INTRO FT Quiz No. 2 (50 points) 2024 Past Paper

INTRO FT Quiz No. 2 (50 points) 27 November 2024 1. On 1 October 2024, Jim, the driver of a taxi owned by Gem was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in the death of 12-year-old Jon who was ran over by Jim while overspeeding along a school zone. The...

INTRO FT Quiz No. 2 (50 points) 27 November 2024 1. On 1 October 2024, Jim, the driver of a taxi owned by Gem was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in the death of 12-year-old Jon who was ran over by Jim while overspeeding along a school zone. The court also adjudged Jim liable to Jon’s heirs for damages totaling to P800,000.00. Jim, however, was insolvent and could not pay. Under the facts, Gem may be legally compelled by Jon’s heirs to pay them the P800,000.00 and she cannot set up the defense of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of her employees to exempt herself from such civil liability. TRUE 2. In the case of Picart vs. Smith, the automobile driver saw a man riding his horse on the wrong side of the bridge and proceeding toward him on his lane. The automobile driver then sounded his horn several times to warn the horse rider, but it was too late to avoid a collision. In this case, the Court applied the doctrine of last clear chance in holding the horseback rider, who was originally at fault, liable to the automobile owner for damages on account of negligence. FALSE 3. To prevent the slightest risk of causing damage to the rights of another, the standard or degree of care or diligence that should be observed is that of extraordinary diligence, unless the law or the stipulation of the parties requires another standard of care. FALSE 4. Jim induced Gem to violate her contract with Gino. Gino sought to hold Jim liable for damages. Under the principle of relativity of contracts, Jim, who is not a party to the contract between Gem and Gino, cannot be held liable for damages. FALSE 5. Gem is the owner of a taxi unit driven by Jim. On 10 October 2024, while beating the red light along the intersection of Roxas Boulevard and Quirino Avenue, the taxi collided with a Mitsubishi Pajero resulting in serious physical injuries to Jon, the passenger of the taxi. As a result, Jon sought to recover damages from Gem for her breach of contract. In this case, Gem cannot set up the defense of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of employees to exempt herself from liability. TRUE 6. In the case of Africa vs. Caltex, the Supreme Court applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur in denying the claim for damages of several owners of properties damaged by the fire which broke out at the Caltex Service Station since the plaintiffs-claimants failed to adduce proof as to the cause and origin of the fire. FALSE 7. Injury refers to the harm done, while damage refers to the wrongful or unlawful or tortious act. FALSE 8. As distinguished from regular employees, seasonal and project employees do not enjoy security of tenure. FALSE 9. In Saludaga vs. FEU, petitioner Saludaga, a sophomore student, sought to recover damages from the respondent FEU after the former was accidentally shot by one of the school’s security guards on duty. In this case, the Court held FEU liable to Saludaga for damages arising from culpa aquiliana. FALSE 10. Every employer shall be obliged to pay their employees a night shift differential of not less than 10% of their regular wage, but only for each hour of work performed between 11:00 o’clock in the evening and 6:00 o’clock in the morning. FALSE 11. Work may be performed beyond eight hours a day provided that the employer pays the employee overtime pay or additional compensation equivalent to the employee’s regular wage plus at least 15% thereof. FALSE 12. Gem, who has been working for two years now as a staff in the Office of the Mayor in Manila is entitled to 13th month pay. FALSE 13. Today, Gem asked leave from her employer that she needed to leave work two hours before closing time to attend to her ailing mother. His employer gave her permission, but instructed her to work two extra hours tomorrow to compensate for the missed hours. The employer’s instruction is in accordance with existing law. FALSE INTRO (ALM1) FT Quiz No. 1A (11 November 2024)_Coverage: Modules 15-16  Page 1 of 12 14. Jim worked on Chinese New year. His employer will be obliged to pay him an additional compensation equivalent to his regular wage plus at least 30% thereof. TRUE 15. Employers are mandated to give their employees not more than 60 minutes time-off for their regular meals. FALSE 16. The general rule is that the employer can compel the employee to render overtime work as long as the employee is paid the overtime pay required by law. FALSE 17. On 21 August 2024 (Wednesday), which was Ninoy Aquino Day, Gem worked for 12 hours. Gem was paid by her employer an additional compensation equivalent to 30% of her regular hourly rate for the first eight hours, plus 35% thereof as overtime pay for the extra two hours. The pay herein given to Gem is in compliance with existing provisions of law. TRUE. 18. An employee’s dismissal from service due to just causes is valid and justified as long as the employer serves the employee notice of his termination (specifying therein the reason of his dismissal) at least 30 days before the intended effectivity date for his termination, and pays him his separation pay. FALSE 19. Despite request by his employer, Jim did not work on Christmas Day. He had to go home to the province because of an emergency. The employer is obliged to pay Jim his salary on Christmas Day equivalent to his regular daily rate. TRUE 20. In Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs. IAC, private respondent Dionisio, while on his way home from a cocktails-and-dinner meeting, smashed into a Ford dump truck owned by petitioner Phoenix Construction, Inc. which was parked askew on the road facing the oncoming traffic. The Court held in this case that the proximate cause of Dionisio’s injuries was his own negligence as evinced by his reckless overspeeding while under the influence of liquor, without his headlights on. FALSE INTRO MT Quiz No. 2 (MODULES 6-9) 27 NOVEMBER 2024 1. Seeking to apply for land registration of a lot which Maria has been occupying in the concept of owner for 35 years, she has to file her application with the Municipal Trial Court in Basey, Samar where her lot is located. F 2. Celia mortgaged her lot to Maria to secure her P2.5 million indebtedness to