6. Ari, a married man, donated a parcel of land to Chinky, a minor of 17 years old, subject to condition that Chinky shall become his mistress. The donation was duly accepted by Chinky and her parents. After the perfection of the donation, Chinky became the mistress of Ari. When Ari died, his widowed wife Becky, took possession of the land. Subsequently, Chinky filed an action for recovery of the property. Defendant Becky advanced the defense that the contract of donation is inexistent because of the illegality of the cause; consequently, it has not produced anu effect whatsoever. Plaintiff, Chinky however, contented that what is illegal is the motive of the donor and not the cause, since the contract in this case is one pure beneficence. Resolve the following: (a) Describe the character of the contract whether it is unenforceable, void or inexistent. Explain your answer. (5 points) 7. Andy is married to Annie. After 5 years, they decided to live separately from each other without filing the proper case in court. Instead, they drafted an agreement which states among others, we agreed to separate mutually and voluntarily; we renounced all rights and obligations against each other; we will not object to anyone to have or commit to another relationship; and we will not oppose any attempt to remarry again by anyone to anybody. The document was duly notarized by Atty. Pa-Amin. (a) Resolve whether or not the agreement between Andy and Annie is valid? Explain your answer. (5 points) 8. On February 14, 1980, EB was granted Free Patent No. 7113118 over a piece of agricultural land located in San Francisco, Agusan del Sur, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-9053. Under the law, the sale of a parcel of agricultural land covered by a free patent during the five-year prohibitory period under the Public Land Act is void. Reversion of the parcel of land is proper. On June 15, 1983, well within the five-year prohibitory period, EB sold the land to ME. EB died on January 16, 1991. His son OB claimed that prior to his death, he allegedly told his wife, NB to nullify the sale made to ME and have the Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-5477 cancelled because the sale was within the five-year prohibitory period. Thus, on June 23, 1993, NB and her son OB filed a Complaint for Nullity of Title and Reconveyance of Title against ME, and the Register of Deeds of Agusan del Sur.ME filed his Answer, arguing that the sale was made in good faith and that in purchasing the property, they relied on EB's title. ME likewise claimed that under the pari delicto doctrine, the parties to a controversy are equally culpable or guilty, they shall have no action against each other, and it shall leave the parties where It finds them. Resolve the following: Can ME claimed to apply the doctrine of in pari delicto where public policy would he violated? Explain your answer. {10 points)