SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2022 CIVIL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS PART 1!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 вер 2024
- Mainit-init pa! Eto na ang Suggested Answers sa 2022 Civil Law Bar Exam Questions Part 1. Kung malakas ang loob mo, panuorin mo to. Malay mo, parehas tayo ng sagot!
#attyaljumrani #barexams #civillaw
Thank you for your comments and observations. They show na nag-aral kayo. Hehe. Please follow this thread for alternative suggested answers. So, first, dun sa Question # 3, possible "correct" answer that the sale is valid with respect to the one-half portion. As a co-owner of the property, Nonoy could legally sell his undivided share or interest. There is a similar discussion in the Caguioa case of Bulatao vs. Estonactoc. 🥰
Thank you, Atty. BTW, that: 1) You and other experts have different conclusions on some of the same questions gives me hope, and 2) You and other experts have the same conclusions but different legal bases in some items GIVES US LOTS OF HOPE
Sana may partial points ako sa bulatao case. Parehas tayo answer atty
May isa pa tayong possible correct suggested answer. This is for question # 15(B). The will may not be probated because of defective attestation. Based on the facts, the quoted attestation did not state that the testator signed the will in the presence of the witnesses as required under Art. 805 of the Civil Code. 🥰
For #3. It really should be void. The authority is a case penned by Justice Caguioa. Anastacio v. Heirs of Coloma, 27 August 2020. The facts are culled from the case, including the property being registered to "Husband, married to Wife"
Atty. I find your videos entertaining and easy to understand po lalo na sa mga law students😁more more more videos po😁
Just watched the suggested answers, thank you atty. I attended ur review in jurist, i am now a lawyer, passed 2022 bar.
BTW, the question about Kotse Corp is mostly a copy of Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling. Fun run din tapos may nasagasaan. In that case, the sponsor was not held liable because it merely sponsored the event, and was not involved in its negligent planning and execution.
Currently watching this. It is my 2nd take this September (first take ko po yung Caguioa Bar). Wala po talaga kong lakas ng loob dati na icheck yung suggested answers sa lahat ng subjects and I told myself na kahit anong mangyari, I will never check the suggested answers. Pero, I have to face my fears. Thank you for this, Atty! Pinapanood ko din po yung iba niyong videos and they have been (and still are) very helpful. :)
Laban lang! Good luck sa September! 🙏
Hi, Atty. #4 question po, pwde din po ba siya void yung revocation? Sabi po sa Art 833, revocation of a will based on a false cause is null and void. Sa problem, the testator believed that Karl was dead. Had he known Karl was alive, he would not have made the 2019 codicil. Hence, void. hehe.
Sir, yung question no. 4(a), about revocation of will, I answered by expounding the Doctrine of Dependent Relative Revocation. Kasi the codicil expressed the reason for bequething to Gian the entire estate, that is, "because of the death of Karl". Under the said doctrine, if the disposition in the revoking will is such as to fairly raise the inference that the testator meant the revocation of the old will to depend upon the efficacy of the new will (the codicil, in the question), the revocation shall be conditional and dependent upon the efficacy of the new one. In the question, Karl appeared with the old will intact, thereby making the old will efficacious. Consequently, the revoking will (codicil) cannot be given effect...
Same answer as mine in the Bar but the answer here is correct because the doctrine does not apply if the new will is a valid one. It must appear that the revocation is dependent upon the valid execution of a new will. The 2nd will is valid because the assumption that Karl was dead was a valid one. Hence, the doctrine is inapplicable.
Atty. Applicable po ba yun presumption na 4yrs kay Karl? Even he is not a member of the arm forces?? If not, Karl can contest the validity of the second will, because he should only be presumed dead after 7yrs for the purpose of succession.
Atty., i never had the courage to check suggested answers to the 2022 Bar Exams. It was only tonight that I tried to. I am glad that most of my answers were also your suggested ones. Listening to your answers brought a recall of the struggles I had in getting through Civil Law Part 1. Ibang level talaga.
Btw, your lectures helped me so much even before the review proper started. I spent my nights watching your videos which made a lot of legal concepts easier to understand.