the latter due for payment on 1 October 2024. Maria’s mortgaged lien was annotated on Celia’s certificate of title on file with the Register of Deeds. Later, to secure a P2 million debt due for payment on 1 July 2024, Celia again mortgaged her lot to Juan who was not aware of Maria’s mortgaged lien. Celia failed to pay her obligation to Juan upon the latter’s demand on due date. Under the facts, Juan will have a better right to foreclose as against Celia because his obligation matured first and he is a mortgagee in good faith. F 3. Pedro owns a lot covered by TCT No. 987654 registered with the Register of Deeds of Tagaytay City. On 15 June 2023, Pedro executed a notarized Deed of Sale conveying the lot to Maria who kept a copy of the deed but failed to register it. On 5 July 2024, Pedro executed a notarized Deed of Sale selling the same lot to Juan, who found out one month after the sale that there was a previous sale of the lot to Maria. To protect his right, Juan caused the registration of his Deed of Sale with the ROD of Tagaytay City on 15 August 2024 and was issued a new transfer certificate of title (TCT) in his name as new owner. On 17 September 2024, Maria discovered about Juan’s title and immediately sought the assistance of counsel for the filing of an action for cancellation of Juan’s title and reconveyance of the ownership over the lot to her. Maria’s action will still prosper even if the TCT over the lot is already in Juan’s name. T 4. Juan is the owner of an unregistered lot. On 10 February 2010, Juan executed a notarized Deed of Sale conveying his lot to Maria. Maria merely caused the registration of the deed with the ROD because there is no Torrens title covering the lot. On 25 March 2011, Maria’s sister Celia, pretending to be Maria, forged Maria’s signature on a notarized Deed of Sale and was able to convey ownership of the lot to INTRO (ALM1) FT Quiz No. 1A (11 November 2024)_Coverage: Modules 15-16  Page 2 of 12  Pedro. Thereafter, Pedro started occupying and tilling the lot. On 15 August 2024, after discovering that her sister Celia was able to sell the land to Pedro by forging her signature, Maria filed against Pedro an action for reconveyance of the ownership of the property. Under the facts, Maria’s action will not prosper. T 5. As soon as patrimonial properties of the state are classified by the government as alienable or disposable land of public domain, ownership thereof can already be acquired by a person through uninterrupted adverse possession of said lands for at least 30 years. F 6. An action arising from a juridical relation known as negotiorum gestio prescribes in 4 years. F 7. Pedro, who is married to Maria, has illicit relations with Celia who became pregnant with his child. Two months after Celia gave birth to Juan, Maria died. When Juan was five years old, Pedro and Celia married. Juan will be legitimated with the subsequent marriage of his biological parents. F 8. Celia gave birth to Pedro’s son Juan when they were both 17 years old. On Juan’s second birthday, Celia and Pedro married without the consent of their parents. One year thereafter, their marriage was annulled for lack of parental consent upon an action filed by Celia’s parents. Under the facts, Juan is considered the illegitimate child of Celia and Pedro. F 9. Thirty-year-old Akimitso, a Japanese national who has been continuously residing in the Philippines for six years is not qualified to adopt 15-year-old Juan whose parents died one year ago. T 10. Maria’s parents died in a car accident when she was in the sixth grade. Both her maternal and paternal grandparents had already died. Because her Dad was an only son, the only relative that she knew was her spinster maternal aunt Celia, the only sister of her Mom. Maria was desperate to finish until Senior High School so she went to her aunt begging if she could support her in her studies. Celia, however, turned a deaf ear. Under the facts, Maria cannot legally compel Celia to give her support for her education. T 11. After a child is administratively declared legally available for adoption, the adoptee may enjoy the same rights as that accorded to legitimate children of the adopters only after the issuance of a judicial decree of adoption by the judicial courts after due proceedings. F 12. Under Republic Act No. 11642, otherwise known as the Domestic Administrative Adoption and Alternative Child Care Act, a neglected child refers to a child whose physical and emotional needs have been deliberately unattended or inadequately attended within a period of six continuous months. F 13. While having tea on 1 August 2024, Juan obliged himself to deliver to Maria his Canadian Eskimo dog worth ₱400,000.00 on 15 September 2024. The parties agreed that should Juan fail to deliver, he will be liable to pay Maria a ₱20,000.00 penalty. On 16 September 2024, the dog died due to a viral infection of unknown origin. For failure to deliver the dog on 18 September 2024, when Maria demanded performance under this obligation, she suffered consequential damages amounting to ₱50,000.00. Under the facts, Juan will be liable to Maria for the P20,000.00 penalty agreed upon. F 14. Under the promissory note dated 15 January 2023, Juan promised to pay Maria his ₱500,000.00 debt on 15 January 2024. On 15 December 2023, after receiving his bonuses, and to make sure that his obligation is completely paid to Maria, Juan went to Maria’s house to tender payment under this obligation. Under the facts, Maria will be legally justified in refusing to accept the payment. T 15. As per her written promise dated 15 June 2024, Maria promised to deliver to Juan her BMW car worth ₱8 million, her Toyota Land Cruiser worth ₱4 million, or her Nissan Navara worth ₱1.8 million on 15 September 2024. On due date, Maria delivered to Juan her Nissan Navara. Under the facts, Juan can compel Maria to deliver the BMW car because he has a small garage. F 16. On 1 August 2024, Juan obliged to deliver to Maria her Mitsubishi Pajero and her white bullshih (crossbreed of a bulldog and a shih tzu) not later than 15 September 2024. On 18 September 2024, Maria demanded delivery of the car and the dog. It was only on 20 September 2024 when Juan found time to make delivery; but that same day, Typhoon Maring hit the Luzon area drowning both the car and the dog in the flash floods due to heavy rains. Under the facts, Juan will be liable to Maria for damages. T INTRO (ALM1) FT Quiz No. 1A (11 November 2024)_Coverage: Modules 15-16  Page 3 of 12  17. Maria obliged