and in the process, sustains
injuries or dies, the person committing the felonious act is responsible for such injuries or
death.
4.) Many head of the state arrived here for the 2017 Ms. Universe. Among these was Pres.
X, of X state. He found Ms. Portugal very attractive and invited her to a date in a hotel.
Afterwards, Pres. X raped her. Can Pres. X be prosecuted for rape?
Answer: Yes. Immunity is not absolute, limited only to official functions. As rape is outside of
the functions of the head of state, Pres. X may be prosecuted here.
5.) A, B, C, D and E are in America. They decided to over throw the government of the
Philippines. In preparation for their plan, they bought guns, ammos, and grenades.
However, before they can proceed with their plan, they got caught. Can they be tried in
the Philippines?
Answer: No. Their crime is conspiracy to commit rebellion which is a crime against public order,
Title Three of the RPC, thus they are outside the scope of extra-territorial jurisdiction of the
Philippines under Article 2 of the RPC.
6.) A was the head of the board of canvassers. The number of votes of B was decreased. In
decreasing the number of votes, the said votes were not added to any candidate. So it
did not favor any candidate. So according to him, he acted in good faith, no criminal
intent. But according to the other side, it is a special penal law, therefore they should be
held criminally liable. Should A’s defense of good faith be appreciated in violation of the
special law?
Answer: YES. The act of decreasing or increasing a candidate’s vote although punished by
special penal law is a malum in se. it is inherently evil or wrong. They are still be held criminally
liable, the defense of good faith would not lie in their favor as board of canvassers.
7.) B and G were boyfriend and girlfriend respectively. During their relationship, B promised
G that he would marry her. One day, B told G that she should wait for him outside the
church at 7pm that night so they could get married. However, instead of showing up, B
sent G a letter saying that he couldn’t marry her because B already has a wife and
children. G was so heartbroken. She couldn’t live with the pain so she ended her life. Is B
liable for the death of G through the Proximate Cause Doctrine?
Answer: No. The first element of Proximate Cause is absent. Under the Family Code, beach of
promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. Thus, although the death of G is considered a
felony, the intention of B is not a felonious act.
8.) X and Y had a fist fight. X lost. However, X vowed to Y that he will have his revenge. One
day, X saw Y riding in a tricycle. In that instance, X pulled out his gun and with intent to
kill, shot Y. However, due to poor aim, X hit the tricycle driver instead. The tricycle driver
who died. What crime will you charge and convict X?
Answer: There are two crimes committed. Against Y attempted murder, against the tricycle
driver is murder, in connection with the given facts.
9.) A, accompanied by other men, wanted to kill B. Thus, the accused peppered B’s room
with bullets. However, the intended victim was not there. Only the son-in-law and
children were present but they were not hit. A and his company were charged with the
crime of attempted murder up to the CA. Should A be convicted for attempted murder?
Answer: No. An impossible crime was committed. It was unknown to the offenders that the
intended victim was not at the scene of the crime. It could have amounted to a crime against
persons which is murder. But it was inherently impossible because the victim was not there.
They should be liable with malicious mischief because damage was done to the house and not
IC.
10.) X and Y are enemies. In one instance, X saw Y outside his house. Angered, X took
his father’s gun. The gun was not used for a long time. Thereafter, X took aim and with
intent to kill, pulled the trigger of the gun. However, the gun did not fire the shot. X
pulled the trigger four times, yet no bullet came out. The gun was jammed. What is the
liability of X, if any?
Answer: X is liable for homicide. The overt act of pointing the gun to Y is directly connected to
the crime of homicide. However, the gun jammed. X was prevented from performing all the
acts of execution by some reason or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
11.) A woman went to a shop and bought perfume. While she was standing there,
the saleslady went to the storage room. Thereafter, the woman saw a newline of
lipsticks on a glass shelf but it was lock. She saw the key on the table and opened it, took
one of the lipsticks and put it in her bag. When she was about to leave she had a change
of heart and return it on the glass shelf. Apparently, the saleslady was monitoring the
action of the said woman through CCTV and the guard captured her before she leaves. Is
the woman liable for theft?
Answer: Yes. Even if the woman returned the lipstick, theft is already consummated.
Consummated theft will be appreciated, once, when a person has already taken the possession
of such item. It is clearly shown that she has an intent to gain the moment she opened the glass
shelf.
13.) A saw his enemy B. B was fast approaching to A with a gun on his hand. Upon
seeing that B was about 10 feet away. A immediately pulled out his balisong and he spin
B who was hit on the neck and died. Can the accused use self-defense as defense?
