BAR 2020-21 - CIVIL & COMMERCIAL LAW - SUGGESTED ANSWERS - Dean Joe-Santos Balagtas Bisquera

PERSONAL RELATIONS - Family Relations -
* Marriage as Permanent Union with Pre-Nuptial Agreement.
* Reappearance of Missing Spouse, presumed Dead
* Breach of Contract to Marry
* Solemnizing Officer - Public Place
* Foreign Divorce and a Filipina's Capacity to Marry
* Parent's Responsibility with a Child hurting another
PRIVATE RELATIONS - Obligations & Contracts & Quasi-Delict
* Obligations - Fortuitous Event
* Consent - Meeting of Funds - Internet Subscription
* Wrong Delivery versus Defaulting Seller
* Partition in Property with Co-Ownership
* Builder in Good Faith
BUSINESS RELATIONS - Corporation - Insurance - Intellectual Property
* Hospital as a Corporation in the Medical Practice
* ONE PERSON Corporation
*.Sell ALL Corporate Assets - Preferred versus Common Shareholders
* Corporate Director
* Suicide, Concealment, Incontestibility Clause
* Copyright versus Usage in Education

[@reycfd7753]

Thank you very much, Dean Bisquera! You are not only a law expert but also an expert in computer technology. May God bless you with more strength, power and long life.

[@larryibanez9049]

Thank you very much Dean for sharing your video this helps me a lot for preparing for the bar exams this 2024..God bless and more power to you Dean....

[@suigeneris1190]

galing

[@arnelladag860]

thank you dean, you're my inspiration to this profession

[@AttyKev]

Thank you Dean 🙏🏻 sending good health and vibes from Cebu 😄

[@anthonytiongson6949]

Salamat po Dean JSB.

[@maryjanecorpuz4725]

Thankyou po Dean. ❤️❤️🥰🥰🙏🙏

[@boblolrus]

Gamer!

[@furelise38]

Thank you Dean!!

[@daisycordova578]

Thank you so much Dean..🙂

[@joesantosbbisquera]

You are so welcome

[@rovelynolaya4999]

Thank you Dwan

[@rovelynolaya4999]

DEAN

[@monausop963]

Thank you po. It helps me.

[@jobaguzar2272]

Thank you so much Dean!

[@joesantosbbisquera]

Welcome!

[@glared7294]

06:12 Start

[@bonafide215]

Hi po Dean. I just have a question about Question number 18. You mentioned that only common stocks can vote. But what about Section 6(c) of the Revised Corporation Code Dean? It says nonvoting shares can nevertheless vote for the sale of corporate assets. Is this provision not applicable? Or maybe I understood the provision differently? Would you please enlighten me. Thank you.

[@joesantosbbisquera]

Let me recognize the Corporate Principle that all Outstanding Shares - Common and even Preferred - are entitle to Vote when All or Substantially All of the Corporate Assets are for Sale. The "gray" area in the Problem is the Statement that the Preferred Shares are CATEGORICALLY NON-VOTING so that said Provision is arguably existing to deprive the Preferred Shareholders of the right to Vote, more so because the very reason for their issuance is as a substitute for being DEBT Instruments. I am not sure whether the BAR Examiners gave equal weight to the two (2) possible Answers.

[@bonafide215]

@@joesantosbbisquera Noted po Dean. Thank you so much.

[@peterpiper5300]

sir, regarding the farmer, is believing enough to be considered good faith? should he not have done some diligence? if he did his due diligence, he would have discovered somebody owned the land.

[@joesantosbbisquera]

No, his belief in good faith is founded on the nature of Agricultural Alienable Land. An Occupant of his house, made in good faith, is engaged himself in the process of legal acquisition through Adverse Possession in ten (10) years. Under normal conditions, he would have acquired ownership equity through precisely Adverse Possession as an Owner. Too bad, another person was faster in having that agricultural alienable land titled. Otherwise, the farmer would have acquired his Title by Adverse Possession when he built his house and stayed there as an Owner during said ten (10) year prescriptive period.

[@Mommyjoyandjosette]

Dean pwede rin po ba mag request paki sagot po and Remedial Law 2020/2021 bar questions. Thank you very much in advance.

[@joesantosbbisquera]

Joy, Procedural Law KZbin Upload is in place to answer Remedial Law. Please check.

[@peterpiper5300]

sir, what if 2 Filipinos go to las vegas to get married. after a few years, their relationship turned sour. can they obtain a divorce in las vegas and eventually remarry in the philippines?

[@joesantosbbisquera]

No, Filipino citizens follow the Nationality Theory under their Constitution. Hence, in so far as their civil status is concerned, they are and will always remain Filipino citizens, subject to said Nationality Theory. So, their marriage at Las Vegas, when valid there, is likewise valid in the Philippines. With that validity of their marriage, their marriage status will remain as MARRIED. Their Divorce in Las Vegas will not restore their Civil Status as SINGLE, to allow marriage while either party is still alive.

[@thislsit8395]

Hi po. Ung sa number 10 po na question. Ung answer ko po kasi is ung sa baba po nung first paragraph mo po. Sufficient na po ba un to earn full points po?

[@thislsit8395]

Number 8 po. Would it not be a factor po na public land po yun? Na from the start po wala po siya claim dun sa land which would make him po builder in bad faith po?

[@thislsit8395]

Number 18 po. Diba po non voting and voting shares po can vote for SLEMP for all or necessary all of its assets po?

[@joesantosbbisquera]

Agricultural Lands are alienable and disposable. As such, they can be subjected to Ownership by Acquisitive Prescriptive - 10 years in Good Faith and 30 years even in Bad Faith, provided no vested ownership has been granted with an earlier Title. So, the occupation is recognized by Civil Law as Valid for agricultural lands to ripen into Ownership by Prescription Occupation. Too bad, another person managed to secure Title ahead of the possessor to achieve acquisitive Prescription

[@joesantosbbisquera]

Let me recognize the Corporate Principle that all Outstanding Shares - Common and even Preferred - are entitle to Vote when All or Substantially All of the Corporate Assets are for Sale. The "gray" area in the Problem is the Statement that the Preferred Shares are CATEGORICALLY NON-VOTING so that said Provision is arguably existing to deprive the Preferred Shareholders of the right to Vote, more so because the very reason for their issuance is as a substitute for being DEBT Instruments. I am not sure whether the BAR Examiners gave equal weight to the two (2) possible Answers.