himself to give Juan her Apple iPad (10th generation) if Juan will not join a fraternity while schooling, or if he will be admitted to their school’s swimming varcity this school year, or if he will obtain a general weighted average of 90% in all her subjects this semester. This is an example of an alternative obligation. F 18. Juan leased Maria’s lot for a period of two years from 1January 2022 to 31 December 2023 for an agreed monthly rental of ₱30,000.00. On 14 February 2022, Maria promised in writing to deliver her lot to Pedro if he will marry her cousin Clara before the year ended. On 15 August 2022, Pedro married Clara, but Maria was able to deliver the lot to Pedro only on 15 October 2022. Under the facts, Pedro, as new owner, will have the right to collect the monthly rentals from the tenant Juan starting 15 August 2022. T 19. On 15 January 2023, Maria loaned the amount of ₱200,000.00 to Juan who promised to pay her his debt on 15 January 2024, plus penalty interest of 1% per month if he is not able to pay on maturity date. On 15 June 2024, Maria demanded payment under the obligation. Juan, however, was able to pay only on 15 September 2024. Juan will be liable for 8% penalty interest in addition to the principal amount for his inability to pay the obligation on the agreed maturity date on 15 January 2024. F 20. In a promissory note signed on 15 August 2023, Juan, Pedro, and Andres bound themselves to pay Maria the amount of ₱600,000.00 on 15 August 2023. Maria can compel Juan to pay her the entire ₱600,000.00 if Pedro and Andres are both insolvent on due date. F _D_ (1) STATEMENT 1: The provisions under the Family Code which outlines the right of illegitimate children to support from their biological father, and which gives a mother exclusive right to custody over her illegitimate child is an example of adjective law. FALSE STATEMENT 2: In case of conflict between statute law and case law, the latter will always prevail. FALSE _A_ (2) STATEMENT 1: By the doctrine of judicial precedent, a certain state of facts established in a final decision of the Supreme Court has to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land where the facts are substantially the same, regardless of whether the parties and property are the same. TRUE STATEMENT 2: Construction refers to understanding the words and true sense in the provisions of the statute. On the other hand, interpretation is described as drawing conclusions, in relation to the case, that lie beyond the outright expression of the legal text. FALSE _C_ (3) STATEMENT 1: In Sweden, the legal age to marry is 16, and no parental consent is required. Joe and Jin, both 19, married in Sweden without the knowledge of their parents. After her 21st birthday, Jin filed an action for annulment with the RTC of Makati where they were both residents. This marriage is voidable. TRUE STATEMENT 2: The laws of Ireland allow proxy marriages. Two days before her marriage to Joe on 1 October 2024 in Ireland, Jin contacted Covid-19. Jin’s twin sister Jen then attended the rites and declared the vows in Jin’s stead. Five years after their marriage, Jin filed an action for declaration of nullity of their marriage with the RTC of Pasig where both of them were residents. This action will still prosper. TRUE _D_ (4) INTRO SELF-EVALUATION ACTIVITY No. 3: Modules 1-5 (27 October 2024) l Page 2 of 5 STATEMENT 1: RA 678910 was published in the 5 October 2024 issue of the Philippine Star. The effectivity clause of the law states that the law shall be made applicable to all acts committed as of 1 January 2024. Joe who committed an act prohibited under this law on 15 June 2024 shall be prosecuted and convicted under this law. FALSE STATEMENT 2: As per effectivity clause of RA 123456, the law shall take effect immediately upon publication. RA 123456 was published in the 15 October 2024 issue of the Manila Bulletin. This law shall take effect on 15 October 2024. FALSE _D_ (5) STATEMENT 1: One month means 30 days, and one year means 12 months; hence, one year means 360 days. FALSE STATEMENT 2: On 10 July 2024, Joe promised Jin that he would vacate the leased premises within two months. Joe has until 10 September 2024 within which to vacate the leased premises. FALSE _D_ (6) STATEMENT 1: Three calendar months from 15 January 2024 is 14 April 2024 because 2024 is a leap year. FALSE STATEMENT 2: As per effectivity clause of RA 345678, the law shall take effect after 10 days of publication. RA 345678 was published in the 1 October 2024 issue of the Daily Inquirer. This law shall take effect on 12 October 2024. FALSE _H_ (7) STATEMENT 1: Joe placed sixth in the Bar Examinations of 2022 with an average of 88%. Two years later, Jin charged him of having falsely represented in his application for such Bar examination that he had the requisite academic qualifications. Upon investigation, it was found that he had not completed the required pre-legal education before enrollment in law school as he did not complete his high school training, contrary to the certifications he had submitted together with his application. Joe’s name was then sought to be erased from the Roll of Attorneys in the Supreme Court. Under the facts, Joe’s non-completion INTRO (ALM1) FT Quiz No. 1A (11 November 2024)_Coverage: Modules 15-16  Page 4 of 12 of his high school training becomes immaterial considering that he has proven his competence to engage in the practice of law by making it to the top ten list, and garnering an average of 88% in the Bar examination. FALSE STATEMENT 2: After passing the bar examinations, Joe took his oath as newly admitted member of the Bar. Joe is now deemed to have performed all acts as required under the Rules of Court which will qualify and authorize him to lawfully engage in the active practice of the legal profession. FALSE _D_ (8) STATEMENT 1: Joe lost his 8-month pregnant wife Jin in a vehicular accident. The bus driver was drunk during the mishap. None of the bus passengers survived. The bus operator of the negligent bus driver will be liable to Joe for death indemnity for the death of Jin and their child. FALSE STATEMENT 2: As Jin started on the third trimester of her pregnancy, she was confined for preeclampsia and was indicated for an emergency caesarian section. She gave birth to a baby boy, but the infant died after 12 hours. Under the facts, Jin’s baby is deemed to have acquired juridical personality. FALSE _D_ (9) STATEMENT 1: In Sweden, the legal age to marry is 16. Joe and Jin, both 17, married in Sweden