Sir regarding the question, the farmer in good faith. I surmised that from the phrase alone “ believing it to be a public land” the farmer has a pre-concieved notion that the land is owned by the state yet he still built his house depsite having doubts as to the ownership of the land, for me that constitutes the 1st sign of bad faith. 2nd sign of bad faith;comes now the owner of the land after 5 years equipped with his certificate of title, telling the farmer that the land has been registered under his(owner) name for more than 10 years. That is my humble appreciation of the facts sir.
You have a point, esp. dun sa registration because, as a rule, registration is constructive notice. But I have a different take on that. In most cases where that rule is applied, the land was purchased or mortgaged or even levied. These third persons are charged with notice of the ownership of the registered title. However, in this case, the farmer was an occupant, possessor based on his honest belief that no one owned it because no one was there. He was not a purchaser, mortgagee or one in whose favor a levy was acquired. He is not subject to the requirement of due diligence. That's the premise I had. So, I went ahead to answer the question on right of reimbursement, believing that he is in good faith. But I might be wrong. Truly, it was a tricky question. It could have been asked differently so that the issue was clearer and we could a uniform answer. 🙂
@@TheHowsofLaw Maybe, issue of good faith cannot be presumed in favor of the builder. Reason being that he in fact believe from the start that the land is a owned by State.
Hello, I just want to give my input. If it is a public land and no one owns it (it's not registered to anyone's name), any person can occupy it and later on, this occupation may ripen into ownership through Acquisitive Prescription. Therefore, since the farmer believes that it is a public land and no one owns it, he built a house therein making him a builder in good faith. Nung mga unang panahon, marami pang lupa na wala pang titulo kaya ganyan ang ginagawa nila. Pag walang nakatira doon, at wala namang nagmamay-ari, sila na ang mag-ooccupy. After 30 years, pwede na nila itong iregister sa pangalan nila. Mode of Acquisition: Prescription. I hope this enlightened you 🙂
time to convey my heartfelt gratitude too for making the study/undeerstanding of law a bit easier and making us smile! pls continue "building" the hows/house of law!
Atty. Jumrani, I was one of your reviewees in Jurists! Your lectures were simplified yet meaty, just like your answers here. Ngayon ko lang 'to napanood na video mo one month after being officially admitted to the Bar! lol All the best, Atty.! Keep on shinin'! P.S. I love your YT and Tiktok videos! Work-life balance is real ;-)
Thank you Atty. Jumrani. I was one of your reviewee in Legal Edge. You are one of God's instruments in order for me to slay the dragon (bar exams). Thank you very much!
hi atty jumrani. before i decided to enroll in law.. i spent sleepless nights watching your videos. you gave me the confidence and now here i am, a law student. i will continue following and watching your videos. pls dont get tired making your videos.
So happy to to have bumped on this channel. Thank you so,so much Atty. for sharing to us the bar questions and your suggested answers. At least I learned a lot this evening. Let there be more to come…. Super enjoyed it👍👍👍
Thank you Sam! These are my suggested answers based on my appreciation of the questions. I could explain further but actual exams are time bound. At any rate, I'm glad you learned something from the video. God bless!
I've been following your probable questions in Civil Law last week. Albeit none of those came out yesterday which I expected three to four samples of those will be asked, but I never regretted. Maybe next Bar exams, it will be included. Quite sure for those 19 probable questions. Truly, my gratitude from you. I patterned your way of answering questions in your examples. My apology Sir Attorney Al. The direct NO and YES answers then the legal basis and the conclusion. So simple. Sometimes I have no conclusions in my answers, I'm already confident with the first line of NO and YES, .....I'm not sure if the conclusion is really necessary. Once again, Thank You Sir Atty Al. STAY HEALTHY ALWAYS.
I know! Quite disappointed none of my predictions came out. Even other professors' tips did not come out. Maybe JL found out about the tips and changed the exams at the last minute. Hehe. I'm happy that you found my way of answering ideal. Ultimately, it's not the form, it's the substance. I wish you the best. Congrats future panyero!
Thank you Sir, sana ma share mo rin sagot mo sa ibang subjects of the bar exam please. Excited to see your next video for this! Keep well and safe. Cheers
Hi Atty Jumrani- thanks for this very comprehesive suggested answers, and most of all your delivered inspirational message for all those wanting to be lawyers.
For purposes of discussion, I will take the other side sa rescission and shift the burden to the bar candidate. The price should have raised caveat emptor. And the buyer being a would be lawyer should have proceeded with caution knowing that the product is grossly undervalued. Thus, rescission may not prosper.
Hi Michael. You may have a point. But should he be faulted if he did not investigate if the books were really from Arturo Tolentino? Law books are marketed and sold by the author's last name. I mean, I don't know the first names of the known authors like Moran, Jurado, Guevarra, Agpalo, Coquia. But when the book being advertised is Remedial Law by Moran, Civil Code by Jurado, Legal Forms by Guevarra, Statutory Construction by Agpalo, and Conflict of Laws by Coquia, should I doubt if these are by any author other than that who is publicly known? That is why I cannot adopt the caveat emptor doctrine here. But, I wish that I am wrong come the results. Good luck future panyero! 🙏
Wow! Thank you! Mga 10 or... 1% lang ang contribution ko. It's all you. I cannot imagine if kakayanin ko ang pinagdaanan ninyo. You are sui generis! And for simply surviving this journey, you deserve to be a member of the Bar! God bless! 🙏🏼
@@TheHowsofLaw its not about sa dami or kunting topic na lumabas po sir, but sa confidence na tumatak sakin dahil sa mga natutunan ko sa mga lectures nyo sa lahat ng topic sa civil law.. Kaya super thankful po ako.. Thank u din sa mga good words nyo, yes i claim it na.. Godbless po sir..
