1)TIMBAL, CECILIA PROBLEM: Trowa Barton and Dorothy Catalonia weremarried on June 1980. Although they did not have common children, both have children rom !rior marriage" #Trowa$" daughter i" Cagalli, while Dorothy$" "on i" %&a'(, noting however, that at the time o the marriage, Dorothy$" !rior marriage wa" "till "ub"i"ting, while Trowa$" marriage wa" di""olved by virtue o hi" wie$" death in 19)0. According to %&a', Trowa !urcha"ed a !ortion o *ita" !ro!erty "ometime in 19)8, the remaining !ortion o which wa" !urcha"ed by Cagalli on her ather$" behal in 19+0. The !ro!erty wa" covered by TCT 1,1+8- i""ued to .Trowa Barton, o legal age, /ili!ino, married to Dorothy Catalonia 0 dated December 1980. 1e al"o claimed that "tarting 19+8,the ather and daughter o legal o!erated "mall bu"ine"" e"tabli"hment" reerred to a" Del!an !ro!erty. 2n 3e!t ), 199+, Trowa "old the *ita" and Del!an !ro!ertie" to Cagalli and her hu"band Athrun 4ala. Trowa and Dorothy re"!ectively !a""ed away on 3e!t 11, 199+ and July 1999 re"!ectively. 3ometime in -000, %&a'$" mother, 5eonora, di"covered the "ale. Thu", he, re!re"ented by 5eonora, 6led or 7etition or Annulment o Deed" o 3ale alleging that the "ale o !ro!ertie" wa" raudulent becau"e Trowa$" "ignature" on the deed" o "ale were orged. 3!ou"e" 4ala on the other hand, argued that becau"e o Dorothy$" !rior marriage to 8uatre, her "ub"e9uent marriage to Trowa wa" null and void. Thu", neither Dorothy nor her heir" can claim any right or intere"t over the !ro!ertie" !urcha"ed by Trowa and "!ou"e" 4ala. During trial, %&a' argue" that the certi6cate o title covering the *ita" !ro!erty "how" that the !arcel o land i" co:owned by Trowa and Dorothy becau"e theTran"er Certi6cate o Title wa" i""ued "everal month" ater the !artie" were married, and the title to the land wa" i""ued to ;Trowa Barton, o legal age, married to Dorothy Catalonia0. Question: #1( the old cour"e o the cree', #-( the new cour"e o the cree', and #I( the change o cour"e o the cree' rom the old location to the new location by natural occurrence. .however,the donee" "hall not "ell or encumber the !ro!ertie"herein donated within 10 year" ater the death o the donor.0 Aurora drew u! a deed o revocation and cau"ed it to be annotated a" an adver"e claim on the title. 3he 6led a !etition in court or the cancellation o the tran"er on the ground that the tran"er wa" morti" cau"a : thu", void becau"e it did not com!ly with the ormalitie" o a will. The donee" o!!o"ed the !etition. The trial court Audgment holding that the donation wa" one inter vivo". 3he elevated the ca"e to the CA. Keanwhile, Aurora died. 3hortly ater AS" demi"e, a manie"tation and motion wa" 6led by Erne"to 3icad and Evelyn 3icad alleged taht they had become the owner" o the !ro! by virtue o a deed o de6nite "ale. The CA aLrmed the DTCS" deci"ion. Question: Mhat i" the character o the deed o donation. ANSWER: The donation i" morti" cau"a. A donation which !ur!ort" to be one inter vivo" but withhold" orm the donee that right to di"!o"e o the donated !ro!erty during the donor$" lietime i" in truth one morti" cau"a. 3!ou"e" Hicanor Tumbo'on, et. al. v". A!olonia G. 5ega"!i and 7aulina 3. Kagtanum, G.D. Ho. 1NI+I), Augu"t ,, -010 16) VILLAROJO, SUNNY RAYPROBLEM: Kario #decedent( died inte"tate on June I,199N, leaving real and !er"onal !ro!ertie" with an e"timated value o 7-00,000.00. 1e wa" "urvived byhi" wie Dolor and their 6ve children, namely Caloy, Jo"e, Damiro, *icente and Cora&on. Dolor wa" a!!ointed a" admini"tratriB o the inte"tate e"tate o Kario. During the !robate, Dolor "ubmitted an Article 10)1. Every com!ul"ory heir, who "ucceed" with other com!ul"ory heir", mu"t bring into the ma"" o the e"tate any !ro!erty or right which he may have received rom the decedent, during the lietime o the latter, by way o donation, or any other gratuitou" title, in order that it may be com!uted in the determination o the legitime o each heir and in the account o !artition. Koreover, 3ection -, Dule 90 o the Dule" o Court !rovide"> 3ec. -. 