without the knowledge of their parents. After 25 years of marriage, Jin got tired of Joe’s repeated womanizing. She thus filed an action for the declaration of nullity of her marriage with the RTC of Pasay where they were residents. Jin’s action will not prosper. FALSE STATEMENT 2: Joe and Jin have been cohabiting as husband and wife since they were both 16. They did not have children. Joe died of pancreatic cancer at the age of 55. In this case, Jin will be entitled to the SSS death benefits as legal spouse of Joe. FALSE _A_ (10) INTRO SELF-EVALUATION ACTIVITY No. 3: Modules 1-5 (27 October 2024) l Page 3 of 5 STATEMENT 1: Joe and Jin, both 17, were married with the consent of their parents who personally appeared before the LCR of Manila when the couple applied for a marriage license and during the celebration of their Marriage at St. Joseph. This marriage is void for lack of an essential requisite. TRUE STATEMENT 2: Joe and Jin, both 21, married against the will of their parents. This marriage is voidable. FALSE _D_ (11) STATEMENT 1: Jin, a female transgender, and Joe were married by RTC Judge Reyes in his chamber in Pasay City. This marriage is void for lack of a formal requisite. FALSE STATEMENT 2: Joe and Jin were issued a marriage license 2 weeks before Jin celebrated her 18th birthday. They were married two months thereafter. This marriage is void for lack of legal capacity. FALSE _B_ (12) STATEMENT 1: The priest who married Joe and Jin failed to register their marriage contract with the LCR of Pasay where they were married. This marriage is void for lack of a formal requisite. FALSE STATEMENT 2: Joe and Jin were married one day before they were issued their marriage license because Joe had to leave for the US to attend her mother’s burial. The license was attached to the marriage contract upon registration with the LCR. This marriage is void. TRUE _C_ (13) STATEMENT 1: Joe and Jin were married one day before they were issued their marriage license because Joe had to leave for the US to attend her mother’s burial. The license was attached to the marriage contract upon registration with the LCR. This marriage is void. TRUE STATEMENT 2: Joe and Jin, both 19, were issued a marriage license on 15 April 2024. They married on 15 August 2024 without the consent of their parents. This marriage is void. TRUE _D_ (14) STATEMENT 1: Jin contacted German measles the day before her wedding. She then executed a notarized special power of attorney in favor of her sister Joan for the latter to attend the rites and sign the marriage contract in her behalf. This marriage cannot be nullified since the bride definitely gave her consent to the marriage. FALSE STATEMENT 2: Joe and Jin were married by Pasay RTC Judge Cruz in the chambers of RTC Judge Lim of Manila where Joe and Jin were both residents. This marriage is voidable on account of a defect in one of the formal requisites of marriage. FALSE _B_ (15) STATEMENT 1: Joe and Jin, both members of the Iglesia ni Kristo, were married by Joe’s uncle, a Catholic priest. Both Joe and Jin believed in good faith that the priest had the authority to solemnize their marriage. This marriage is valid until annulled. FALSE STATEMENT 2: Joe (a PAL passenger) and Jin (a JAL passenger), fell in love during a six-hour lay over at the San Francisco airport in California. Before they boarded their flights, Joe suffered from a massive heart attack but they were married by the chief pilot of Jin’s JAL flight before Joe expired. This marriage is valid. TRUE _A_ (16) STATEMENT 1: Consul-general Gonzales of the Philippine Embassy in Israel married Joe and Jin in Cebu City while he was on vacation. This marriage is void even if Joe and Jin believed in good faith that Gonzales had the authority to solemnize their marriage. TRUE STATEMENT 2: Joe and Jin were married by the provincial governor of Leyte where they were both constituents. The marriage is valid without any defect whatsoever. FALSE INTRO SELF-EVALUATION ACTIVITY No. 3: Modules 1-5 (27 October 2024) l Page 4 of 5 _A_ (17) STATEMENT 1: Joe and Jin eloped to Batanes and married without the knowledge of their parents when they were both 19. Four years after their marriage, due to irreconcilable differences, Jin filed an action to annul their marriage for lack of parental consent. The action will not prosper. TRUE STATEMENT 2: Joe married Jin, the daughter of his stepfather Rex. This marriage is void for being contrary to public policy. FALSE _A_ (18) STATEMENT 1: Fe had Joe when she was 17. After Joe’s 8th birthday, Fe married Frank and they adopted six-year-old Jin. Jin and Joe later married when Jin was 20 without the knowledge of their parents. This marriage is voidable. TRUE STATEMENT 2: Two years after his wife died, Joe married his wife’s sister Jin who was his childhood crush. This marriage is void. FALSE _B_ (19) STATEMENT 1: Jin and Joe married when they were both 17, but were separated after two years. Ten years thereafter, Joe married Grace. Jin filed an action for bigamy against Joe. The action for bigamy will not prosper because only the second marriage is valid. FALSE STATEMENT 2: In their application for marriage license, Joe and Jin (both 19) attached the notarized affidavits of their parents which gave INTRO (ALM1) FT Quiz No. 1A (11 November 2024)_Coverage: Modules 15-16  Page 5 of 12 them consent to marry in this tenor: “That we are giving our child consent to marry a person of his or her choice according to his or her wise judgment.” The parties’ subsequent marriage is annullable for lack of parental consent. TRUE _D_ (20) STATEMENT 1: When Jin was wedded to Joe, she concealed from him the fact that she already had a three-year-old daughter with her high school sweetheart. Under the facts, Joe has five years from the time he discovers this fact within which to annul the marriage. FALSE STATEMENT 2: An action for annulment based on intimidation must be filed within 5 years from the time of the marriage. FALSE _H_ (21) STATEMENT 1: After medical consultation three years after their marriage, Jin and Joe found out that they could not have a child because Joe was sterile. An action for annulment filed by Jin at this time can still prosper. FALSE STATEMENT 2: Jin caught Joe having sex in their conjugal bed and shot him. Later, she married the lawyer who defended her in the parricide case filed against her by Joe’s family. Jin’s marriage to the lawyer is valid without any defect whatsoever. TRUE _D_ (22) STATEMENT 1: Three years after Jin and Joe got