0 - Civil Law Bar Exam Answers - Property PDF

9/15/2019 Civil Law Bar Exam Answers: Property
HOME LAW NOTES + PH ELECTIONS + CASE DIGESTS + TRAVEL GAMES + TOYS
LAW TECH WORLD

Law, Technology and the World
CIVIL LAW BAR EXAM ANSWERS: PROPERTY

Published by adminC on May 7, 2013 | Leave a response
Accretion; Alluvion (2001)
For many years, the Rio Grande river deposited soil along its bank, beside the titled land of Jose.
In time, such deposit reached an area of one thousand square meters. With the permission of
Jose, Vicente cultivated the said area. Ten years later, a big flood occurred in the river and
transferred the 1000 square meters to the opposite bank, beside the land of Agustin. The land
transferred is now contested by Jose and Agustin as riparian owners and by Vicente who claims
ownership by prescription. Who should prevail,? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jose should prevail. The disputed area, which is an alluvion, belongs by right of accretion to
Jose, the riparian owner (Art. 457 CC). When, as given in the problem, the very same area” was
“transferred” by flood waters to the opposite bank, it became an avulsion and ownership
thereof is retained by Jose who has two years to remove it (Art. 459, CC). Vicente’s claim based
on prescription is baseless since his possession was by mere tolerance of Jose and, therefore, did
not adversely affect Jose’s possession and ownership (Art. 537, CC). Inasmuch as his possession
is merely that of a holder, he cannot acquire the disputed area by prescription.
Accretion; Avulsion (2003)
Andres is a riparian owner of a parcel of registered land. His land, however, has gradually
diminished in area due to the current of the river, while the registered land of Mario on the
opposite bank has gradually increased in area by 200- square meters.
(a) Who has the better right over the 200-square meter area that has been added to Mario’s
registered land, Mario or Andres?
(b) May a third person acquire said 200-square meter land by prescription?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
lawtechworld.com/blog/blog/2013/05/civil-law-bar-exam-answers-property/ 1/35
a. Mario has a better right over the 200 square meters increase in area by reason of accretion,
applying Article 457 of the New Civil Code, which provides that “to the owners of lands adjoining
the banks of rivers belong the accretion which they gradually received from the effects of the
current of the waters”.
Andres cannot claim that the increase in Mario’s land is his own, because such is an accretion
and not result of the sudden detachment of a known portion of his land and its attachment to
Mario’s land, a process called “avulsion”. He can no longer claim ownership of the portion of
his registered land which was gradually and naturally eroded due to the current of the river,
because he had lost it by operation of law. That portion of the land has become part of the public
domain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b. Yes, a third party may acquire by prescription the 200 square meters, increase in area,
because it is not included in the Torrens Title of the riparian owner. Hence, this does not involve
the imprescriptibility conferred by Section 47, P.D. No. 1529. The fact that the riparian land is
registered does not automatically make the accretion thereto a registered
land (Grande v. CA, 115 521 (1962); Jagualing v. CA, 194 SCRA 607 (1991).
Builder; Good Faith (1992)
A owns a parcel of residential land worth P500,000.00 unknown to A, a residential house

costing P 100,000.00 is built on the entire parcel by B who claims ownership of the land.
Answer all the following questions based on the premise that B is a builder in good faith
and A is a landowner in good faith.
a) May A acquire the house built by B? If so, how?
b) If the land increased in value to P500,000.00 by reason of the building of the house
thereon, what amount should be paid by A in order to acquire the house from B?
c) Assuming the cost of the house was P90,000.00 and not P100,000.00, may A require B to
buy the land?
d) If B voluntarily buys the land as desired by A, under what circumstances may A nevertheless
be entitled to have the house removed?
e) In what situation may a “forced lease” arise between A and B. and what terms and conditions
would govern the lease?
Give reasons for your answers.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Yes, A may acquire the house build by B by paying indemnity to B. Article 448 of the Civil
Code provides that the owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted in
good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting, after
payment of the indemnity provided for in Articles 546 and 546 of the Civil Code.
(b) A should pay B the sum of P50,000. Article 548 of the Civil Code provides that useful
expenses shall be refunded to the possessor in good faith with the right of retention, the person
who has defeated him in the possession having the option of refunding the amount of the
expenses or of paying the increase in value which the thing may have acquired by reason thereof.
The increase in value amounts to P50,000.00.
(c) Yes, A may require B to buy the land. Article 448 of the Civil Code provides that the owner
of the land on which anything has been built in good faith shall have the right to oblige the one
who built to pay the price of the land if its value is not considerably more than that of the
building,
(d) If B agrees to buy land but fails to pay, A can have the house removed
(Depra vs. Dumlao, 136 SCRA 475).
(e) Article 448 of the Civil Code provides that the builder cannot be obliged to buy the land if its
value is considerably more than that of the building. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if
the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building after proper indemnity. The
parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court fix the
terms thereof.
Builder; Good Faith vs. Bad Faith (1999)
(a) Because of confusion as to the boundaries of the adjoining lots that they bought from the
same subdivision company, X constructed a house on the adjoining lot of Y in the honest belief
that it is the land that he bought from the subdivision company. What are the respective rights
of X and Y with respect to X’s house?
(b) Suppose X was in good faith but Y knew that X was constructing on his (Y’s) land but
simply kept quiet about it, thinking perhaps that he could get X’s house later. What are the
respective rights of the parties over X’s house in this case?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The rights of Y, as owner of the lot, and of X, as builder of a house thereon, are governed by
Art. 448 of the Civil Code which grants to Y the right to choose between two remedies: (a)
appropriate the house by indemnifying X for its value plus whatever necessary expenses the
latter may have incurred for the preservation of the land, or (b) compel X to buy the land if
the price of the land is not considerably more than the value of the house. If it is, then X cannot
be obliged to buy the land but he shall pay reasonable rent, and in case of disagreement, the
court shall fix the terms of the lease.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) Since the lot owner Y is deemed to be in bad faith