Hi, Atty. Al! Same request din po sana with the others--if you could share to us your suggested answers for the other subjects. Nagrelease na po kasi today ng bar bulletins for the next bar exam. I just wanna gauge my answers sa Best Bar Ever and kung magte-take ba kaya ako ng next bar exam huhu. Thank you, Atty. Al!
Hi sir! Regarding sa builder in good faith, isn't he/she considered a builder in bad faith? Believing that the land is a public land, the builder knows in the first place that he/she has no title whatsoever, even a defect on his title, because he/she believes it to be a public land, which is a land owned by the State. Umpisa palang he knows na wala na talaga siya claim of title or ownership over the land because a public land cannot be owned. Kahit pa later on he/she found out that the land is actually privately owned, wala pa rin siyang claim of right over it. Regardless of the fact of the true owner's appearance, the builder cannot invoke that he/she occupied the land in good faith. In reality, he/she is actually a "squatter" kasi he/she actually knows na wala siyang claim over the land. ☺️ Not sure about my answer pero I hope it makes sense din hehe
Hi Kimberly. Your answer makes sense. True, it cannot be claimed na walang owner ang property because it is a public land. But all lands are public until they are acquired by private persons. A claim of good faith is proper even if the land is public. Otherwise, wala ng makaka-acquire ng public land by ordinary prescription (good faith under PD 1529, di ba? So, in this question, we test good faith based on his knowledge of an existing private owner. 🙂 But I could be wrong. Hehe. Madami kayo na same argument. The examiner should find merit in your position 🙂
Yung last # po atty. Hindi po ba yung caveat emptor? di naman cnabi ng seller na si Arturo... "Tolentino" lng nilagay. Tsaka po 4 volumes for only 100 pesos negates the intent to defraud. No warranty of title, let the buyer beware.
Good point! Madami ang same position sayo. Pwede din naman. Pero I think the buyer should not be blamed for thinking that it is Arturo Tolentino's Civil Law book set. He is right to expect that Tolentino is Arturo Tolentino being that he is a law student. The seller should be responsible if his buyers are deceived. Well, this is me thinking based on the wisdom of our consumer protection laws. In all cases involving consumers, doubt should be resolved in favor of the buyer/consumer. But then again, I could be wrong. I hope I am wrong. Hehe. Good luck to the Bar! 🙏🏼
Sir, sa breach of promise to marry Q po, under wassmer vs velez pag against public policy and good customs as long as ma prove na may moral damages, then it is actionable. My 2 centimos po
Hi Al. Tama ka naman sa pagkakaintindi mo dun sa Wassmer. Halos pareho sila ng facts dun sa Baksh vs. Court of Appeals. Pero kung mapapansin mo, ang facts sa bar question ay ginawang salungat sa facts ng mga cases. Nagpaliwanag si girl tungkol sa change of heart nya, which is her right, and she offered to mitigate the hurt, at wala din naman ginastos si boy dun sa kasal. Gastos lahat ni girl. Sa mga cases, ang gumastos ay yung nasaktan. Fine, it hurts to be dumped. But in this question, there is no violation of a law or public policy ☺️
@@TheHowsofLaw ah hehe tama po Sir. But the Q asked kci was about moral damages. Did the groom incur moral damages? Yes. Is he entitled to reparation for the damages? Yes if proven. Art 19 na naman ng Civil Code to the rescue hehe. Thank you for replying Sir Idol 🙏
thank you so much for this!!! can you share the soft copy of your answers so i can print them. (i also like to read and highlight to enforce learning and memory retention.)
Thank you sir sa mga sagot! ❤️ Iba sir approach ko dun sa farmer in good faith. Sabi ko dahil registered na siya for 10 years, 5 years before occupation nung farmer, constructive notice of ownership to the whole world na. Building on the property of despite notice is not good faith. 😅😢😭
Actually na-miss ko yung fact na yan. I only reacted dun sa demand and the answer of the farmer. If the question had only been phrased in a way that the main issue would be constructive notice vs. actual notice, I would have had a different answer. Thank you for sharing your point. God bless you Will! 🙏🏼
Atty. Jumrani thank you, from your Jurist review center student. Except for number 8 and 12, i had almost the same answers as your suggested ones. For number 8, I argued that he was not a builder in good faith because he knows that he doesn't own the land in the first place. For number 12 I answered that since fraud(dolo causante) vitiated his consent to buy the sets, it was voidable and not rescissible. Thank you for your insight at least I feel confident that only 2 of my answers were not on point.
Hala, don't feel bad or stressed na hindi tayo pareho ng sagot. I made a disclaimer dyan na baka mali ako. Depende talaga sa appreciation ng question and we can only hope that our appreciation is the same as that of the examiner. You and so many others are very smart and passionate with your answers. Your kind of lawyers is what we need! Good luck! God bless! 🙏🏼
@@mariariva7685 halo2 po political law eh pero consti nung first year bernas book po binasa ko. Makapal pero sulit at hindi boring. At I highly recommend jurist for review po
same question, atty. assuming it is ok to build on public land, the farmer just THOUGHT it was public land. the problem did not mention that the farmer checked with the registry of deeds to ascertain the land's status. can this already be considered good faith? i hope you will clarify this. thank you for coming out with suggested answers. helpful for law students and non-law students.
