Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 212 views

    Bar Questions Answer - BLD

    Uploaded by

    Erikha Araneta
    Wilma's claim that her late husband Willy should be presumed to have survived his father Jaime is not tenable. According to Article 43 of the Civil Code, if two persons called to succeed each other die and there is doubt as to the order of death, the one alleging a specific order of death must prove it. Here, there is no proof as to whether Jaime or Willy died first after the plane crash. In the absence of proof, they are presumed to have died at the same time, meaning Willy did not inherit anything from Jaime. Thus, Wilma cannot successfully claim Willy had a hereditary share in Jaime's estate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bar Questions Answer - BLD

    Uploaded by

    Erikha Araneta
    212 views4 pages
    Wilma's claim that her late husband Willy should be presumed to have survived his father Jaime is not tenable. According to Article 43 of the Civil Code, if two persons called to succeed each other die and there is doubt as to the order of death, the one alleging a specific order of death must prove it. Here, there is no proof as to whether Jaime or Willy died first after the plane crash. In the absence of proof, they are presumed to have died at the same time, meaning Willy did not inherit anything from Jaime. Thus, Wilma cannot successfully claim Willy had a hereditary share in Jaime's estate.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Bar Questions Answer - Bld

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Wilma's claim that her late husband Willy should be presumed to have survived his father Jaime is not tenable. According to Article 43 of the Civil Code, if two persons called to succeed each other die and there is doubt as to the order of death, the one alleging a specific order of death must prove it. Here, there is no proof as to whether Jaime or Willy died first after the plane crash. In the absence of proof, they are presumed to have died at the same time, meaning Willy did not inherit anything from Jaime. Thus, Wilma cannot successfully claim Willy had a hereditary share in Jaime's estate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    212 views4 pages

    Bar Questions Answer - BLD

    Uploaded by

    Erikha Araneta
    Wilma's claim that her late husband Willy should be presumed to have survived his father Jaime is not tenable. According to Article 43 of the Civil Code, if two persons called to succeed each other die and there is doubt as to the order of death, the one alleging a specific order of death must prove it. Here, there is no proof as to whether Jaime or Willy died first after the plane crash. In the absence of proof, they are presumed to have died at the same time, meaning Willy did not inherit anything from Jaime. Thus, Wilma cannot successfully claim Willy had a hereditary share in Jaime's estate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    1.

    B. He cannot legally run as President in the 2022 elections.

    Under Sec. 2, Article VII of 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that no person may be elected
    president unless he is natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and
    write, at least forty years of ages on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at
    least ten years immediately preceding such election.

    In the given case, the chartered- city mayor is only 30 years of as such, he did not meet the age
    requirement for presidential candidate.

    Thus, he cannot legally as President in the 2022 elections.

    C.

    Chartered- city mayor cannot legally run as President in the 2022 election because there are
    several qualifications that has to be met and one of such is at least forty years of age on the day of
    election.

    2.

    B. The law is unconstitutional.

    Under Sec. 4, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution, no shall be passed abridging the freedom of
    speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition
    the government for redress of grievances.

    In the given case, the law punishes any criticism of any sitting member of the SC on any media
    platform which abridges the freedom of speech, of expression or of the press.

    Hence, the law is unconstitutional.

    C.
    The law is unconstitutional because it abridges the freedom of speech, of expression or of the
    press when it penalizes any criticism of any sitting member of the SC on nay media platform.

    3.

    B.
    The provision of law is not valid.

    Under Article III, Sec. 9 of the 1987 Constitution, Private property shall not be taken for public
    use without just compensation.

    In the case given, it is only the DPWH who has the authority to determine the price to be paid to
    land owners in violation for the right of property owners for just compensation since the just
    compensation can only be determined by mutual agreement of the parties and if there will be a
    disagreement, it can be determined in an expropriation proceeding.

    Thus, the provision of law is not valid.

    C.
    The provision is not valid because it violates the right of the owners to a just compensation. In
    case there is no mutual agreement between the right of the owners and the state, it can be
    determined in an expropriation case.

    4.

    B.

    The dismissal should not be granted.

    Under Sec. 5, Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution, The Supreme Court shall have the following
    powers, to review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules
    of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of the lower court in (a) All cases in which the
    constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law presidential
    decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.

    In the given situation, the suit was filed in the Regional Trial Court regarding the passage of a
    provincial ordinance setting a province wide curfew for minors.

    Hence, the action should not be granted since the RTC has jurisdiction to pass upon the
    constitutionality of the said ordinance.

    C.

    The dismissal should be granted because the RTC has jurisdiction to pass upon the
    constitutionality of the ordinance. Furthermore, the Supreme Court may review, revise, reverse,
    modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the rules of court may provide, final judgment and
    orders of the RTC.

    5.
    B.
    The argument of the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel is constitutionally sound.

    Under the Sec. 1 of Art. XVII of the 1987 Constitution, any amendment of the Constitution may
    be proposed by the Congress, upon vote of 3/4 of all its members or by a constitutional
    convention.

    In the given situation, the bill is to amend the constitution as to the number of the Supreme Court
    members, its jurisdiction and special division. They clearly wanted to change the current provision
    under the Judicial Department.

    Hence, the argument is constitutionally sound since the right way to amend the Constitution is
    either by 3/4 vote of all the members of the congress or by a constitutional convention.

    C.

    The argument of the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel is constitutionally sound because the bill
    intended to change provisions under the Judicial Department which cannot be the subject of
    legislation but may only be done by amendment either by 3/4 vote of all the members of the
    congress or by constitutional convention.

    LECTURE/LESSON 103

    Q (1): Jaime, who is 65, and his son, Willy, who is 25, died in a plane crash. There is no proof as
    to who died first. Jaime’s only surviving heir is his wife, Julia, who is also Willy’s mother.
    Willy’s surviving heirs are his mother, Julia and his wife, Wilma. (1) In the settlement of Jaime’s
    estate, can Wilma successfully claim that her late husband, Willy had a hereditary share since he
    was much younger than his father and, therefore, should be presumed to have survived longer? 

    Your Task B: the answer must be in 4-paragraph scannable format

              1. Direct answer

    Wilma’s contention is not tenable.

    According to Art. 43 of the New Civil Code, if there is doubt, as between two or more persons
    who are called to succeed each other, as to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of
    one prior to the other, shall prove the same; in the absence of proof, it is presumed that they died
    at the same time and there shall be transmission of rights from one to another.

    In the given situation, Jaime who is 65 and Willy his son, who is 25 died in plane crush and there
    is no proof who died first. The statutory presumption provided by Art. 43 applies when there is
    doubt on the order of death between persons who are called to succeed each other. However, there
    is no proof given in the situation.

    Therefore, Wima’s contention is not tenable since in the absence of proof, it is presumed that they
    died at the same time and there shall be no transmission of rights from one to another.

    You might also like