(Art 453), X as the party in good faith may (a) remove the house and demand indemnification
for damages suffered by him, or (b) demand payment of the value of the house plus reparation
for damages (Art 447, in relation to Art 454). Y continues as owner of the lot and becomes,
under the second option, owner of the house as well, after he pays the sums demanded.
Builder; Good Faith vs. Bad Faith (2000)
In good faith, Pedro constructed a five-door commercial building on the land of Pablo who was
also in good faith. When Pablo discovered the construction, he opted to appropriate the building
by paying Pedro the cost thereof. However, Pedro insists that he should be paid the current
market value of the building, which was much higher because of inflation.
1) Who is correct Pedro or Pablo?
2) In the meantime that Pedro is not yet paid, who is entitled to the rentals of the building,
Pedro or Pablo?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pablo is correct. Under Article 448 of the New Civil Code in relation to Article 546, the builder in
good faith is entitled to a refund of the necessary and useful expenses incurred by him, or the
increase in value which the land may have acquired by reason of the improvement, at the option
of the landowner. The builder is entitled to a refund of the expenses he incurred, and not to
the market value of the improvement.
The case of Pecson v. CA, 244 SCRA 407, is not applicable to the problem. In the Pecson
case, the builder was the owner of the land who later lost the property at a public sale due to
non-payment of taxes. The Court ruled that Article 448 does not apply to the case where the
owner of the land is the builder but who later lost the land; not being applicable, the indemnity
that should be paid to the buyer must be the fair market value of the building and not just the
cost of construction thereof. The Court opined in that case that to do otherwise would unjustly
enrich the new owner of the land.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Pedro is correct. In Pecson vs. CA, it was held that Article 546 of the New Civil Code does not
specifically state how the value of useful improvements should be determined in fixing the
amount of indemnity that the owner of the land should pay to the builder in good faith. Since the
objective of the law is to adjust the rights of the parties in such manner as “to administer
complete justice to both of them in such a way as neither one nor the other may enrich himself of
that which does not belong to him”, the Court ruled that the basis of reimbursement should be
the fair market value of the building.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2) Pablo is entitled to the rentals of the building. As the owner of the land, Pablo is also the
owner of the building being an accession thereto. However, Pedro who is entitled to retain the
building is also entitled to retain the rentals. He, however, shall apply the rentals to the
indemnity payable to him after deducting reasonable cost of repair and maintenance.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Pablo is entitled to the rentals. Pedro became a possessor in bad faith from the time he learned
that the land belongs to Pablo. As such, he loses his right to the building, including the fruits
thereof, except the right of retention.
Builder; Good Faith vs. Bad Faith; Accession (2000)
a) Demetrio knew that a piece of land bordering the beach belonged to Ernesto. However, since
the latter was studying in Europe and no one was taking care of the land, Demetrio occupied the
same and constructed thereon nipa sheds with tables and benches which he rented out to people
who want to have a picnic by the beach. When Ernesto returned, he demanded the return of the
land. Demetrio agreed to do so after he has removed the nipa sheds. Ernesto refused to let
Demetrio remove the nipa sheds on the ground that these already belonged to him by right of
accession. Who is correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ernesto is correct, Demetrio is a builder in bad faith because he knew beforehand that the
land belonged to Ernesto, under Article 449 of the New Civil Code, one who builds on the land of
another loses what is built without right to indemnity. Ernesto becomes the owner of the nipa
sheds by right of accession. Hence, Ernesto is well within his right in refusing to allow the
removal of the nipa sheds.
Builder; Good Faith vs. Bad Faith; Presumption (2001)
Mike built a house on his lot in Pasay City. Two years later, a survey disclosed that a portion of
the building actually stood on the neighboring land of Jose, to the extent of 40 square meters.
Jose claims that Mike is a builder in bad faith because he should know the boundaries of his lot,
and demands that the portion of the house which encroached on his land should be destroyed or
removed. Mike replies that he is a builder in good faith and offers to buy the land occupied by
the building instead.
1) Is Mike a builder in good faith or bad faith? Why?
2) Whose preference should be followed? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) Yes, Mike is a builder in good faith. There is no showing that when he built his house, he knew
that a portion thereof encroached on Jose’s lot. Unless one is versed in the science of surveying,
he cannot determine the precise boundaries or location of his property by merely examining his
title. In the absence of contrary proof, the law presumes that the encroachment was done in
good faith [Technogas Phils v. CA, 268 SCRA 5, 15 (1997)].
2} None of the preferences shall be followed. The preference of Mike cannot prevail because
under Article 448 of the Civil Code, it is the owner of the land who has the option or choice, not
the builder. On the other hand, the option belongs to Jose, he cannot demand that the portion of
the house encroaching on his land be destroyed or removed because this is not one of the
options given by law to the owner of the land. The owner may choose between the appropriation
of what was built after payment of indemnity, or to compel the builder to pay for the land if the
value of the land is not considerably more than that of the building. Otherwise, the builder shall
pay rent for the portion of the land encroached.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
1) Mike cannot be considered a builder in good faith because he built his house without first
determining the corners and boundaries of his lot to make sure that his construction was within
the perimeter of his property. He could have done this with the help of a geodetic engineer as an
ordinary prudent and reasonable man would do under the circumstances.
2) Jose’s preference should be followed. He may have the building removed at the expense of
Mike, appropriate the building as his own, oblige Mike to buy the land and ask for damages in
addition to any of the three options. (Articles 449, 450, 451, CC)
Chattel Mortgage vs. Pledge (1999)
Distinguish a contract of chattel mortgage from a contract of pledge.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In a contract of CHATTEL MORTGAGE possession belongs to the creditor, while in a contract of