@@peterpiper5300 Same thoughts. To constitute good faith, the farmer should have thought that the land was his; under a claim of ownership. The problem states the the farmer knew the land was public, thus, beyond commerce of man.
idol yung sa partition, yung suggested answer mo is assuming that the requirements of sale to third persons were complied with, right? the question kasi is silent sa right of first refusal. since, the question asks for a ruling of the court it implies that all of the requisites of a valid sale in this case should be complied with. anyway just an input po.
sir thank you. Atty. iba po yung treatment ko po sa - Tolentino case: i mean, i did not presumed that the 4 sets is of Arturo Tolentino's books as perceived by the buyer, that is why I treated the contract as Voidable one on the ground of fraud (vitiated consent). Anyway, Thank you again. Godbless.
Hi Glenn. Your point is valid. I supposed that the books being advertised were from Tolentino. Anybody who found the ad or posting would presume that the books were by Arturo Tolentino. The buyer cannot be faulted. Instead, the seller should make good the sale. If there was fraud, the seller can be held liable for damages.
Im quite curious about the bar question on 16:39. There seems to be no indication of fraud in the question. Could it be answered by implied or general warranties under the law.
Fraud can be deduced from the problem. When one offers and advertises something and delivers another thing, there is fraud. It cannot be based on express warranty because the parties did not agree to any. Also, it cannot be implied warranties under the Civil Code because the implied warranties are with respect to title, hidden defects and fitness. At any rate, rescission in contracts in general and accion redhibitoria in sales warranties have the same effect.
Good afternoon, Atty Al. I am a Jurist reviewer. Is it possible ba po na you will upload your suggested answers on all other bar subjects? I'm anxious po kasi. gusto ko lang malaman yung view nyo on other subjects. Anyways, thank you for this upload po.
Hello Atty./Sir. BestBarEver passer here. My answers to 10 out of the 12 questions, as well as the bases/arguments for them, were literally the same as yours. hahaha. If ever mataas nga grade ko sa Civil, that means na medyo kulelat ako sa one of the other subjects. 😅 Thank you sa mga ganitong videos.
Congratulations Attorney! Nakakaproud! Sana mataas ka nga sa Civil Law kasi parehas tayo ng sagot. Hehe. Good luck to your legal career! See you around! ☺️
Questio po sir. Ung sa builder in good faith po. Diba po public land un? So meaning he knows of a defect that he did not own or possess any right as to land making him builder in bad faith. As public land it is own my State. Tama po ba?
Baka dahil believing lang naman? But it turned out someone owns in? Haha or yung knowing it to be a public land = no one owns it so I can build here. Haha
Hello! Regarding the question on parent's liability. Shouldn't the answer be they are subsidiary liable under the Family Code? Family Code, not Article 2180 of the Civil Code, is applicable since the facts mentioned that the child was a minor and living in their company. It is subsidiary because at the time of the commission of the said act, the child was under the supervision, control, and custody of school.
Alam nyo kung bakit di ko naisip ang Parental Authority under the Family Code? Dahil hindi sya dapat kasama sa reduced coverage. Art. 2180, on the other hand, is under Torts and Damages which is kasama sa reduced coverage. My bad. Good luck future panyero! 🙏
Atty., in question no. 10, what if the divorce decree did not state that the japanese spouse? can the filipino spouse remarry? can we assume that the japanese spouse was allowed to remarry?
Sir Question po: With regard to the question of liability of parents and school re shooting, should it be considered as the school/administrators having special parental authority under the family code and not vicarious liability under civil code? Second, question number 8, the lot is a public property, how can the builder may be deemed in good faith? Was he entitled for reimbursement though he is in bad faith because no person may derive title from a public land?
First, the parents are vicariously liable here because the child was in their custody at the time of the incident. The child was not in school either. Second, the farmer is still a builder in good faith if the only defect is that the property is public land, provided that he did not know who the owner is. Under PD 1529, a person who has been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession can apply for registration of a public land, whether he is in good or bad faith. Remember that land is public. So, it is not an impediment to possession in good faith if the property is public land.
Sir, yung sa #11. Bakit po di inapply ang wassmer case kung san the party can reciver moral damages under article 21 of the civil for the said breach of promise to marry? Salamat po
The Wassmer case is similar to the Baksh case. Both involved an unjust act on the part of the person to be wed. It resulted to expense and humiliation. The facts in the problem were crafted to be the opposite of these cases. The girl was honest and sincere, and even tried to mitigate the harm to her ex-boyfriend. Also, there was no pecuniary damage on the part of the guy because it was the girl who spent for the wedding.
No need to cite the article number when taking the Bar Exam or any law school exam. Pero kapag naging abugado na, dapat i-cite ang specific legal basis para may reference at ma-check din ng court at ng kalaban.
The farmer violates the national building code, the requirement in securing a building permit is right over land, and it it clear that the farmer constructed in bad faith.
Wow! Now try putting on a mask while answering in an enclosed airconditioned space with potential Covid 19 infection swirling around you. Congratulations!
Galing mo mag English and thanks for the info. Sana naman tagalogin mo din para maintindihan ka ng mga hindi metataas ang napag aralan or the commoners. Afterall, it's the Philippine law ang pinapaliwanag mo at mga Pinoy ang mga viewers mo.