married, Joe slid into depression and became alcoholic. Despite Jin’s plea, Joe refused to subject himself to rehabilitation. Jin has legal ground to annul her marriage with Joe. FALSE STATEMENT 2: Jin was the childhood friend of Joe who was gay. Five years after finishing college, Joe proposed marriage to Jin because he wanted children. Jin accepted because she had fallen for Joe albeit he was gay. Two years after their marriage, however, Jin discovered that Joe was having an affair with the brother of Jin’s dentist. Under the facts, Jin will have legal ground to file an action to annul their marriage. FALSE _A_ (23) STATEMENT 1: Three years after Joe and Jin married, Jin’s parents sought to annul the union on the ground that Jin was only 19 when she was wedded without her parents’ knowledge. The action will not prosper. TRUE STATEMENT 2: Two days after he was wedded to Jin on 12 August 2024, Joe discovered that he had AIDS. The doctor told him he had barely two years to live. Not knowing how he could have acquired the infection, Joe kept the results from his wife who INTRO SELF-EVALUATION ACTIVITY No. 3: Modules 1-5 (27 October 2024) l Page 5 of 5 had to rush to the province to her ailing mother. Jin learned about Joe’s affliction on 5 October 2024. Under the facts, Jin has until 5 October 2029 within which to file an action for annulment. FALSE _A_ (24) STATEMENT 1: In Alabama, the Governor is an authorized solemnizer. Jin and Joe, both 30 and Filipinos, married in Alabama. This marriage is valid and may be registered in the Philippines. TRUE STATEMENT 2: In London, the registration of the parties’ marriage contract is a formal requisite of marriage. Jin and Joe, both 28 and Filipinos, married in Islington, London but failed to register their marriage contract in the Civil Registrar of the Town Hall in Islington. This marriage is valid and may be registered in the Philippines. FALSE _B_ (25) STATEMENT 1: Joe and Jin were married on 25 June 2015. On 8 April 2021, Joe went to the U.S. and abandoned Jin. On 2 August 2024, Joe became a naturalized American citizen while the action for divorce filed by Jin on 18 June 2023 was still pending. On 15 October 2024, Jin obtained from the U.S. court the decree of divorce of her marriage to Joe. Under the facts, Jin will now be capacitated to remarry. FALSE STATEMENT 2: Joe agreed when Jin told him that she would be filing a legal separation suit on the ground that he had contracted another marriage in Singapore as he wanted to join his wife there. They also agreed on how their properties will be liquidated and divided between them. The agreement was made in writing and notarized by a notary public, and presented by the parties during the proceedings. The court granted the action for legal separation on the basis of the parties’ notarized agreement. Under the facts, the court’s judgment is not legally tenable. TRUE _A_ (26) STATEMENT 1: Jin filed an action for legal separation against her husband Joe who was verbally and physically abusive of his 12- year-old son by his first deceased wife. The action will not prosper. TRUE. STATEMENT 2: After the court issued the decree of legal separation of Joe and Jin, Jin left the conjugal home and cohabited with Jack. Joe filed a criminal case for adultery against Jin. The action will no longer prosper. FALSE _D_ (27) STATEMENT 1: Jin filed an action for legal separation after learning that Joe had contracted another marriage with Akemi in Japan. Under the principle of territoriality, the action will not prosper because the marriage was contracted in Japan. FALSE STATEMENT 2: Because Jin was a nagger, Joe left the conjugal home on 12 April 2022. He never talked to his wife but continued to communicate with his 14-year-old daughter to whom he entrusted the monthly budget for his family’s support. Embarassed that Joe went back to his widowed mother’s house, Jin filed an action for legal separation grounded on abandonment on 15 October 2024. Jin’s action will prosper. FALSE _A_ (28) STATEMENT 1: Joe filed an action in court for mandatory injunction to compel her wife Jin, who had been cohabiting with her childhood sweetheart in Cebu for one year now, to return to the conjugal home and live with him and their three daughters who needed their mom. The action will not prosper. TRUE STATEMENT 2: On 15 April 2023, Joe and Jin executed a notarized marriage settlement agreeing on the regime of conjugal partnership of gains to govern their property relations after they are married on 15 October 2024. On 15 June 2024, Jin inherited from his deceased uncle a 5-door apartment building valued at P30M with a gross annual earning of P8M in rentals. The P30M apartment building will be deemed part of the conjugal assets while the P8M annual net earnings therefrom will be considered personal or paraphernal property of Jin. FALSE INTRO FT Quiz No. 1A 27 November 2024 INTRO (ALM1) FT Quiz No. 1A (11 November 2024)_Coverage: Modules 15-16  Page 6 of 12 21. Among other provisions in his will, Rye states: “I bequeath my 2-hectare farm lot in Liliw, Laguna to my only niece, Lei. Lei is a legatee in the will. FALSE 22. In his notarial will dated 15 March 2022, Al bequeathed his Toyota Innova to his Aunt Fe; he stated therein that, “This is my final last will and testament, and any future modifications to its provisions shall not be valid and enforceable.” On 25 February 2024, Al executed another notarial will this time bequeathing his Toyota Innova to his nurse Kae. On 30 October 2024, Al passed on. As between Fe and Kae, Fe will have a rightful claim of ownership over the Toyota Innova. FALSE 23. Ed was asked to witness the execution of a will by his Uncle who wrote the will in Spanish. Ed is a qualified witness to the execution of this will even if he cannot understand Spanish. TRUE 24. On 1 October 2024, Rye was convicted of drug trafficking – a crime involving moral turpitude. Rye will now be disqualified to become a witness to a notarial will. FALSE 25. On 15 October 2024, Fe (a resident of Davao) sent a letter to Al (a resident of Tacloban). She was offering the sale of her house and lot in Davao for ₱10M. On 20 October 2024, Al received Fe’s letter and immediately drafted a reply signifying his unqualified acceptance to the offer. Fe, however, died of a heart attack before Al’s reply was delivered by the postie to Fe’s residence on 25 October 2024. There is here a perfected contract of sale between Fe and Al. FALSE 26. Ed sold his condo unit to Kae for ₱5M. The parties stipulated