PLEDGE possession belongs to the debtor.
A chattel mortgage is a formal contract while a pledge is a real contract.
A contract of chattel mortgage must be recorded in a public instrument to bind third persons
while a contract of pledge must be in a public instrument containing description of the thing
pledged and the date thereof to bind third persons.
Chattel Mortgage; Immovables (1994)
Vini constructed a building on a parcel of land he leased from Andrea. He chattel mortgaged
the land to Felicia. When he could not pay Felicia. Felicia initiated foreclosure proceedings.
Vini claimed that the building he had constructed on the leased land cannot be validly foreclosed
because the building was, by law, an immovable.
Is Vini correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
a) The Chattel Mortgage is void and cannot be foreclosed because the building is an immovable
and cannot be an object of a chattel mortgage.
b) It depends. If the building was intended and is built of light materials, the chattel mortgage
may be considered as valid as between the parties and it may be considered in respect to them
as movable property, since it can be removed from one place to another. But if the building is
of strong material and is not capable of being removed or transferred without being destroyed,
the chattel mortgage is void and cannot be foreclosed.
c) If it was the land which Vini chattel mortgaged, such mortgage would be void, or at least
unenforceable, since he was not the owner of the land.
If what was mortgaged as a chattel is the building, the chattel mortgage is valid as between the
parties only, on grounds of estoppel which would preclude the mortgagor from assailing the
contract on the ground that its subject- matter is an immovable. Therefore Vini’s defense is
untenable, and Felicia can foreclose the mortgage over the building, observing, however, the
procedure prescribed for the execution of sale of a judgment debtor’s immovable under Rule 39,
Rules of Court, specifically, that the notice of auction sale should be published in a
newspaper of general circulation.
d) The problem that Vini mortgaged the land by way of a chattel mortgage is untenable. Land
can only be the subject matter of a real estate mortgage and only an absolute owner of real
property may mortgage a parcel of land. (Article 2085 (2) Civil Code). Hence, there can be no
foreclosure.
But on the assumption that what was mortgaged by way of chattel mortgage was the building on
leased land, then the parties are treating the building as chattel. A building that is not merely
superimposed on the ground is an immovable property and a chattel mortgage on said building
is legally void but the parties cannot be allowed to disavow their contract on account of estoppel
by deed. However, if third parties are involved such chattel mortgage is void and has no effect.
Chattel Mortgage; Immovables (2003)
X constructed a house on a lot which he was leasing from Y. Later, X executed a chattel mortgage
over said house in favor of Z as security for a loan obtained from the latter. Still later, X
acquired ownership of the land where his house was constructed, after which he mortgaged both
house and land in favor of a bank, which mortgage was annotated on the Torrens Certificate of
Title. When X failed to pay his loan to the bank, the latter, being the highest bidder at
the foreclosure sale, foreclosed the mortgage and acquired X’s house and lot. Learning of the
proceedings conducted by the bank, Z is now demanding that the bank reconvey to him X’s
house or pay X’s loan to him plus interests. Is Z’s demand against the bank valid and
sustainable? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Z’s demand is not valid. A building is immovable or real property whether it is erected by the
owner of the land, by a usufructuary, or by a lessee. It may be treated as a movable by the parties
to chattel mortgage but such is binding only between them and not on third parties
(Evangelista v. Alto Surety Col, Inc. 103 Phil. 401 [1958]). In this case, since the bank is
not a party to the chattel mortgage, it is not bound by it, as far as the Bank is concerned, the
chattel mortgage, does not exist. Moreover, the chattel mortgage does not exist. Moreover, the
chattel mortgage is void because it was not registered. Assuming that it is valid, it does not bind
the Bank because it was not annotated on the title of the land mortgaged to the bank. Z cannot
demand that the Bank pay him the loan Z extended to X, because the Bank was not privy to such
loan transaction.
ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Z’s demand against the bank is not valid. His demand that the bank reconvey to him X’s
house presupposes that he has a real right over the house. All that Z has is a personal
right against X for damages for breach of the contract of loan.
The treatment of a house, even if built on rented land, as movable property is void insofar as
third persons, such as the bank, are concerned. On the other hand, the Bank already had a
real right over the house and lot when the mortgage was annotated at the back of the Torrens
title. The bank later became the owner in the foreclosure sale. Z cannot ask the bank to pay for
X’s loan plus interest. There is no privity of contract between Z and the bank.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The answer hinges on whether or not the bank is an innocent mortgagee in good faith or a
mortgagee in bad faith. In the former case, Z’s demand is not valid. In the latter case, Z’s
demand against the bank is valid and sustainable.
Under the Torrens system of land registration, every person dealing with registered land may
rely on the correctness of the certificate of title and the law will not in any way oblige to him to
look behind or beyond the certificate in order to determine the condition of the title. He is not
bound by anything not annotated or reflected in the certificate. If he proceeds to buy the land or
accept it as a collateral relying on the certificate, he is considered a buyer or a mortgagee in good
faith. On this ground, the Bank acquires a clean title to the land and the house.
However, a bank is not an ordinary mortgagee. Unlike private individuals, a bank is