Thank you Love. Ineexplain ko naman sa mga lectures ko ang batas. Nag Tatagalog din ako hanggang sa kayang ma-translate ang batas. Ang video na ito na Suggested Answers ay ginawa ko para sa mga subscribers ko na kaka-take lang ng Bar Exam nung February 6. Ang Bar Exam po ay sa wikang Ingles. Kaya po ang suggested answers ay sa wikang Ingles din. Kung tinagalog ko yan, at tinagalog din ng mga Examinees ang mga sagot nila, ay wala pong makakapasa sa Bar Exam at wala tayong bagong abugado. I know it''s sad na nasa Pilipinas tayo pero ang batas ay nasa wikang Ingles. For as long as the law and our court decisions are in English, we must speak and write their language. Don't worry, manuod lang kayo ng mga future videos ko. Mag tatagalog naman ako. Kung puro English naman ang maririnig nyo o mababasa sa mga piling videos, iyun ay dahil ginawa ko yun para makatulong sa mga nag-aaral ng law, para pumasa sila sa kurso nila at makamit ang pangarap na maging abugado. Patawad at pasensya na po kung may tinutulungan akong ibang tao na mas kelangan nila na ang batas ay ipaliwanag sa kanila sa wikang English. Sana po ay maunawaan ninyo. God bless po.
@@TheHowsofLaw wow thanks for the extensive explanation and an effortful answers. You have to be the first to ever answer my comment of all I subscribed to. However, you didn't need to explain yourself to me. My comment was merely a suggestion para maintindihan ng mga kapus palad nating mga kababayan ang saligang batas ng Pilipinas. I now fully understand as to why you were speaking English and thanks for mentoring our future lawyers and perhaps future leaders. I would love to learn more about the Philippine law. Will definitely keep on following your page and thanks in advance for free education 😀. GOD bless and more subscribers to you. ✌
Yes, you're right. Law is essentially logic and common sense. But in legal argumentation, there should be a legal basis. It could be a law, a court decision of equitable principle.
To those who is watching this video and took the bar exams lately, congratulations for successfully hurdling the bar exam 🥳. We're all proud of you 🥳
to those who ARE watching....
Hahaha-anu sabi mo? Di kita maintindihan..
Sir regarding the question, the farmer in good faith. I surmised that from the phrase alone “ believing it to be a public land” the farmer has a pre-concieved notion that the land is owned by the state yet he still built his house depsite having doubts as to the ownership of the land, for me that constitutes the 1st sign of bad faith. 2nd sign of bad faith;comes now the owner of the land after 5 years equipped with his certificate of title, telling the farmer that the land has been registered under his(owner) name for more than 10 years. That is my humble appreciation of the facts sir.
You have a point, esp. dun sa registration because, as a rule, registration is constructive notice. But I have a different take on that. In most cases where that rule is applied, the land was purchased or mortgaged or even levied. These third persons are charged with notice of the ownership of the registered title. However, in this case, the farmer was an occupant, possessor based on his honest belief that no one owned it because no one was there. He was not a purchaser, mortgagee or one in whose favor a levy was acquired. He is not subject to the requirement of due diligence. That's the premise I had. So, I went ahead to answer the question on right of reimbursement, believing that he is in good faith. But I might be wrong. Truly, it was a tricky question. It could have been asked differently so that the issue was clearer and we could a uniform answer. 🙂
@@TheHowsofLaw Maybe, issue of good faith cannot be presumed in favor of the builder. Reason being that he in fact believe from the start that the land is a owned by State.
Hello, I just want to give my input. If it is a public land and no one owns it (it's not registered to anyone's name), any person can occupy it and later on, this occupation may ripen into ownership through Acquisitive Prescription. Therefore, since the farmer believes that it is a public land and no one owns it, he built a house therein making him a builder in good faith.
Nung mga unang panahon, marami pang lupa na wala pang titulo kaya ganyan ang ginagawa nila. Pag walang nakatira doon, at wala namang nagmamay-ari, sila na ang mag-ooccupy. After 30 years, pwede na nila itong iregister sa pangalan nila. Mode of Acquisition: Prescription. I hope this enlightened you 🙂
time to convey my heartfelt gratitude too for making the study/undeerstanding of law a bit easier and making us smile! pls continue "building" the hows/house of law!
Thank you! It's my pleasure and privilege! The Hows of Law will continue to help future batches of aspiring lawyers. 🙏
Atty. Jumrani, I was one of your reviewees in Jurists!
Your lectures were simplified yet meaty, just like your answers here. Ngayon ko lang 'to napanood na video mo one month after being officially admitted to the Bar! lol
All the best, Atty.! Keep on shinin'!
P.S. I love your YT and Tiktok videos! Work-life balance is real ;-)
Thank you Atty. Al. Your videos are my constant companions in this Bar journey. 'Grateful beyond words for your extra mile.
Made it a habit to watch your vlog as my morning routine before starting to read . Thank you. Praying that we pass the bar
Thank you Atty. Jumrani. I was one of your reviewee in Legal Edge. You are one of God's instruments in order for me to slay the dragon (bar exams). Thank you very much!
Wow! Congratulations Attorney! I'm honored to be part of your journey! All the best! See you in the practice and in the MCLE! 😍
hi atty jumrani. before i decided to enroll in law.. i spent sleepless nights watching your videos. you gave me the confidence and now here i am, a law student. i will continue following and watching your videos. pls dont get tired making your videos.