that Ed will have the right to repurchase the condo unit within two years after paying Kae the amount of ₱5.5M. This is an example of legal redemption. FALSE TRUE 27. On 1 October 2024, Rye offered to sell his Mitsubishi Triton to Lei for ₱1M; he gave Lei 30 days within which to decide whether to accept the offer or not. Lei agreed and was happy with the period given to her. On October 15, 2024, Rye sold and delivered his Mitsubishi Triton to Al for ₱1.2M. On October 20, 2024, when Lei went to Rye to signify her acceptance of the offer, she found that the pick-up had already been sold. Rye will be liable to Lei for damages. FALSE 28. On 10 March 2022, Al and Fe executed a notarized pre-nuptial agreement where they stipulated separation of property as their property regime during their marriage. They were wedded on 15 October 2023. On 30 October 2024, Al sold to Kae a 2,000-square-meter lot which he had inherited from his father on 26 November 2021. The sale was registered with the ROD. Fe may nullify the sale for having been executed without her marital consent. FALSE 29. Lei engaged the services of Rye, a renowned couturier, to sew her bridal gown for a consideration of ₱150,000.00. This is an example of locatio operis. TRUE 30. In a meeting held on 15 March 2024, Rye verbally agreed to lease his house and lot to Lei for a period of one year and for a monthly rental of ₱50,000.00 starting from 1 May 2024. This lease is valid but is unenforceable. FALSE 31. In a “Lease Contract” signed on 15 January 2020, Al agreed to lease his townhouse to Fe for a period of six years. On 1 June 2024, Al sold the townhouse to Kae whereafter a new TCT was issued in Kae’s name. Thereafter, Kae can compel Fe to vacate the townhouse even if Fe’s lease with Al is in writing. TRUE 32. Ed leased Kae’s condo unit for a period of five years from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2023 and for a monthly rental of ₱60,000.00. It was also stipulated in the contract signed by the parties that the lease was renewable for another five years. Ed continued occupying the unit even after 31 December 2023 but was required by Kae to pay an increased monthly rent of ₱65,000.00, which Ed paid faithfully. On 15 May 2024, Kae notified Ed in writing that her newly married son will be using the unit. Kae thus gave Ed until 31 May 2024 within which to vacate the premises so her son can start moving his things starting 1 June 2024. Under the facts, Kae is well within her rights to eject Ed from the leased premises. TRUE 33. Lei sold her gold necklace in writing to Rye for ₱250,000.00. She promised to deliver the necklace 10 days thereafter, or on 25 October 2024. On the same day, however, Lei delivered INTRO (ALM1) FT Quiz No. 1A (11 November 2024)_Coverage: Modules 15-16  Page 7 of 12 the necklace to Fe and executed a private document of pledge in Fe’s favor to secure her ₱200,000.00 obligation to Fe which was due in five days on 20 October 2024. Under the facts, Rye can legally compel Fe to deliver to him the necklace on 25 October 2024 as per his contract of sale with Lei. TRUE 34. In a promissory note signed on 15 October 2023, Al obliged himself to pay Fe his ₱500,000.00 indebtedness not later than 15 October 2024. To secure the obligation, Al delivered to Fe his mountain bike worth ₱650,000.00 and executed a private document of pledge in his favor. It was agreed therein that should Al fail to pay his obligation on maturity date, ownership of his bike will automatically be conveyed to Fe as full satisfaction of the debt. The latter stipulation in the parties’ contract is not legally binding. TRUE 35. As per promissory note signed by Ed on 1 April 2023, he promised to pay Kae his ₱500,000.00 debt on 1 April 2024, plus monetary interest in the form of 50 kilos of ripe mangoes (costing ₱150.00 per kilo at the time) to be supplied to Kae’s patisserie. By April of 2024, however, the mango plantations in the Philippines suffered shortage in production due to pest infestation; the price of ripe mangoes had then climbed to ₱200.00 per kilo. On 1 April 2024, Ed will be obliged to pay Kae the ₱500,000.00 principal amount plus monetary interest in the amount of ₱10,000.00. TRUE 36. Rye obliged himself to this tenor in a promissory note signed on 5 June 2023: “I promise to pay Lei the amount of ₱300,000.00 on 5 June 2024.” Rye failed to pay his debt on 5 June 2024 despite repeated demands from Lei. On 5 October 2024, however, he tendered payment of the P300,000.00 to Lei. Under the facts, Lei cannot hold Rye liable for compensatory interest because there was no such stipulation in the promissory note. FALSE 37. Al borrowed the Nissan Patrol of Fe on 25 October 2024 and promised to return it on 4 November 2024. He was going to use the car for his transport needs while visiting his father in Dumaguete City. While navigating the vehicle along Rizal Boulevard, another vehicle drove in a counterflow direction and bumped the Nissan Patrol head-on. It was too late for Al to swerve himself out of harm’s way because the car was moving in a very fast speed. The car sustained damage assessed by the repair shop at ₱150,000.00. Under the facts, Fe can legally compel Al to pay the entire ₱150,000.00 cost of repairs. FALSE 38. Under a promissory note signed on 15 October 2023, Ed bound himself to pay Kae his ₱8M debt not later than 15 December 2024. Ed likewise executed a Deed of Mortgage in Kae’s favor over his 1,000-square-meter lot valued at ₱10M; the parties also agreed that should Ed default in his obligation on due date, he will be obliged to sell the mortgaged lot to Kae. Despite demands on due date, Ed defaulted in his obligation. Kae can legally compel Al to sell the mortgaged lot to her to facilitate the payment of his indebtedness. TRUE 39. A contract of pledge, like a contract of mortgage, is a consensual contract and does not need any writing in order to be valid and enforceable between the contracting parties. FALSE 40. Al owes Fe ₱500,000.00 due for payment on or before 15 August 2024. To secure the obligation, Al delivered to Fe in pledge his gold bracelet worth ₱600,000.00. She also executed a notarized pledge agreement which provided, among other stipulations, that should Al default and the thing pledged is sold at public auction for an amount less than Fe’s credit, Al will be liable for the deficiency. Al defaulted in his obligation. On 25 October 2024, the bracelet was sold at public auction to the highest bidder for the amount of ₱450,000.00. Under the facts, Fe can