expected to exercise greater care and prudence in its dealings. The ascertainment of the
condition of a property offered as collateral for a loan must be a standard and indispensable part
of its operation. The bank should have conducted further inquiry regarding the house standing
on the land considering that it was already standing there before X acquired the title to the land.
The bank cannot be considered as a mortgagee in good faith. On this ground, Z’s demand against
the Bank is valid and sustainable.
Chattel Mortgage; Possession (1993)
A, about to leave the country on a foreign assignment, entrusted to B his brand new car and
its certificate of registration. Falsifying A’s signature. B sold A’s car to C for P200,000.00. C then
registered the car in his name. To complete the needed amount, C borrowed P100.000.00
from the savings and loan association in his office, constituting a chattel mortgage on the car.
For failure of C to pay the amount owed, the savings and loan association filed in the RTC a
complaint for collection with application for issuance of a writ of replevin to obtain possession of
the vehicle so that the chattel mortgage could be foreclosed. The RTC issued the writ of replevin.
The car was then seized from C and sold by the sheriff at public auction at which the savings and
loan association was the lone bidder. Accordingly, the car was sold to it. A few days later, A
arrived from his foreign assignment. Learning of what happened to his car, A sought to recover
possession and ownership of it from the savings and loan association.
Can A recover his car from the savings and loan association? Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under the prevailing rulings of the Supreme Court, A can recover the car from the Savings and
Loan Association provided he pays the price at which the Association bought the car at a public
auction. Under that doctrine, there has been an unlawful deprivation by B of A of his car and,
therefore, A can recover it from any person in possession thereof. But since it was bought at a
public auction in good faith by the Savings and Loan Association, he must reimburse the
Association at the price for which the car was bought.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, A can recover his car from the Savings and Loan Association. In a Chattel Mortgage, the
mortgagor must be the absolute owner of the thing mortgaged. Furthermore, the person
constituting the mortgage must have the free disposal of the property, and in the absence
thereof, must be legally authorized for the purpose. In the case at bar, these essential requisites
did not apply to the mortgagor B, hence the Chattel Mortgage was not valid.
Chattel Mortgage; Preference of Creditors (1995)
Lawrence, a retired air force captain, decided to go into the air transport business. He purchased
an aircraft in cash except for an outstanding balance of P500,000.00. He incurred an
indebtedness of P300,000.00 for repairs with an aircraft repair company. He also borrowed P1
Million from a bank for additional capital and constituted a chattel mortgage on the aircraft to
secure the loan.
While on a test flight the aircraft crashed causing physical injuries to a third party who was
awarded damages of P200,000.00.
Lawrence’s insurance claim for damage to the aircraft was denied thus leaving him nothing else
but the aircraft which was then valued only at P1 Million. Lawrence was declared insolvent.
Assuming that the aircraft was sold for Pl Million, give the order of preference of the creditors of
Lawrence and distribute the amount of P1 Million.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Assuming that the aircraft was sold for P1 Million, there is no order of preference. The P1 Million
will all go to the bank as a chattel mortgagee because a chattel mortgage under Art. 2241 (4)
NCC defeats Art. 2244 (12) and (14}. Art. 2241 (3) and (5) are not applicable because the aircraft
is no longer in the possession of the creditor.
Easement vs. Usufruct (1995)
1. What is easement? Distinguish easement from usufruct.
2. Can there be (a) an easement over a usufruct? (b) a
usufruct over an easement? (c) an easement over another easement? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. An EASEMENT or servitude is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the

benefit of another immovable belonging to a different owner. (Art. 613, NCC).
USUFRUCT gives a right to enjoy the property of another with the obligation of preserving its
form and substance, unless the title constituting it or the law otherwise provides (Art. 562,
NCC).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Easement is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of another

immovable belonging to a different owner in which case it is called real or predial easement, or
for the benefit of a community or group of persons in which case it is known as a personal
easement.
The distinctions between usufruct and easement are:
a) Usufruct includes all uses of the property and for all purposes, including jus fruendi.
Easement is limited to a specific use.
b) Usufruct may be constituted on immovable or movable property. Easement may be

constituted only on an immovable property.
c) Easement is not extinguished by the death of the owner of the dominant estate while
usufruct is extinguished by the death of the usufructuary unless a contrary intention appears.
d) An easement contemplates two (2) estates belonging to two (2) different owners; a usufruct
contemplates only one property (real or personal) whereby the usufructuary uses and enjoys
the property as well as its fruits, while another owns the naked title during the period of the
usufruct.
e) A usufruct may be alienated separately from the property to which it attaches, while an
easement cannot be alienated separately from the property to which it attaches.
NOTE: It is recommended by the Committee that any two (2) distinction