So happy to to have bumped on this channel. Thank you so,so much Atty. for sharing to us the bar questions and your suggested answers. At least I learned a lot this evening. Let there be more to come…. Super enjoyed it👍👍👍
Thank you Sam! These are my suggested answers based on my appreciation of the questions. I could explain further but actual exams are time bound. At any rate, I'm glad you learned something from the video. God bless!
I've been following your probable questions in Civil Law last week. Albeit none of those came out yesterday which I expected three to four samples of those will be asked, but I never regretted. Maybe next Bar exams, it will be included. Quite sure for those 19 probable questions.
Truly, my gratitude from you. I patterned your way of answering questions in your examples. My apology Sir Attorney Al. The direct NO and YES answers then the legal basis and the conclusion. So simple.
Sometimes I have no conclusions in my answers, I'm already confident with the first line of NO and YES, .....I'm not sure if the conclusion is really necessary.
Once again, Thank You Sir Atty Al. STAY HEALTHY ALWAYS.
Congratulations for successfully hurdling the bar exam 🥳
I know! Quite disappointed none of my predictions came out. Even other professors' tips did not come out. Maybe JL found out about the tips and changed the exams at the last minute. Hehe. I'm happy that you found my way of answering ideal. Ultimately, it's not the form, it's the substance. I wish you the best. Congrats future panyero!
Salamat sir! Pinanood ko din yung video ninyo sa decided cases ni Justice leonen it helped me sa bar exam.
Thank you Sir, sana ma share mo rin sagot mo sa ibang subjects of the bar exam please. Excited to see your next video for this! Keep well and safe. Cheers
👍 okay yan sir...dii naman po ako nagtatake ng law...but somehow i learn from you..thank you sir....
Hi Atty Jumrani- thanks for this very comprehesive suggested answers, and most of all your delivered inspirational message for all those wanting to be lawyers.
Got one different answer from yours. Wow. Dali ng mga tanong grabe. Sana nagtake ako last. Nakakasayang.
thank you sir...madali la palang maging builder in good faith, you just have to believe that a parcel of land is a public land.. hehe
For purposes of discussion, I will take the other side sa rescission and shift the burden to the bar candidate. The price should have raised caveat emptor. And the buyer being a would be lawyer should have proceeded with caution knowing that the product is grossly undervalued. Thus, rescission may not prosper.
Hi Michael. You may have a point. But should he be faulted if he did not investigate if the books were really from Arturo Tolentino? Law books are marketed and sold by the author's last name. I mean, I don't know the first names of the known authors like Moran, Jurado, Guevarra, Agpalo, Coquia. But when the book being advertised is Remedial Law by Moran, Civil Code by Jurado, Legal Forms by Guevarra, Statutory Construction by Agpalo, and Conflict of Laws by Coquia, should I doubt if these are by any author other than that who is publicly known? That is why I cannot adopt the caveat emptor doctrine here. But, I wish that I am wrong come the results. Good luck future panyero! 🙏
Sir Maraming salamat po. Na survive ko po ung whole review journey ko at bar exam dahil sa mga lecture videos nyo.. More power po! Godbless u
Wow! Thank you! Mga 10 or... 1% lang ang contribution ko. It's all you. I cannot imagine if kakayanin ko ang pinagdaanan ninyo. You are sui generis! And for simply surviving this journey, you deserve to be a member of the Bar! God bless! 🙏🏼
@@TheHowsofLaw its not about sa dami or kunting topic na lumabas po sir, but sa confidence na tumatak sakin dahil sa mga natutunan ko sa mga lectures nyo sa lahat ng topic sa civil law.. Kaya super thankful po ako.. Thank u din sa mga good words nyo, yes i claim it na.. Godbless po sir..
Sana Atty bigay mo din po suggested answers mo sa other bar exam subjects ☺
Hi, Atty. Al! Same request din po sana with the others--if you could share to us your suggested answers for the other subjects. Nagrelease na po kasi today ng bar bulletins for the next bar exam. I just wanna gauge my answers sa Best Bar Ever and kung magte-take ba kaya ako ng next bar exam huhu. Thank you, Atty. Al!
Thank you po, Atty. I always enjoy watching your videos. God speed po.
Thank you! 😊
Thanks a lot Atty. Looking forward for an answers in other bar q's too.. bless you more Atty.
Hello Atty good am. Kung okay lang po sa inyo pwedi pakiupload niyo din ang suggested answers sa ibang subjects? Thank you po.
Galing naman atty congrats po
Thank you, always Atty. Al❤️ this is a big step of help for every one ❤️
Nice one atty..
Hi sir! Regarding sa builder in good faith, isn't he/she considered a builder in bad faith? Believing that the land is a public land, the builder knows in the first place that he/she has no title whatsoever, even a defect on his title, because he/she believes it to be a public land, which is a land owned by the State. Umpisa palang he knows na wala na talaga siya claim of title or ownership over the land because a public land cannot be owned. Kahit pa later on he/she found out that the land is actually privately owned, wala pa rin siyang claim of right over it.
Regardless of the fact of the true owner's appearance, the builder cannot invoke that he/she occupied the land in good faith. In reality, he/she is actually a "squatter" kasi he/she actually knows na wala siyang claim over the land. ☺️ Not sure about my answer pero I hope it makes sense din hehe
Hi Kimberly. Your answer makes sense. True, it cannot be claimed na walang owner ang property because it is a public land. But all lands are public until they are acquired by private persons. A claim of good faith is proper even if the land is public. Otherwise, wala ng makaka-acquire ng public land by ordinary prescription (good faith under PD 1529, di ba? So, in this question, we test good faith based on his knowledge of an existing private owner. 🙂 But I could be wrong. Hehe. Madami kayo na same argument. The examiner should find merit in your position 🙂
Maraming salamat sir. Sobrang laking tulong po. Stay safe po lagi.