legally compel Al to pay her the deficiency in the amount of ₱50,000.00. FALSE INTRO MT Quiz No. 1 27 November 2024 41. The TRAIN Law, among other features, lowered personal income tax rates, introduced the 8% gross income tax for self-employed individuals and professionals, increased income tax rates of passive income, doubled most of the documentary stamp tax rates, reduced donor’s and estate taxes to a uniform 6% RATE, and restructured some of the excise tax rates. The TRAIN Law is an example of procedural law. F INTRO (ALM1) FT Quiz No. 1A (11 November 2024)_Coverage: Modules 15-16  Page 8 of 12 42. The decisions of all the judicial courts in the Philippines form part of the legal system of the Philippines and have the force of law, although they are not strictly laws because only Congress of the Philippines can enact laws. F 43. The saving clause is that part of the statute which provides that in the event that one or more provisions are declared void or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions shall still be in force and effect. F 44. On 1 August 2024, Congress passed Republic Act 654321. It was provided therein that the law shall take effect immediately upon its approval. The law was approved by the Office of the President one month after Congress passed the law. This law shall take effect 2024. F on 31 August 2024. 45. On 1 September 2024, Congress passed Republic Act 56789. It was provided therein that the law shall take effect after five days following the completion of its publication in a newspaper of general circulation. The law was published in the 15 September 2024 issue 2024. T of the Philippine Daily Inquirer. This law shall take effect on 21 September 2024. 46. On 15 June 2024, Des signed a promissory note in favor of Chino promising to pay her P1 million debt within two years. Des has 12 months counted from 15 June 2024 Chad. F within which to pay her debt to Chad. 47. On 15 September 2024, Adler (a German national but resident of Cebu City since 2014) died leaving as heirs his Filipino wife Adela and their 10-year-old daughter Adette, and his 85-year-old Mom who lives in Frankfurt, Germany. He left assets in the Philippines totaling to ₱20 million. Under Philippine laws, parents cannot inherit from the deceased who is survived by his wife and/or children. On the other hand, under German laws, the parents of the deceased, if still living, become sole heirs of the decedent’s estate to the exclusion of the other heirs. Under the facts, facts, only the mother of Adler will succeed to his estate. T estate. 48. Nadine, a native of Iloilo City was sent by her maternal aunt to Los Angeles, California to study law at the Loyola Law School thereat which was only two miles from where Nadine’s aunt resided. A few days after graduation, Nadine’s mom fell seriously ill so she was forced to come back to the Philippines. Still wanting to become a lawyer, she planned to practice in the Philippines. Under the facts, Nadine who is a graduate of a foreign law school, cannot be qualified to take the bar examinations in the Philippines. F 49. Seventeen-year-old Gretel sold her Toyota Corolla to Sixteen-year-old Hans. The sale is void. F 50. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Manila is an example of a public juridical person. F 51. On 26 August 2024, Je and his wife Fe (who was five months pregnant with their baby) figured in a vehicular accident wherein Fe and their baby died. Because the bus driver was negligent at the time of the accident, Je sought to recover from the bus operator death indemnity for his wife and child. The law holds the common carrier in breaches of its contract of carriage that results in the death of a passenger, as in this case, liable to pay death indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the amount of P100,000.00 per victim; hence, the bus operator will be liable to Je for P200,000.00 for the death of his wife and their child. F 52. Jojo and Jaja, both 19, married without the knowledge of their parents. Three days after their marriage, they went home to their parents and never saw each other until they finished college. After Jojo passed the CPA board examinations, he cohabited with Jinky for almost 40 years until his death leaving Jinky and their three daughters. Under the facts, facts, only Jaja and Jojo’s three daughters with Jinky will have the right to inherit from Jojo. T 53. Rey and Rina, both 17, were married by Judge Diez in his chambers in Pasay City. Both their parents had early on executed a notarized affidavit giving their consent their marriage, which affidavits were attached to the parties’ application for a marriage license. Under the facts, facts, this marriage may be nullified in an action filed in court by either of the marriage. T parties to the marriage. INTRO (ALM1) FT Quiz No. 1A (11 November 2024)_Coverage: Modules 15-16  Page 9 of 12 54. Ken and Kate were both 18 when they married without the consent of either of their void. F parents. This marriage is void. 55. Zoren married Zara because Zara swore to him that she was two months pregnant with his child. Three months after their marriage, on 14 September 2024, Zoren found out that Zara was never pregnant. In this case, case, Zoren has five years from 14 September 2024 Zara. F within which to file an action to annul his marriage to Zara. 56. On 28 February 2024, Ben and Bes were issued by the LCR of Tacloban City their marriage license. Without the consent of their parents, Ben and Bes were married on Bes’ 19th birthday on 1 August 2024. Under the facts, void. T facts, Ben and Bes’ marriage is void. 57. Consul-General Dela Cruz, assigned at the Philippine Consular Office in Qatar, came to the Philippines to pay his last respects to his 90-year-old mother who had passed on. Before he went back to Qatar, he solemnized the marriage of his nephew Louie to Lei, who was the daughter of the first cousin of Louie’s father. Under the facts, facts, the marriage is void. void. T 58. Gorio and Glenda were married on 2 March 2021. Three years after their marriage, they found out that they could no longer have a child because Gorio was sterile. Under the facts, facts, Gorio has five years from the 2 march 2021 within which to file an action to annul marriage. F their marriage. 59. Eugene, a homosexual, proposed marriage to his best friend Ellen. Ellen agreed because she also liked Eugene. They were married on 8 September 2021. On 6 August 2024, Ellen saw Eugene kissing with another man in a bar shortly before they entered a motel. Under the facts, voidable. T facts, this marriage is not voidable. 