Overall, these selected responses help demonstrate the overall length and quality of responses that scored above average in the stated administration of the dissertation portion of the bar exam. However, these are unrevised answers written by real candidates under the pressure of time without access to law books. Therefore, these trials do not always correctly identify or answer all the questions raised by the question, and they may contain irrelevant or incorrect information. They do not accurately reflect Texas law or its application to the facts in all respects. These essays are not intended as “model answers” and should never be understood by anyone as legal advice. Previous exam questions and selected answers are provided for the limited and personal use of Texas Bar Exam candidates only. The publication of previous exam questions and selected answers (or comments) is not intended to indicate one or more specific legal issues that will be considered in a future review. Do not use them as a substitute for learning the subjects covered by the exam. SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2017 CIVIL LAW EXAM QUESTIONS UP LAW CENTER AUGUST 14, 2019 I. Indicate whether the following matrimonial partnerships are valid, void, or questionable, and provide appropriate reasons for your response: (a) Ador and Becky`s marriage, in which Ador was sick with AIDS before the marriage. (2%) PROPOSED ANSWER (a) Marriage is questionable because Ador suffered from a serious and incurable sexually transmitted disease at the time of marriage. Thus a marriage according to art.
45 para. 6, the sexually transmitted disease must be: 1) exist at the time of marriage; (2) are considered serious and incurable; and (3) unknown to the other party. Since Ador had AIDS, which is a serious and incurable disease, and the condition existed at the time of marriage, marriage is questionable, provided that such a disease was not known. (b) Carlos` marriage to Dina, which took place after Dina poisoned her former husband Edu in order to free herself from any obstacle to living with Carlos. (2%) (b) Carlos` marriage to Dina is void on grounds of public policy, article 38, paragraph 9, of the Family Code provides that marriage between the parties where one has killed the spouse of that other person or his own spouse with the intention of marrying the other is void from the outset for reasons of public order. ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS (c) Eli and Fely`s marriage was celebrated seven years after the disappearance of Chona, Eli`s ex-wife, after the plane she boarded crashed into the Sea of the Western Philippines (2%) PROPOSED ANSWERS (C) The marriage is void under Article 35(4) with respect to Article 41 of the Family Code. For a marriage valid under article 41, the following conditions apply: (1) the former spouse has been absent for four consecutive years, unless the disappearance is in danger of death, which lasts only two years; (2) the current spouse had a reasonable belief that the absent spouse had already died; and (3) the spouse present must initiate summary proceedings to establish the alleged death. There is nothing in fact to suggest that Eli initiated summary proceedings to establish the presumed death of her ex-spouse, and this cannot be presumed. Thus, the exception provided for in Article 35(4) is not applicable and the subsequent marriage is void. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: c) If the marriage was solemnized under the New Civil.
Code, marriage would be valid, since the declaration of presumed death is required under article 391 of the said Code. (d) David, who married Liria immediately after obtaining a court decision annulling his previous marriage to Elisa. (2%) (d) The marriage is valid because there were no facts showing that David and Elisa have property and children, which would invalidate the marriage under article 53 of the Family Code compared to article 52. In addition, David and Lina have no obstacles to getting married. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER (d) If the spouses have property and children, the marriage is void under article 53 of the Family Code with regard to article 52. In order for a marriage following a decision to annul a previous marriage to be valid, the property of the spouses must have been divided and distributed, the presumed legitimacy of the children, if any, must have been served, and the above-mentioned facts must be registered in the civil registry office and property registers. The marriage was concluded the day after obtaining a court annulment order, and it would have been impossible for David to meet the requirements in such a short time. Therefore, the marriage is void. (e) Marriage of Zoren and Carmina, who did not receive a marriage license before their marriage, but lived together for 10 years as husband and wife without legal obstacles to marriage. (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: (e) If Zoren and Carmina lived together as husband and wife for 10 years before their marriage, the marriage is valid despite the absence of the marriage certificate.
An exception to the rule of nullity of a marriage if it is concluded without a licence under Article 35(3) is that provided for in Article 34 of the Family Code. If a man and a woman have been living together as husband and wife for at least 5 years and without legal obstacles to getting married, they can celebrate the marriage without obtaining a marriage certificate. In 1960, Rigor and Mike occupied two separate but adjacent areas of Mindoro. Rigor`s parcel was classified as forest land, while Mike`s land was classified as agricultural land. Each of them fenced and cultivated their own property continuously for 30 years. In 1991, the government declared that the land occupied by Mike was alienable and disposable, and the land cultivated by Rigor was no longer intended for public use or service. Rigor and Mike are coming to you today for legal advice on how to assert their ownership of their respective lands based on their long ownership and occupation since 1960. (a) What are the legal consequences of the 1991 Government Declarations on respect for land? Explain your response; (29) PROPOSED REPLY a) As regards the land occupied by Mike, the same property remains the property of the public state. According to case law, the classification of property as saleable and available land in the public domain does not change its status as a public good, the State must expressly declare that the public good is no longer intended for the public service or the development of the national property or that the property has been converted into financial property.
In the absence of such an express declaration, the property, even if it is classified as alienable or disposable, is considered to be the property of a public dominion (heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic GR No. 179987, 29 April 2009 and 3 September 2013). As for the country it occupies. The declaration that it is no longer intended for public use or a public service has the same thing in · The property provided for such an express declaration to take the form of a law duly promulgated by Congress or a proclamation of the President in cases where the President was duly authorized by law. According to case law, when public lands are no longer intended for public use, for the service or development of national wealth, they are thus effectively removed from the sphere of public rule and transformed into property, provided that the declaration of such conversion takes the form of a law duly promulgated by Congress or a proclamation of the President in cases where: in which the President is duly authorized by law to do so. Effect (Héritiers de Mario Malabanan v. République, G.R. n° 179987, 29 April 2009 and 3 September 2013).
(b) Given that, pursuant to Article 48(b) of The Commonwealth OF CANADA No. 141, with respect to Article 10, paragraph 14, of Presidential Decree No. 14. 1529, should the open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable land in the public domain serve as a basis for judicial confirmation of imperfect property from Or before June 12, 1945, can Mike nevertheless base his assertion of the right of ownership on the limitation provided for in the Civil Code? Explain your answer. (4%) PROPOSED ANSWER (6) No, as the land remains the property of the public state and therefore cannot be acquired by prescription. According to case law, the classification of material property as alienable and available land from the public sphere does not alter its ownership status of the public rule. In order to convert the property into property, the State must explicitly declare that the public property is no longer intended for public service or the development of national property or that the property has been converted into inheritance.