Answer: No. because the first requisite of self-defense is absent which is unlawful aggression.
The fact that B was fast approaching to A with a gun on his hand will not constitute an
imminent and immediate danger on the life of the person unless the said gun is aimed at the
said person. Therefore, A should be convicted of homicide. Self-defense would not lie in his
favor.
14.) A killed B. A stated that a week prior to the killing, he could not sleep and there
was a voice that kept nagging him, “Kill B, Kill B” and so he killed B, so he followed the
voice. He pleaded guilty but his defense was insanity. Will A be acquitted due to
insanity?
Answer: No. mere mental disturbance, mere craziness is not the insanity contemplated by the
law. It is the insanity which would deprive the offender the capacity to distinguish right from
wrong and the and the consequences of his act. Therefore, he should be charge the crime of
murder.
1.) What do you understand by the archipelagic doctrine? Is this reflected in the1987
Constitution?
Answer: The ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE emphasizes the unity of land and waters by defining an
archipelago either as a group of islands surrounded by waters or a body of waters studded with
islands. For this purpose, it requires that baselines be drawn by connecting the appropriate
points of the "outermost islands to encircle the islands within the archipelago. The waters on
the landward side of the baselines regardless of breadth or dimensions are merely internal
waters.
3.) Article II. Section 3, of the 1987Constitution expresses, in part, that the "Armed Forces
of the Philippines is the protector of the people and (of) the State." Describe briefly
what this provision means. Is the Philippine National Police covered by the same
mandate?
Answer: Article II, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution means that the Armed Forces of the
Philippines should not serve the interest of the President but of the people and should not
commit abuses against the people. This provision is specifically addressed to the Armed Forces
of the Philippines and not to the Philippine National Police, because the latter is separate and
distinct from the former.
4.) The Republic of the Balau (formerly Palau Islands) opened and operated in Manila an
office engaged in trading Balau products with Philippine products. In one transaction,
the local buyer complained that the Balau goods delivered to him were substandard
andhe sued the Republic of Balau, before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, for damages.
How can the Republic of Balau invoke its sovereign immunity? Explain
Answer: The Republic of Balau can invoke its sovereign Immunity by filing a motion to dismiss
in accordance with Section l(a), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court on the ground that the court has
no jurisdiction over its person.
In the Philippines, the practice is for the foreign government to first secure an executive
endorsement of its claim of sovereign immunity. In some cases, the defense of sovereign
immunity is submitted directly to the local court by the foreign government through counsel by
filing a motion to dismiss on the ground that the court has no Jurisdiction over its person.
5.) A property owner filed an action directly in court against the Republic of the Philippines
seeking payment for a parcel of land which the national government utilized for a road
widening project.
a.) Can the government invoke the doctrine of non-suitability of the state?
b.) In connection with the preceding question, can the property owner garnish public funds
to satisfy his claim for payment? Explain your answers.
Answer: No, the government cannot invoke the doctrine of state of immunity from suit. When
the government expropriates property for public use without paying just compensation, it
cannot invoke its immunity from the suit. Otherwise, the right guaranteed in Section 9, Article
III of the 1987 Constitution that private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation will be rendered nugatory.
No, the owner cannot garnish public funds to satisfy his claim for payment, Section 7 of Act No.
3083 prohibits execution upon any judgment against the government. Even if the government
may be sued, it does not follow that its properties may be seized under execution.
6.) Johnny was employed as a driver by the Municipality of Calumpit, Bulacan. While driving
recklessly a municipal dump truck with its load of sand for the repair of municipal
streets, Johnny hit a jeepney. Two passengers of the jeepney were killed. Is the
municipality liable for negligence of Johnny?
Answer: Yes, the Municipality of Calumpit is liable for the negligence of its driver Johnny. Under
Section 24 of the Local Government Code, local government units are not exempt from liability
for death or injury to persons or damage to property.
11.) The Department of Education, Culture and Sports Issued a circular disqualifying
anyone who fails for the fourth time in the National Entrance Tests from admission to a
College of Dentistry. X who was thus disqualified, questions the constitutionality of the
circular.
1) Did the circular deprive her of her constitutional right to education?
Answer: No, because it is a permissive limitation to right to education, as it is intended to
ensure that only those who are qualified to be dentists are admitted for enrollment.
2) Did the circular violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution?
Answer: No, the circular did not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution. There is
a substantial distinction between dentistry students and other students. The dental profession
directly affects the lives and health of people. Other professions do not involve the same
delicate responsibility and need not be similarly treated.