60. Six years after their marriage, Noel left Nina as he had grown tired of her nagging. He went back to his mother’s house and just deposited money to Nina’s account monthly to defray for monthly maintenance expenses of the household. One year after Noel left, Nina filed an action for legal separation against Noel grounded on abandonment. Under the facts, prosper. T facts, the action will not prosper. INTRO FT Quiz No. 2 (50 points) 27 November 2024 61. On 1 October 2024, Jim, the driver of a taxi owned by Gem was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in the death of 12-year-old Jon who was ran over by Jim while overspeeding along a school zone. The court also adjudged Jim liable to Jon’s heirs for damages totaling to P800,000.00. Jim, however, was insolvent and could not pay. Under the facts, Gem may be legally compelled by Jon’s heirs to pay them the P800,000.00 and she cannot set up the defense of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of her employees to exempt herself from such civil liability. TRUE 62. In the case of Picart vs. Smith, the automobile driver saw a man riding his horse on the wrong side of the bridge and proceeding toward him on his lane. The automobile driver then sounded his horn several times to warn the horse rider, but it was too late to avoid a collision. In this case, the Court applied the doctrine of last clear chance in holding the horseback rider, who was originally at fault, liable to the automobile owner for damages on account of negligence. FALSE 63. To prevent the slightest risk of causing damage to the rights of another, the standard or degree of care or diligence that should be observed is that of extraordinary diligence, unless the law or the stipulation of the parties requires another standard of care. FALSE 64. Jim induced Gem to violate her contract with Gino. Gino sought to hold Jim liable for damages. Under the principle of relativity of contracts, Jim, who is not a party to the contract between Gem and Gino, cannot be held liable for damages. FALSE INTRO (ALM1) FT Quiz No. 1A (11 November 2024)_Coverage: Modules 15-16  Page 10 of 12 65. Gem is the owner of a taxi unit driven by Jim. On 10 October 2024, while beating the red light along the intersection of Roxas Boulevard and Quirino Avenue, the taxi collided with a Mitsubishi Pajero resulting in serious physical injuries to Jon, the passenger of the taxi. As a result, Jon sought to recover damages from Gem for her breach of contract. In this case, Gem cannot set up the defense of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of employees to exempt herself from liability. TRUE 66. In the case of Africa vs. Caltex, the Supreme Court applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur in denying the claim for damages of several owners of properties damaged by the fire which broke out at the Caltex Service Station since the plaintiffs-claimants failed to adduce proof as to the cause and origin of the fire. FALSE 67. Injury refers to the harm done, while damage refers to the wrongful or unlawful or tortious act. FALSE 68. As distinguished from regular employees, seasonal and project employees do not enjoy security of tenure. FALSE 69. In Saludaga vs. FEU, petitioner Saludaga, a sophomore student, sought to recover damages from the respondent FEU after the former was accidentally shot by one of the school’s security guards on duty. In this case, the Court held FEU liable to Saludaga for damages arising from culpa aquiliana. FALSE 70. Every employer shall be obliged to pay their employees a night shift differential of not less than 10% of their regular wage, but only for each hour of work performed between 11:00 o’clock in the evening and 6:00 o’clock in the morning. FALSE 71. Work may be performed beyond eight hours a day provided that the employer pays the employee overtime pay or additional compensation equivalent to the employee’s regular wage plus at least 15% thereof. FALSE 72. Gem, who has been working for two years now as a staff in the Office of the Mayor in Manila is entitled to 13th month pay. FALSE 73. Today, Gem asked leave from her employer that she needed to leave work two hours before closing time to attend to her ailing mother. His employer gave her permission, but instructed her to work two extra hours tomorrow to compensate for the missed hours. The employer’s instruction is in accordance with existing law. FALSE 74. Jim worked on Chinese New year. His employer will be obliged to pay him an additional compensation equivalent to his regular wage plus at least 30% thereof. TRUE 75. Employers are mandated to give their employees not more than 60 minutes time-off for their regular meals. FALSE 76. The general rule is that the employer can compel the employee to render overtime work as long as the employee is paid the overtime pay required by law. FALSE 77. On 21 August 2024 (Wednesday), which was Ninoy Aquino Day, Gem worked for 12 hours. Gem was paid by her employer an additional compensation equivalent to 30% of her regular hourly rate for the first eight hours, plus 35% thereof as overtime pay for the extra two hours. The pay herein given to Gem is in compliance with existing provisions of law. TRUE. 78. An employee’s dismissal from service due to just causes is valid and justified as long as the employer serves the employee notice of his termination (specifying therein the reason of his dismissal) at least 30 days before the intended effectivity date for his termination, and pays him his separation pay. FALSE 79. Despite request by his employer, Jim did not work on Christmas Day. He had to go home to the province because of an emergency. The employer is obliged to pay Jim his salary on Christmas Day equivalent to his regular daily rate. TRUE 80. In Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs. IAC, private respondent Dionisio, while on his way home from a cocktails-and-dinner meeting, smashed into a Ford dump truck owned by petitioner Phoenix Construction, Inc. which was parked askew on the road facing the INTRO (ALM1) FT Quiz No. 1A (11 November 2024)_Coverage: Modules 15-16  Page 11 of 12 oncoming traffic. The Court held in this case that the proximate cause of Dionisio’s injuries was his own negligence as evinced by his reckless overspeeding while under the influence of liquor, without his headlights on. FALSE INTRO (ALM1) FT Quiz No. 1A (11 November 2024)_Coverage: Modules 15-16  Page 12 of 12