[Solved] X and Y sold a house and lot to their son valued at P10M for only P3M with the condition that it will be delivered after their death. After their death, should the property be brought to collation?

Q.	X and Y sold a house and lot to their son valued at P10M for only P3M with the condition that it will be delivered after their death. After their death, should the property be brought to collation?
A.	Yes, because the contract was not a sale but a donation inter vivos;
B.	Yes, because it was a donation mortis causa;
C.	No, because it was not acquired by gratuitous title but by onerous title; (Reyes v. CA)
D.	Yes, because it was a simulated sale as the price is unusually inadequate.
Answer» C. No, because it was not acquired by gratuitous title but by onerous title; (Reyes v. CA)

1.4k

Do you find this helpful?

View all MCQs in

Philippines Civil Law Society

Discussion

No comments yet

Related MCQs

A, the son of X and Y was indebted to B in the amounted of P10M. Should the amount be brought to collation if X and Y paid the same?
X brought a house and lot from Y valued at P5M. He paid P3M and for the balance, he executed a promissory note with interest at 10% to be paid within 90 days. ABC Corporation executed a surety for the balance. X failed to pay, hence, ABC paid the amount and sued X for the interest and the principal. X contended that he is not bound due to novation when Y accepted the security. Is X correct?
A entered into a contract of sale with pacto de retro over B’s house & lot. The house is valued at P10M. B failed to exercise the right to repurchase. State the effect of B’s failure to exercise the right to repurchase.
A lent money to B in the amount of P3M and executed a mortgage over his house and lot to secure the payment of the obligation with a condition that if he fails to pay, A shall became the owner of the property. Is the stipulation valid?
A built his house on his lot up to the boundary line and opened windows with direct view over the lot of B. Twenty (20) years later, B built his house up to the boundary line of his lot, hence, A filed a complaint enjoining B from building his house up to the boundary contending that he has acquired the easement of light and view by prescription and that B cannot build less than 3 meters from the boundary. Is A correct?
State the nature of this donation: “I hereby donate to X “mortis causa” a 1000 square meter lot worth P10M subject to the condition that this donation shall be deemed revoked if he fails to build a house on the land worth P1M within one (1) year from date hereof and delivery shall be made after my death.”
A & B entered into a contract of sale, A, obligating himself to deliver his house and lot to B who obligated himself to pay P2M upon delivery. B has already paid, but A has not delivered the house and lot despite demand. State the remedy of B.
A is the owner of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 123 located in a subdivision property being developed by XYZ Corporation. He did not know the exact location of the lot, hence, he consulted the developer who pointed to a lot, hence, he constructed his house. It turned out that it was another lot covered by TCT No. 124. Is A a builder in good faith?
A sold his house and lot to B for P10M payable in 10 monthly installments. B paid P9M but failed to pay the last installment. What is the remedy of A?
A sold a parcel of land to B covered by TCT NO. 152 with C as a witness. When D wanted to buy a property, he executed a special power of attorney for E to buy a property for him. E entered into a contract of sale with A for the purchase of the same lot and registered it under the name of D. Who between B and D has a better right over the lot?