Thanks a lot to your UA-cam vids, helped me so much to be a Caguioa Bar Passer.
God Bless Atty. Al!
Congratulations Atty! Happy to help! All the best! Hope to see you in the MCLE seminars! 😊
Thank you for this, Atty. Al! 🙏 'Yung sa psychological incapacity nag no po ako using juridical antecedence lang...tas in-insert ko pa na plus, wala namang dagdag sa evidentiary weight yung medical doctor's testimony due to Tan-Andal ruling so ganun. Ang extra, sana 'di ko nalang minention hehe
Salamat Atty. Parang nag re review na ako sa video mong ito...maraming salamat po
Ayun lang po Atty. Nafocus ako sa "the wills were immaculate" (untouched). At naalala na the act of revocation must be complete. Liban po duon ay mukhang sinuwerte, presentation lang po talaga. Maraming salamat po at naway marami pong pumasa.
Finally, pwede na manood kasi pasado na 🥹
Congrats
Thank you very much, you have been helpful especially like me who took the bar exams 5 years ago
Salamat, Atty. Al. laking tulong sakin ng mga lectures mo. Kuha po namin lahat forecast mo
Natatawa ako sa mga sagot ko haha, although tama naman yung sagot, pero yung explanations alanganin. Pero nakuha ko yun exorbitant interest rate thanks to your fish bow atty! thank you po hahaha
Don't worry about it. Malay mo tama ka naman. God bless sa Sunday! 🙏
Ganda nung sagot sa 4a. Dalawa ang ginamit na basis: codicil and presumption of death.
Atty, possible din po ba yun na hindi true cause yung death ni Karl since may reappearance? Curious lang po.
I concur with all except for Question #15(B) - The will cannot be probated because the witnesses failed to attest that the testator signed the will in their presence.
Oh..pwede pwede. Thanks for this! 🥰
Thank you so much sir! This is very helpful po. Looking forward for the part 2. God bless po and more power.
Thanks so much for all your videos. They are really helpful. God bless your generous heart. 🥰
Pede rin valid sa no. 3 since voidable as to half portion since there a concept of “continuing offer” to the heirs of daday.
That's right attorney. I missed to consider that. That exceptional rule was discussed in the Caguioa case of Bulatao vs. Estonactoc. Thanks 🙏
Question po Atty, @The Hows of Law, for the last question 15(b) The Notarial will was not paginated. Doesn't the law require that ALL pages must be numbered correlatively in letters on the upper part of each page? Hence, the absence of page number invalidates the will despite it being 1 page.
Di na po ata need ng page number kasi 1 page lang
Atty. Al, ngayon panonoorin ko na kasi pasado na ako. hahaha…..
Hello Atty. I am your Bar reviewee fan from Cebu City. Thank you for your free videos!
You’re always welcome! God bless!
sobrang hirap po ng exam kahapon sir. Thank you po and more power.
Wow congrats Ali! My fave legal influencer! 😍🤩
Naka-relate ako sa Q&A #1 ... Thanks Atty Civilista!
I was tempted not to watch pero I still watched. At least nagauge ko kung nakalampas man lang ako ng 10%. 😁
yung question 12 po atty. fave case ko yan natawag ako diyan nung torts class ko under Atty. Aquino heheh Abrogar v. Cosmos
Oh di ba? Tumatatak talaga ang mga recitation. Hehe. Good job! 🥰
Atty. curious lang po, bakit di po applicable ang Tan-Andal sa number 2? Thank you po.
Hello Atty, I'm already at the peak of finals in the 1st semester of my freshmen year here in PUP. Would I be getting some credits if I my answer in the #2 question is based on "lack of juridical antecedence since the paranoia only showed later in the marriage and not from the time the marriage was celebrated"?
Yes that is also correct. We have the same result 😊
@@TheHowsofLaw Thank you Atty AL!