sshould be given full credit.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. (a) There can be no easement over a usufruct. Since an easement may be constituted
only on a corporeal immovable property, no easement may be constituted on a usufruct
which is not a corporeal right.
(b) There can be no usufruct over an easement. While a usufruct maybe created over a right,
such right must have an existence of its own independent of the property. A servitude
cannot be the object of a usufruct because it has no existence independent of the property to
which It attaches.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
There cannot be a usufruct over an easement since an easement presupposes two (2) tenements
belonging to different persons and the right attaches to the tenement and not to the owner.
While a usufruct gives the usufructuary a right to use, right to enjoy, right to the fruits, and right
to possess, an easement gives only a limited use of the servient estate.
However, a usufruct can be constituted over a property that has in its favor an easement or
one burdened with servitude. The usufructuary will exercise the easement during the period of
usufruct.
(c) There can be no easement over another easement for the same reason as in (a). An easement,
although it is a real right over an immovable, is not a corporeal right. There is a Roman maxim
which says that: There can be no servitude over another servitude.
Easement; Effects; Discontinuous Easements; Permissive Use (2005)
Don was the owner of an agricultural land with no access to a public road. He had been passing
through the land of Ernie with the latter’s acquiescence for over 20 years. Subsequently, Don
subdivided his property into 20 residential lots and sold them to different persons. Ernie
blocked the pathway and refused to let the buyers pass through his land.
a) Did Don acquire an easement of right of way? Explain.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, Don did not acquire an easement of right of way. An easement of right of way is
discontinuous in nature — it is exercised only if a man passes over somebody’s land. Under
Article 622 of the Civil Code, discontinuous easements, whether apparent or not, may only be
acquired by virtue of a title. The Supreme Court, in Abellana, Sr. v. Court of Appeals (G.R.
N0. 97039, April 24, 1992), ruled that an easement of right of way being discontinuous in
nature is not acquirable by prescription.
Further, possession of the easement by Don is only permissive, tolerated or with the
acquiescence of Ernie. It is settled in the case of
Cuaycong v. Benedicto (G.R. No. 9989, March 13, 1918)that a permissive use of a road
over the land of another, no matter how long continued, will not create an easement of way by
prescription.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, Don acquired an easement of right of way. An easement that is continuous and
apparent can be acquired by prescription and title. According to Professor Tolentino, an
easement of right of way may have a continuous nature if there is a degree of regularity to
indicate continuity of possession and that if coupled with an apparent sign, such easement of
way may be acquired by prescription.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, Ernie could close the pathway on his land. Don has not acquired an easement of right of
way either by agreement or by judicial grant. Neither did the buyers. Thus, establishment of a
road or unlawful use of the land of Ernie would constitute an invasion of possessory rights of the
owner, which under Article 429 of the Civil Code may be repelled or prevented. Ernie has the
right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal of the land. This is an attribute of
ownership that Ernie enjoys.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, Ernie may close the pathway, subject however, to the rights of the lot buyers. Since there is
no access to the public road, this results in the creation of a legal easement. The lot buyers have
the right to demand that Ernie grant them a right of way. In turn, they have the obligation to pay
the value of the portion used as a right of way, plus damages.
c) What are the rights of the lot buyers, if any? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Prior to the grant of an easement, the buyers of the dominant estate have no other right
than to compel grant of easement of right of way.
Since the properties of the buyers are surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate
outlet to a public highway and the isolation is not due to their acts, buyers may demand an
easement of a right of way provided proper indemnity is paid and the right of way demanded is
the shortest and least prejudicial to Ernie.
(Villanueva v. Velasco, G.R. No. 130845, November 27,2000).
Easement; Nuisance; Abatement (2002)
Lauro owns an agricultural land planted mostly with fruit trees. Hernando owns an adjacent
land devoted to his piggery business, which is two (2) meters higher in elevation.
Although Hernando has constructed a waste disposal lagoon for his piggery, it is inadequate to
contain the waste water containing pig manure, and it often overflows and inundates Lauro’s
plantation. This has increased the acidity of the soil in the plantation, causing the trees to wither
and die. Lauro sues for damages caused to his plantation. Hernando invokes his right to the
benefit of a natural easement in favor of his higher estate, which imposes upon the lower estate
of Lauro the obligation to receive the waters descending from the higher estate. Is Hernando
correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Hernando is wrong. It is true that Lauro’s land is burdened with the natural easement to accept
or receive the water which naturally and without interruption of man descends from a higher
estate to a lower estate. However, Hernando has constructed a waste disposal lagoon for his
piggery and it is this waste water that flows downward to Lauro’s land. Hernando has, thus,
interrupted the flow of water and has created and is maintaining a nuisance. Under Act. 697
NCC, abatement of a nuisance does not preclude recovery of damages by Lauro even for the past
existence of a nuisance.
The claim for damages may also be premised in Art. 2191 (4) NCC.
ANOTHER ANSWER:
Hernando is not correct. Article 637 of the New Civil Code provides that the owner of the higher
estate cannot make works which will increase the burden on the servient estate.
(Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. CA, 330 SCRA 145 [2000]). The owner of the higher
estate may be compelled to pay damages to the owner of the lower estate.
Easements; Classification (1998)
Distinguish between:
1. Continuous and discontinuous easements;
2. Apparent and non-apparent easements; and
3. Positive and negative easements.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. CONTINUOUS EASEMENTS are those the use of which is or may be incessant, without the
intervention of any act of man, while DISCONTINUOUS EASEMENTS are those which are used
at intervals and depend upon the acts of man. (Art. 615, Civil Code)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. APPARENT EASEMENTS are those which are made known and are continually kept in
view by external signs that reveal the use and enjoyment of the same, while NON- APPARENT
EASEMENTS are those which show no external indication of their existence. (Art. 615, Civil
Code)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
3. POSITIVE EASEMENTS are those which impose upon the owner of the servient estate the
obligation of allowing something to be done or of doing it himself, while NEGATIVE
EASEMENTS are those which prohibit the owner of the servient estate from doing something
which he could lawfully do if the easement did not exist. (Art. 615. Civil Code)
Easements; Right of Way (1993)
Tomas Encarnacion’s 3,000 square meter parcel of land, where he has a plant nursery, is located
just behind Aniceta Magsino’s two hectare parcel land. To enable Tomas to have access to the
highway, Aniceta agreed to grant him a road right of way a meter wide through which he could
pass. Through the years Tomas’ business flourished which enabled him to buy another portion
which enlarged the area of his plant nursery. But he was still landlocked. He could not bring in
and out of his plant nursery a jeep or delivery panel much less a truck that he needed to
transport his seedlings. He now asked Aniceta to grant him a wider portion of her property, the
price of which he was willing to pay, to enable him to construct a road to have access to his plant
nursery. Aniceta refused claiming that she had already allowed him a previous road right of way.
Is Tomas entitled to the easement he now demands from Aniceta?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Art. 651 of the Civil Code provides that the width of the easement must be sufficient to meet the
needs of the dominant estate, and may accordingly change from time to time. It is the need of
the dominant estate which determines the width of the passage. These needs may vary from
time to time. As Tomas’ business grows, the need for use of modern conveyances requires
widening of the easement.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The facts show that the need for a wider right of way arose from the increased production owing
to the acquisition by Tomas of an additional area. Under Art. 626 of the Civil Code, the easement
can be used only for the immovable originally contemplated. Hence, the increase in width is
justified and should have been granted.
Easements; Right of Way (2000)
The coconut farm of Federico is surrounded by the lands of Romulo. Federico seeks a right of
way through a portion of the land of Romulo to bring his coconut products to the market. He has
chosen a point where he will pass through a housing project of Romulo. The latter wants him to
pass another way which is one kilometer longer. Who should prevail?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Romulo will prevail. Under Article 650 of the New Civil Code, the easement of right of way shall
be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate and where the distance from
the dominant estate to a public highway is the shortest. In case of conflict, the criterion of least
prejudics prevails over the criterion of shortest distance. Since the route chosen by Federico will
prejudice the housing project of Romulo, Romulo has the right to demand that Federico pass
another way even though it will be longer.
Easements; Right of Way; Inseparability (2001)
Emma bought a parcel of land from Equitable-PCI Bank, which acquired the same from Felisa,
the original owner. Thereafter, Emma discovered that Felisa had granted a right of way over the
land in favor of the land of Georgina, which had no outlet to a public highway, but the easement
was not annotated when the servient estate was registered under the Torrens system. Emma
then filed a complaint for cancellation of the right of way, on the ground that it had been
extinguished by such failure to annotate. How would you decide the controversy?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The complaint for cancellation of easement of right of way must fail. The failure to annotate the
easement upon the title of the servient estate is not among the grounds for extinguishing an
easement under Art. 631 of the Civil Code. Under Article 617, easements are inseparable from
the estate to which they actively or passively belong. Once it attaches, it can only be
extinguished under Art. 631, and they exist even if they are not stated or annotated as an
encumbrance on the Torrens title of the servient estate. (II Tolentino 326, 1987 ed.)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Under Section 44, PD No. 1529, every registered owner receiving a certificate of title pursuant to
a decree of registration, and every subsequent innocent purchaser for value, shall hold the
same free from all encumbrances except those noted on said certificate. This rule, however,
admits of exceptions.