Thank you Sir for your suggested answer I am glad to hear that most of my answers the same with the suggested one.
I pray that in the checking, "all" your answers will be correct. 🙏🙏🙏
@@TheHowsofLaw yes sir I kept on praying. Thank you very much Sir
Liked and Subscribed Atty. I hope you can also make a video about the recent bar exam questions on remedial law. Thank you!
Thanks po Atty. Jumrani nanood Po ako nito may obligations and contracts Po na baka mapasama din po sa CPA board exam...
Good luck to your CPA board exam! Sana nakatulong ang Oblicon lecture ko. 😊
Congratulations in advance to our future Lawyers😊
Yung last # po atty. Hindi po ba yung caveat emptor? di naman cnabi ng seller na si Arturo... "Tolentino" lng nilagay. Tsaka po 4 volumes for only 100 pesos negates the intent to defraud. No warranty of title, let the buyer beware.
Good point! Madami ang same position sayo. Pwede din naman. Pero I think the buyer should not be blamed for thinking that it is Arturo Tolentino's Civil Law book set. He is right to expect that Tolentino is Arturo Tolentino being that he is a law student. The seller should be responsible if his buyers are deceived. Well, this is me thinking based on the wisdom of our consumer protection laws. In all cases involving consumers, doubt should be resolved in favor of the buyer/consumer. But then again, I could be wrong. I hope I am wrong. Hehe. Good luck to the Bar! 🙏🏼
Thank you atty. More power! :)
Thank you po sir for this. Can you also po sir do the public law portion of the bar po it would be truly appreciated.
Sir, sa breach of promise to marry Q po, under wassmer vs velez pag against public policy and good customs as long as ma prove na may moral damages, then it is actionable. My 2 centimos po
Hi Al. Tama ka naman sa pagkakaintindi mo dun sa Wassmer. Halos pareho sila ng facts dun sa Baksh vs. Court of Appeals. Pero kung mapapansin mo, ang facts sa bar question ay ginawang salungat sa facts ng mga cases. Nagpaliwanag si girl tungkol sa change of heart nya, which is her right, and she offered to mitigate the hurt, at wala din naman ginastos si boy dun sa kasal. Gastos lahat ni girl. Sa mga cases, ang gumastos ay yung nasaktan. Fine, it hurts to be dumped. But in this question, there is no violation of a law or public policy ☺️
@@TheHowsofLaw ah hehe tama po Sir. But the Q asked kci was about moral damages. Did the groom incur moral damages? Yes. Is he entitled to reparation for the damages? Yes if proven. Art 19 na naman ng Civil Code to the rescue hehe. Thank you for replying Sir Idol 🙏
Sige na. I will not argue anymore. Sorry na mali ako. Pag nasaktan pala may moral damages na agad. Good luck!
@@TheHowsofLaw ahay Sir, hwag naman magtampo agad. That was just my take on the other side of the coin. Idol pa rin kita po ❤
thank you so much for this!!! can you share the soft copy of your answers so i can print them. (i also like to read and highlight to enforce learning and memory retention.)
Sorry diko muna papanoorin to Sir baka ma broken hearted lang ako. Hehe. Saka na pag may result na.
Thank you sir sa mga sagot! ❤️
Iba sir approach ko dun sa farmer in good faith. Sabi ko dahil registered na siya for 10 years, 5 years before occupation nung farmer, constructive notice of ownership to the whole world na. Building on the property of despite notice is not good faith. 😅😢😭
Actually na-miss ko yung fact na yan. I only reacted dun sa demand and the answer of the farmer. If the question had only been phrased in a way that the main issue would be constructive notice vs. actual notice, I would have had a different answer. Thank you for sharing your point. God bless you Will! 🙏🏼
Atty. Jumrani thank you, from your Jurist review center student. Except for number 8 and 12, i had almost the same answers as your suggested ones. For number 8, I argued that he was not a builder in good faith because he knows that he doesn't own the land in the first place. For number 12 I answered that since fraud(dolo causante) vitiated his consent to buy the sets, it was voidable and not rescissible. Thank you for your insight at least I feel confident that only 2 of my answers were not on point.
Hala, don't feel bad or stressed na hindi tayo pareho ng sagot. I made a disclaimer dyan na baka mali ako. Depende talaga sa appreciation ng question and we can only hope that our appreciation is the same as that of the examiner. You and so many others are very smart and passionate with your answers. Your kind of lawyers is what we need! Good luck! God bless! 🙏🏼
@@TheHowsofLaw update lang po Atty., Pumasa po ako maraming salamat po.
Congratulations atty for passing the bar exams...pwede pong mag tanong?...ano po sana ang magandang basahing book sa political law....thanks po
@@mariariva7685 halo2 po political law eh pero consti nung first year bernas book po binasa ko. Makapal pero sulit at hindi boring. At I highly recommend jurist for review po
Thanks attorney Jumrani for sharing your suggested answer.
Always welcome
salamat atty. very enlightening
Atty, is building on a Public land considered to be in good faith?
same question, atty. assuming it is ok to build on public land, the farmer just THOUGHT it was public land. the problem did not mention that the farmer checked with the registry of deeds to ascertain the land's status. can this already be considered good faith? i hope you will clarify this.
thank you for coming out with suggested answers. helpful for law students and non-law students.