8ue"tion" a" to advancement to be determined. Q 8ue"tion" a" to advancement made, or alleged to have been made, by the decea"edto any heir may be heard and determined by the court having Auri"diction o the e"tate !roceeding"C and the final order of the court thereon shall be binding on the person raising the questions and on the heir. 2BAHD2 v". / FLORES, LAWRENCE JOHN Q Degular Cla"" Oral partition PROBLEM: 3!ou"e" T and % died inte"tate. They were "urvived by the ollowing heir"> A,B, C, D, E F /. The e"tate located in Cagayan de 2ro City wa" e9ually divided among the heir". At the time o the actual !artition, / had already died. 1i" "hare wa" given to hi" only "on, G. Twenty two year" later, A F B ound out that 5ot N8+- wa" not included in the inventory and !roAect o !artition. A F B claimed that an oral !artition wa" entered into by all heir" "oon ater the death o their !arent". To "et thing" right, A F B !re!ared a 9uitclaim to con6rm the alleged oral agreement. C, E and G "igned a notari&ed 9uitclaim in avor o A F B. 3iB year" ater the eBecution o the 9uitclaim, C, E, G and 1, who i" the "on o D ound out that 5ot N8+- wa" "till under T F %$" name and demanded or the di"tribution anddelivery to the heir". G F 1 di"!uted the voluntarine"" o their con"ent or the con"ent o their!redece""or":in:intere"t to the 9uitclaim" that they "igned. Thu" A F B 6led an action or 8uieting o Title. A" the Audge , will you con"ider 5ot N8+- "till common !ro!erty= ANSWER: Ho. 5ot Ho. N8+- i" no longer common !ro!erty o the heir" o the decea"ed. A F B$" owner"hi! over "aid lot wa" ac9uired by rea"on o the oral !artition agreed u!on by the decea"ed "!ou"e"$ heir". That oral agreement wa" con6rmed by the notari&ed 9uitclaim" eBecuted by the "aid heir". An oral !artition by the heir" i" valid i no creditor" are aRected. Koreover, even the re9uirement o a written memorandum under the "tatute o raud" doe" not a!!ly to !artition" eRected by the heir" where no creditor" are involved con"idering that "uch tran"action i" not a conveyance o !ro!erty re"ulting in change o owner"hi! but merely a de"ignation and "egregationo that !art which belong" to each heir. /inally, "aid notari&ed 9uitclaim" "igned by the heir" in avor o !etitioner" are not vitiated by raud. 1ence, they are valid. Ca"e citation> Jo"ea Kae"trado, et al. v". Court o A!!eal", et al. : G.D. Ho. 1III,N. Karch 9, -000. 18) ALI, YASSERPROBLEM: Kr. T agreed to buy a !ro!erty owned by Kr. 7, a relative, or in"tallment". Kr. T begin" to !ayhi" obligation". Ater "everal year", Kr. T tran"erredthe "ubAect !ro!erty in hi" name de"!ite non:!ayment o the ull !rice thereo, without Kr. 7$" con"ent. Can Kr. 7 re"cind the contract= ANSWER: %e", Kr. 7 can re"cind the contract. Onder Article 1191, the !ower to re"cind obligation" i" im!lied in reci!rocal one", in ca"e one o the obligor" "hould not com!ly with what i" incumbent u!on him. A" a general rule, ;re"ci""ion will not be !ermitted or a "light or ca"ual breach o the contract, but onlyor "uch breache" a" are "ub"tantial and undamental a" to deeat the obAect o the !artie" inma'ing the agreement. 7hili!!ine Ban' o Communication" v". 3!ou"e" Jo"e Go GD Ho. 1+NN1, /ebruary 1,, -011 20) VILLARBIA,Ratification of a voidable contract PROBLEM: 3ometime in 199N, ECE Dealty "tarted a con"truction o a condominium !roAect called Central 7ar' Condominium Building located along Jorge 3t., 7a"ay City. 1owever, !rinted adverti"ement" were made indicating therein that the "aid !roAect wa" to be built in Ka'ati City. 1eir" o /au"to C. a. that they cannot be held liable becau"e there i" no em!loyer:em!loyee relation"hi! between 73< ho"!ital and Dr. AC "uch that the !rinci!le o re"!ondent "u!erior i" unavailableC b. that had the !atient .inormed the ho"!ital o herdi"comort and !ain, the ho"!ital would have been obliged to act on it0C Question: Are the contention" tenable= ANSWER: Ho, both contention" are not tenable. 2n the 6r"t contention, even when no em!loyment relation"hi! eBi"t" but it i" "hown that the ho"!ital hold" out to the !atient that the doctor i" it" agent, the ho"!ital may "till be vicariou"ly liable under Article -1+) in relation to Article 1,I1 and Article 18)9 o the Civil Code or the !rinci!le o a!!arent authority. 2n the "econd contention, the ho"!ital too' no heedo the record o o!eration and con"e9uently did not initiate a review o what tran"!ired during !atient$" o!eration. Dather, it "hir'ed it" re"!on"ibility and !a""ed it on to other":to the doctor whom it eB!ected to inorm !atient, and to the !atient her"el to com!lain beore it too' any meaningul "te!. 73< may be held directly liable to the !atient or it" own negligence or ailure to ollow e"tabli"hed "tandard o conduct to which it "hould conorm a" a cor!oration. By it" inaction, thereore, ho"!ital ailed it" own "tandard o ho"!ital care.