Under Act 496, as amended by Act No. 2011, and Section 4, Act 3621, an easement if not
registered shall remain and shall be held to pass with the land until cutoff or extinguished
by the registration of the servient estate. However, this provision has been suppressed in Section
44, PD No. 1529. In other words, the registration of the servient estate did not operate to
cut-off or extinguish the right of way. Therefore, the complaint for the cancellation of the right of
way should be dismissed.
Easements; Right of Way; Requisites (1996)
David is the owner of the subdivision in Sta. Rosa, Laguna, without an access to the highway.
When he applied for a license to establish the subdivision, David represented that he will
purchase a rice field located between his land and the highway, and develop it into an access
road. But. when the license was already granted, he did not bother to buy the rice field, which
remains unutilized until the present. Instead, he chose to connect his subdivision with the
neighboring subdivision of Nestor, which has an access to the highway. Nestor allowed him to do
this, pending negotiations on the compensation to be paid. When they failed to arrive at an
agreement, Nestor built a wall across the road connecting with David’s subdivision. David filed a
complaint in court, for the establishment of an easement of right of way through the subdivision
of Nestor which he claims to be the most adequate and practical outlet to the highway.
1) What are the requisites for the establishment of a compulsory easement of a right of way?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Art, 649, NCC. The owner, or any person who by virtue of a real right may cultivate or use any
immovable which is surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other persons and
without adequate outlet to a public highway, is entitled to demand a right of way through the
neighboring estates, after payment of the property indemnity.
Should this easement be established in such a manner that its use may be continuous for all the
needs of the dominant estate, establishing a permanent passage, the indemnity shall consist of
the value of the land occupied and the amount of the damage caused to the servient estate.
In case the right of way is limited to the necessary passage for the cultivation of the estate
surrounded by others and for the gathering of its crops through the servient estate without a
permanent way, the indemnity shall consist in the payment of the damage cause by such
encumbrance.
This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the immovable is due to the proprietor’s own
acts (564a).
The easement of right of way shall be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient
estate, and insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate
to a public highway may be the shortest
(Art. 650, NCC: Vda. de Baltazar v. CA, 245 SCRA 333)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The requisites for a compulsory easement of right of way are: (a) the dominant estate is
surrounded by other immovables and is without an adequate outlet to a public street or
highway; (b) proper indemnity must be paid; (c) the isolation must not be due to the acts of the
owner of the dominant estate; and (d) the right of way claimed is at a point least prejudicial to
the servient estate and, insofar as is
consistent with this rule, where the distance to the street or highway is shortest.
2) Is David entitled to a right of way in this case? Why or why not?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, David is not entitled to the right of way being claimed. The isolation of his subdivision was
due to his own act or omission because he did not develop into an access road the rice field
which he was supposed to purchase according to his own representation when he applied for a
license to establish the subdivision (Florous v. Llenado, 244 SCRA 713).
Ejectment Suit vs. Cancellation of Title (2005)
In an ejectment case filed by Don against Cesar, can the latter ask for the cancellation of Don’s
title considering that he (Cesar) is the rightful owner of the lot? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Cesar cannot ask for the cancellation of Don’s title even if he is the rightful owner of the lot.
In an action for ejectment, the only issue involved is one of possession de facto, the purpose of
which is merely to protect the owner from any physical encroachment from without. The title of
the land or its ownership is not involved, for if a person is in actual possession thereof, he is
entitled to be maintained and respected in it even against the owner himself.
(Garcia v. Anas, G.R. No. L-20617, May 31,1965)
Since the case filed by Don against Cesar is an ejectment case, the latter cannot ask for the
cancellation of Don’s title. He has to file the proper action where the issue of ownership
over the property can be raised.
Ejectment Suit; Commodatum (2006)
Alberto and Janine migrated to the United States of America, leaving behind their 4
children, one of whom is Manny. They own a duplex apartment and allowed Manny to live in
one of the units. While in the United States, Alberto died. His widow and all his children
executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Alberto’s estate wherein the 2- door apartment was
assigned by all the children to their mother, Janine. Subsequently, she sold the property to
George. The latter required Manny to sign a prepared Lease Contract so that he and his family
could continue occupying the unit. Manny refused to sign the contract alleging that his parents
allowed him and his family to continue occupying the premises.
If you were George’s counsel, what legal steps will you take? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were George’s counsel, I would first demand that Manny vacate the apartment. If
Manny refuses, I will file an ejectment suit. When Manny was allowed by his parents to occupy
the premises, without compensation, the contract of commodatum was created. Upon the death
of the father, the contract was extinguished as it is a purely personal contract. As the new owner
of the apartment George is entitled to exercise his right of possession over the same.
Extra–Judicial Partition; Fraud (1990)
X was the owner of a 10,000 square meter property. X married Y and out of their union. A, B
and C were born. After the death of Y, X married Z and they begot as children, D, E and F.
After the death of X, the children of the first and second marriages executed an extrajudicial
partition of the aforestated property on May 1, 1970. D, E and F were given a one thousand
square meter portion of the property. They were minors at the time of the execution of the
document. D was 17 years old, E was 14 and F was 12; and they were made to believe by A, B and
C that unless they sign the document they will not get any share. Z was not present then. In
January 1974, D, E and F filed an action in court to nullify the suit alleging they discovered the
fraud only in 1973.
(a) Can the minority of D, E and F be a basis to nullify the partition? Explain your answer.
(b) How about fraud? Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Yes, minority can be a basis to nullify the partition because D, E and F were not properly
represented by their parents or guardians at the time they contracted the extrajudicial
partition. (Articles 1327. 1391, Civil Code).
(b) In the case of fraud, when through insidious words or machinations of one party the other is
induced to enter into the contract without which he would not have agreed to, the action still
prosper because under Art, 1391 of the Civil Code, in case of fraud, the action for annulment may
be brought within four years from the discovery of the fraud.
Hidden Treasure (1995)
Tim came into possession of an old map showing where a purported cache of gold bullion was
hidden. Without any authority from the government Tim conducted a relentless search and
finally found the treasure buried in a new river bed formerly part of a parcel of land owned by
spouses Tirso and Tessie. The old river which used to cut through the land of spouses Ursula and
Urbito changed its course through natural causes.
To whom shall the treasure belong? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The treasure was found in a property of public dominion, the new river bed. Since Tim did not
have authority from the government and, therefore, was a trespasser, he is not entitled to the
one-half share allotted to a finder of hidden treasure. All of it will go to the State. In addition,
under Art. 438 of the NCC in order that the finder be entitled to the 1/2 share, the treasure must
be found by chance, that is by sheer luck. In this case, since Tim found the treasure not by
chance but because he relentlessly searched for it, he is not entitled to any share in the hidden
treasure.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The law grants a one-half share to a finder of hidden treasure provided he is not a
trespasser and the finding is by chance. It is submitted that Tim is not a trespasser despite his
not getting authority from the government, because the new river bed where he found the
treasure is property for public use (Art. 420 NCC), to which the public has legitimate
access. The question, therefore, boils down to whether or not the finding was by chance in view
of the fact that Tim “conducted a relentless search” before finding the treasure. The strict or
literal view holds that deliberate or intentional search precludes entitlement to the one-
half share allotted by law to the finder since the phrase “by chance” means “by accident”,
meaning an unexpected discovery. The liberal view, however, would sustain Tim’s right to the
allocated share interpreting the phrase in question as meaning “by a stroke of good fortune”,
which does not rule out deliberate or intentional search. It is submitted that the liberal view
should prevail since in practical reality, hidden treasure is hardly ever found without
conscious effort to find it, and the strict view would tend to render the codal provision in
question illusory.
Hidden Treasures (1997)
Marcelino, a treasure hunter as just a hobby, has found a map which appears to indicate the
location of hidden treasure. He has an idea of the land where the treasure might possibly be
found. Upon inquiry, Marcelino learns that the owner of the land, Leopoldo, is a permanent
resident of Canada, Nobody, however, could give him Leopoldo’s exact address. Ultimately,
anyway, he enters the land and conducts a search. He succeeds.
Leopoldo learning of Marcelino’s “find”, seeks to recover the treasure from Marcelino but the
latter is not willing to part with it. Failing to reach an agreement, Leopoldo sues Marcelino for
the recovery of the property. Marcelino contests the action.
How would you decide the case?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would decide in favor of Marcelino since he is considered a finder by chance of the hidden
treasure, hence, he is entitled to one-half (1/2) of the hidden treasure. While Marcelino may
have had the intention to look for the hidden treasure, still he is a finder by chance since it is
enough that he tried to look for it. By chance in the law does not mean sheer luck such that the
finder should have no intention at all to look for the treasure. By chance means good luck,
implying that one who intentionally looks for the treasure is embraced in the provision. The
reason is that it is extremely difficult to find hidden treasure without looking for it deliberately.
Marcelino is not a trespasser since there is no prohibition for him to enter the premises, hence,
he is entitled to half of the treasure.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
1. Marcelino did not find the treasure by chance because he had a map, he knew the location of
the hidden treasure and he intentionally looked for the treasure, hence, he is not entitled to any
part of the treasure.
2. Marcelino appears to be a trespasser and although there may be a question of whether he