@@peterpiper5300 Same thoughts. To constitute good faith, the farmer should have thought that the land was his; under a claim of ownership. The problem states the the farmer knew the land was public, thus, beyond commerce of man.
Yung suggested answer question 8 is parang sablay po. Yung property owner po yung may option to sell the property or to buy the improvement.
idol yung sa partition, yung suggested answer mo is assuming that the requirements of sale to third persons were complied with, right? the question kasi is silent sa right of first refusal. since, the question asks for a ruling of the court it implies that all of the requisites of a valid sale in this case should be complied with. anyway just an input po.
You are amazing, Atty Jumlani. Tnx a lot!
sir thank you. Atty. iba po yung treatment ko po sa - Tolentino case: i mean, i did not presumed that the 4 sets is of Arturo Tolentino's books as perceived by the buyer, that is why I treated the contract as Voidable one on the ground of fraud (vitiated consent). Anyway, Thank you again. Godbless.
Hi Glenn. Your point is valid. I supposed that the books being advertised were from Tolentino. Anybody who found the ad or posting would presume that the books were by Arturo Tolentino. The buyer cannot be faulted. Instead, the seller should make good the sale. If there was fraud, the seller can be held liable for damages.
Im quite curious about the bar question on 16:39. There seems to be no indication of fraud in the question. Could it be answered by implied or general warranties under the law.
Fraud can be deduced from the problem. When one offers and advertises something and delivers another thing, there is fraud. It cannot be based on express warranty because the parties did not agree to any. Also, it cannot be implied warranties under the Civil Code because the implied warranties are with respect to title, hidden defects and fitness. At any rate, rescission in contracts in general and accion redhibitoria in sales warranties have the same effect.
Good afternoon, Atty Al. I am a Jurist reviewer. Is it possible ba po na you will upload your suggested answers on all other bar subjects? I'm anxious po kasi. gusto ko lang malaman yung view nyo on other subjects. Anyways, thank you for this upload po.
I'll try to make my suggested answers for the other subjects. But I'm not an authority for other subjects huh. Hehe
Hello Atty./Sir. BestBarEver passer here. My answers to 10 out of the 12 questions, as well as the bases/arguments for them, were literally the same as yours. hahaha. If ever mataas nga grade ko sa Civil, that means na medyo kulelat ako sa one of the other subjects. 😅 Thank you sa mga ganitong videos.
Congratulations Attorney! Nakakaproud! Sana mataas ka nga sa Civil Law kasi parehas tayo ng sagot. Hehe. Good luck to your legal career! See you around! ☺️
Questio po sir. Ung sa builder in good faith po. Diba po public land un? So meaning he knows of a defect that he did not own or possess any right as to land making him builder in bad faith. As public land it is own my State. Tama po ba?
Baka dahil believing lang naman? But it turned out someone owns in? Haha or yung knowing it to be a public land = no one owns it so I can build here. Haha
Same po ng appreciation ko sa facts. I consider the builder in bad faith. Though I respect Atty. Jumrani's suggested answer.
Thank you Atty. Al
Atty. Al pwede rin po ba paki answer din po ng 2020/2021 Remedial Law bar questions?
Thank you very much in advance.
Atty kindly make weekly of bar exams from the past.
Fund chicken at bigas kahit nfa ????????
Thank You Atty 💖
Public land, good faith?
Hello! Regarding the question on parent's liability. Shouldn't the answer be they are subsidiary liable under the Family Code? Family Code, not Article 2180 of the Civil Code, is applicable since the facts mentioned that the child was a minor and living in their company. It is subsidiary because at the time of the commission of the said act, the child was under the supervision, control, and custody of school.
this was my answer too. the parents are subsidiarily liable while the teacher/school admin is principally liable
Alam nyo kung bakit di ko naisip ang Parental Authority under the Family Code? Dahil hindi sya dapat kasama sa reduced coverage. Art. 2180, on the other hand, is under Torts and Damages which is kasama sa reduced coverage. My bad. Good luck future panyero! 🙏
Atty., in question no. 10, what if the divorce decree did not state that the japanese spouse? can the filipino spouse remarry? can we assume that the japanese spouse was allowed to remarry?
ang galing atty!!!!
Atty, why does the farmer a builder in good faith ? He built house in a public land.
Thank you so much Sir Atty Al.
Salamat po Atty
Political law naman sana sa susunod atty. 😄
Sir Question po:
With regard to the question of liability of parents and school re shooting, should it be considered as the school/administrators having special parental authority under the family code and not vicarious liability under civil code?
Second, question number 8, the lot is a public property, how can the builder may be deemed in good faith? Was he entitled for reimbursement though he is in bad faith because no person may derive title from a public land?
First, the parents are vicariously liable here because the child was in their custody at the time of the incident. The child was not in school either.
Second, the farmer is still a builder in good faith if the only defect is that the property is public land, provided that he did not know who the owner is. Under PD 1529, a person who has been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession can apply for registration of a public land, whether he is in good or bad faith. Remember that land is public. So, it is not an impediment to possession in good faith if the property is public land.
@@TheHowsofLaw thank you sir!! This helps po. Salamat ng madami!
Sir, yung sa #11. Bakit po di inapply ang wassmer case kung san the party can reciver moral damages under article 21 of the civil for the said breach of promise to marry? Salamat po
The Wassmer case is similar to the Baksh case. Both involved an unjust act on the part of the person to be wed. It resulted to expense and humiliation. The facts in the problem were crafted to be the opposite of these cases. The girl was honest and sincere, and even tried to mitigate the harm to her ex-boyfriend. Also, there was no pecuniary damage on the part of the guy because it was the girl who spent for the wedding.