"Like and comment" po muna Atty. Al. Sa Nov. 21 ko na po panoorin, may Rem pa po sa sunday. 😁🙏
Btw thank you po sa mahiwagang fishball at prediction mo Atty. .☺️💖
Laban! Sunday is Rem-demption day! 🙏
May nakuha rin aq sagot sa kakanuod sau atty. haha.. wala tlga pag last minute lang aasa dapat malalim na foundation don huhugot ng sagot
True! God bless sa Sunday! 🙏
Why did you not include in Q#1 the provisions of Art 19 and 21, NCC but you merely couched your answer in a generic sense of "abuse of rights" ?
Nice. Yung mga kakilala ko Tan andal na case yung sagot nila, so nag yes sila. Sabi ko na nga na hindi applicable ang tan andal case
Sana hindi sila nagpadala agad sa Tan-Andal. Hehe
Matanong ko bakit hindi po?
Thank you, Sir🥰❤
Thank you po atty.! Idol!🥰💖🥰
Thank you Atty. AL!😍
This is what I am waiting for po.
Haha. Thank you! ☺️
@@TheHowsofLaw looking forward to the part 2 po. This vlog deserves a Million subscribers 🙂.
atty. sa number 7 po if binenta ni evelyn to another buyer, valid po ba ung sale?
Hello po, Atty. ^_^ Based po on the suggested answer that you presented, if we are not sure what law to apply, can we just use the term/s "under the law" "as a rule" sa pagsagot during the bar? thank you so much po.
Yes you can!
@@TheHowsofLaw thank you so much po, Atty. 😇 abangers po sa jurists pati dito sa youtube. ^_^ more subscribers po sa'yo and more more informative legal vids po.
Sir, I tried answering the Bar Q's prior watching in preparation to take the Bar 2023. Sent you my answers via personal message in word / doc format. Hope you would have time to peruse and give comments. Would be looking forward to your comments and suggestions. Thank you so much and God bless!
For question no. 3, possible po ba yung Nonoy's sale to Barby is valid, but only insofar as Nonoy's share in the property upon the death of Daday?
Same answer tayo sib.
That's Rabuya's answer. Valid only insofar as his undivided share is concerned, but void as to the other parts. Partial points if you said void/valid.
Yes, this is possibly correct too. Please see my pinned comment. Thank you for the input. 🥰
Q#13. Fact- married in the Philippines. Hindi po ba lex loci celebrationis ang mag apply Dito?
Lex nationalii ang applicable. If the foreigner spouse's national law allows divorce regardless of where he/she was married, then the divorce is valid and can be recognized here.
Thank u atty! ❤️
Atty, yung number 1 po what kind of damages are present? Actual lang ba? Or actual and moral damages?
Pwede both. If the grandparents felt that the celebration was a failure without the celebrant, pwede actual damages for the costs of organizing the party. And, of course, for the mental and emotional anguish, moral damages yun
@@TheHowsofLaw thank you so much atty 🤗
@@TheHowsofLaw sana po meron din sa ibang subjects hehe
Thank you Atty😍
Sir sa question no. 3, possible po kaya na the sale is valid, only up to the extent of Nonoy’s share in the estate of Daday because upon the death of the latter, conjugal partnership is automatically terminated? nabanggit po kase ni atty Rabuya, in the case of heirs of Caburnay v heirs of Sison.
Yes, possible correct answer to. Please see my pinned comment. Thanks for your input 🥰
ganito din po sagot ko
Possible po ba Atty. na maging supervening event yung death that will validate the otherwise void sale?
Thank you po.
Atty, yung civil law 2 din po sana hehe
Abangan bukas. Editing na lang 🥰
@@TheHowsofLaw thank you po attorney.
Hindi pa ko ready malaman if tama ang sagot ko 😅
yes llaw 111 :D finals
Got all right except one. Di ko naisip yung angle ng abuse of right. Parang wala kasi angle of malice sa facts and ineexercise lang ng mother right nya under tender age rule. Sana iconsider 😢
Iko-consider yun because that's the default answer. Don't worry. May tama ka! God bless sa Sunday! 🙏
@@TheHowsofLaw sana nga po! Looking forward to your part 2 answers po.
Pwede nang manood ng walang kaba hahaha
I guess yun na yun... Its not really for me...
Uy, Charlie wag ganun. Laban lang! It's not over till Legal Ethics. Don't give up. Sunday is Rem-demption day! 🙏