found it by chance or not, as he has found the hidden treasure by means of a treasure map, he
will not be entitled to a finder’s share. The hidden treasure shall belong to the owner.
3. The main rule is that hidden treasure belongs to the owner of the land, building or other
property on which it is found. If it is found by chance by a third person and he is not a
trespasser, he is entitled to one-half (1/2). If he is a trespasser, he loses everything.
Brain Damage Criminal Law Answers Amendment Basement Flood
Mortgage; Pactum Commissorium (1999)
(a) X borrowed money from Y and gave a piece of land as security by way of mortgage. It
was expressly agreed between the parties in the mortgage contract that upon nonpayment of
the debt on time by X, the mortgaged land would already belong to Y. If X defaulted in paying,
would Y now become the owner of the mortgaged land? Why?
(b) Suppose in the preceding question, the agreement between X and Y was that if X failed to
pay the mortgage debt on time, the debt shall be paid with the land mortgaged by X to Y. Would
your answer be the same as in the preceding question? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) No, Y would not become the owner of the land. The stipulation is in the nature of pactum
commissorium which is prohibited by law. The property should be sold at public auction and
the proceeds thereof applied to the indebtedness. Any excess shall be given to the
mortgagor.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(d) No, the answer would not be the same. This is a valid stipulation and does not constitute
pactum commissorium. In pactum commissorium, the acquisition is automatic without need of
any further action. In the instant problem another act is required to be performed, namely, the
conveyance of the property as payment (dacion en pago).
Mortgage; Pactum Commissorium (2001)
To secure a loan obtained from a rural bank, Purita assigned her leasehold rights over a stall in
the public market in favor of the bank. The deed of assignment provides that in case of default in
the payment of the loan, the bank shall have the right to sell Purita’s rights over the market stall
as her attorney-in-fact, and to apply the proceeds to the payment of the loan.
1) Was the assignment of leasehold rights a mortgage or a cession? Why?
2) Assuming the assignment to be a mortgage, does the provision giving the bank the power to
sell Purita’s rights constitute pactum commissorium or not? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) The assignment was a mortgage, not a cession, of the leasehold rights. A cession would
have transferred ownership to the bank. However, the grant of authority to the bank to sell the
leasehold rights in case of default is proof that no such ownership was transferred and that a
mere encumbrance was constituted. There would have been no need for such authority had
there been a cession.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2) No, the clause in question is not a pactum commissorium.