@@TheHowsofLaw thank you so much sir for the explanation. I'm praying that your channel will continue to grow.
Thanks Mike! 😊
Is it necessary to specify the Article number of the CC or FC? Dagdag points po b un?
No need to cite the article number when taking the Bar Exam or any law school exam. Pero kapag naging abugado na, dapat i-cite ang specific legal basis para may reference at ma-check din ng court at ng kalaban.
Thank you so much Atty!❤️
Thank you po atty.
Same ans po tayo.😀😀😀😀
Atty. papaano po makipag-ugnayan sa inyo. Please help po.
Thank you again atty.
How about sa questions nos 16,17, and 18 po?
Congrats to all bar passers.
Atty, may credit po ba f nalagay ko filing instead of recording? Same lang po ba? Hehe
2 yan recording or filing
2:10 No1
San po pwd
Mag take ng exam? Please help po
Entrance Exam po ba sa law school o yung Bar Exam?
Sir I just want to confirm if may mathematics den po bah sa bar exam?
No7 8:10 answer 8:53
No8. 9:40 ANSWER 10:20
No9 11:11 ANSWER
No10
Atty, why does the farmer a builder in good faith ? He built house in a public land.
The farmer violates the national building code, the requirement in securing a building permit is right over land, and it it clear that the farmer constructed in bad faith.
Sir... Excited pa naman akong magamit ko yung mga natutunan ko sayo. Pero, hindi po ako pinayagan ni "Auntie Jen".😭
Hugs 🫂
@@Njarde Salamat po.
Hugs Yanna. Don't stop dreaming and believing. Magiging abogado ka din. 2022 Bar is just around the corner. 😊
9 of 12. 😢 ayaw ko na ma stress. Thank you Atty Jumrani.
Don't lose hope! Good luck and congratulations! 😊
Atty Jumrani, your last minute lectures in Civil Law helped me a lot. 😢😥 I passed the bar exam. Thank you sir.
Wow I have answered correctly all 12 questions while I had only 12 units of Law in college and not even updated in the current civil & family code 🤣
Wow! Nice to know! 😊
Wow! Now try putting on a mask while answering in an enclosed airconditioned space with potential Covid 19 infection swirling around you. Congratulations!
No4 4:49
there was no agreement to deliver ARTURO TOLENTINO. Wala naman po sa facts, there can be no fraud, either causal or incidental. Try lang po hehehe
Thank you Myrna. I have no other prayer these days than for you all to pass the Best Bar Ever!
No2 2:55
Galing mo mag English and thanks for the info. Sana naman tagalogin mo din para maintindihan ka ng mga hindi metataas ang napag aralan or the commoners. Afterall, it's the Philippine law ang pinapaliwanag mo at mga Pinoy ang mga viewers mo.
Thank you Love. Ineexplain ko naman sa mga lectures ko ang batas. Nag Tatagalog din ako hanggang sa kayang ma-translate ang batas. Ang video na ito na Suggested Answers ay ginawa ko para sa mga subscribers ko na kaka-take lang ng Bar Exam nung February 6. Ang Bar Exam po ay sa wikang Ingles. Kaya po ang suggested answers ay sa wikang Ingles din. Kung tinagalog ko yan, at tinagalog din ng mga Examinees ang mga sagot nila, ay wala pong makakapasa sa Bar Exam at wala tayong bagong abugado. I know it''s sad na nasa Pilipinas tayo pero ang batas ay nasa wikang Ingles. For as long as the law and our court decisions are in English, we must speak and write their language. Don't worry, manuod lang kayo ng mga future videos ko. Mag tatagalog naman ako. Kung puro English naman ang maririnig nyo o mababasa sa mga piling videos, iyun ay dahil ginawa ko yun para makatulong sa mga nag-aaral ng law, para pumasa sila sa kurso nila at makamit ang pangarap na maging abugado. Patawad at pasensya na po kung may tinutulungan akong ibang tao na mas kelangan nila na ang batas ay ipaliwanag sa kanila sa wikang English. Sana po ay maunawaan ninyo. God bless po.
@@TheHowsofLaw wow thanks for the extensive explanation and an effortful answers. You have to be the first to ever answer my comment of all I subscribed to. However, you didn't need to explain yourself to me. My comment was merely a suggestion para maintindihan ng mga kapus palad nating mga kababayan ang saligang batas ng Pilipinas. I now fully understand as to why you were speaking English and thanks for mentoring our future lawyers and perhaps future leaders. I would love to learn more about the Philippine law. Will definitely keep on following your page and thanks in advance for free education 😀. GOD bless and more subscribers to you. ✌
No3 3:53
Thank you po.
Hirap pala exam, grabe
Kayang kaya mo yan! 😊
lol ang dali ng questions :3
Im not a law student but got all but 1 by mere common sense. I know, however, that explanations must contain legal references.
Yes, you're right. Law is essentially logic and common sense. But in legal argumentation, there should be a legal basis. It could be a law, a court decision of equitable principle.
Thanks po, sir
Ignorance of the law excuses no one....bad faith sya!
The farmer is builder in bad faith because he knew he was not the owner of the land.
💙💙💙🙏🙏🙏🙏
Yey
2:12 No1
Thank you po.
No5 5:50
No6 6:55