It is pactum commissorium when default in the payment of the loan automatically vests
ownership of the encumbered property in the bank. In the problem given, the bank does not
automatically become owner of the property upon default of the mortgagor. The bank has to
sell the property and apply the proceeds to the indebtedness.
Mortgage; Right of Redemption vs.Equity of Redemption (1999)
Are the right of redemption and the equity of redemption given by law to a mortgagor the
same? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The equity of redemption is different from the right of redemption. EQUITY OF

REDEMPTION is the right of the mortgagor after judgment in a judicial foreclosure to redeem
the property by paying to the court the amount of the judgment debt before the sale or
confirmation of the sale. On the other hand, RIGHT OF REDEMPTION is the right of the
mortgagor to redeem the property sold at an extra-judicial foreclosure by paying to the buyer in
the foreclosure sale the amount paid by the buyer within one year from such sale.
Nuisance; Family House; Not Nuisance per se (2006)
A drug lord and his family reside in a small bungalow where they sell shabu and other prohibited
drugs. When the police found the illegal trade, they immediately demolished the house because
according to them, it was a nuisance per se that should be abated. Can this demolition be
sustained? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the demolition cannot be sustained. The house is not a nuisance per se or at law as it is not
an act, occupation, or structure which is a nuisance at all times and under any circumstances,
regardless of location or surroundings. A nuisance per se is a nuisance in and of itself, without
regard to circumstances (Tolentino, p. 695, citing Wheeler v. River Falls Power Co.,
215 Ala. 655,111 So. 907).
Nuisance; Public Nuisance vs.Private Nuisance (2005)
State with reason whether each of the following is a nuisance, and if so, give its
classification, whether public or private: Article 694 of the Civil Code defines nuisance as any
act, omission, establishment, business, condition or property, or anything else which injures or
endangers the health or safety of others, or annoys or offends the senses, or shocks, defies or
disregards decency or morality or obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public
highway or street or any body of water or hinders or impairs the use of property.
It is a public nuisance if it affects a community or neighborhood or any considerable number of

persons. It is a direct encroachment upon public rights or property which results injuriously to
the public. It is a private nuisance, if it affects only a person or small number of persons. It
violates only private rights.
a) A squatter’s hut
If constructed on public streets or riverbeds, it is a public nuisance because it obstructs the free
use by the public of said places. (City of Manila v. Garcia, G.R. No. L-
26053, February 21, 1967). If constructed on private land, it is a private nuisance because it
hinders or impairs the use of the property by the owner.
b) A swimming pool
This is not a nuisance in the absence of any unusual condition or artificial feature other
than the mere water. In Hidalgo Enterprises v. Balandan (G.R. No. L-
3422, June 13, 1952), the Supreme Court ruled that a swimming pool is but a duplication of
nature — thus, could not be considered as a nuisance.
c) A house of prostitution
Irrespective of its location and how its business is conducted, it is a nuisance since it
defies, shocks and disregards decency and morality. It is a public nuisance because of its injury
to the public.
d) A noisy o rdangerous factory in a privateland
If the noise injuriously affects the health and comfort of ordinary people in the vicinity to an
unreasonable extent, it is a nuisance. It is a public nuisance because there is a tendency to
annoy the public. (Velasco v. Manila Electric Co., G.R. No. L-18390, August 6,1971)
e) Uncollectedg arbage
It will become a nuisance if it substantially impairs the comfort and enjoyment of the
adjacent occupants. The annoyance and the smell must be substantial as to interfere sensibly
with the use and enjoyment by persons of ordinary sensibilities. It is a public nuisance because
of its injury to the public.
Ownership; Co-Ownership (1992)
A, B and C are the co-owners in equal shares of a residential house and lot. During their co-
ownership, the following acts were respectively done by the co-owners:
1) A undertook the repair of the foundation of the house, then tilting to one side, to prevent
the house from collapsing.
2) B and C mortgaged the house and lot to secure a loan.
3) B engaged a contractor to build a concrete fence all around the lot.
4) C built a beautiful grotto in the garden.
5) A and C sold the land to X for a very good price.
(a) Is A’s sole decision to repair the foundation of the house binding on B and C? May A
require B and C to contribute their 2/3 share of the expense? Reasons.
(b) What is the legal effect of the mortgage contract executed by B and C? Reasons.
(c) Is B’s sole decision to build the fence binding upon A and C? May B require A and C to
contribute their 2/ 3 share of the expense? Reasons.
(d) Is C’s sole decision to build the grotto binding upon A and B? May C require A and B to
contribute their 2/ 3 share of the expense? Reasons.
(e) What are the legal effects of the contract of sale executed by A. C and X? Reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Yes. A’s sole decision to repair the foundation is binding upon B and C. B and C must
contribute 2/3 of the expense. Each co-owner has the right to compel the other co-owners to
contribute to the expense of preservation of the thing (the house) owned in common in
proportion to their respective interests (Arts. 485 and 488, Civil Code).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) The mortgage shall not bind the 1/3 right and interest of A and shall be deemed to cover
only the rights and interests of B and C in the house and lot. The mortgage shall be limited to the
portion (2/3) which may be allotted to B and C in the partition (Art. 493, Civil Code).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(c) B’s sole decision to build the concrete fence is not binding upon A and C. Expenses to
improve the thing owned in common must be decided upon by a majority of the co-owners who
represent the controlling interest (Arts. 489 and 492. Civil Code).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(d) C’s sole decision to build the grotto is not binding upon A and B who cannot be required to
contribute to the expenses for the embellishment of the thing owned in common if not decided
upon by the majority of the co- owners who represent the controlling interest (Arts. 489
and 492, Civil Code).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(e) The sale to X shall not bind the 1/3 share of B and shall be deemed to cover only the 2/3
share of A and C in the land (Art. 493, Civil Code). B shall have the right to redeem the 2/3 share
sold to X by A and C since X is a third person (Art. 1620, Civil Code).
Ownership; Co-Ownership; Prescription (2000)
In 1955, Ramon and his sister Rosario inherited a parcel of land in Albay from their parents.
Since Rosario was gainfully employed in Manila, she left Ramon alone to possess and cultivate
the land. However, Ramon never shared the harvest with Rosario and was even able to sell
one-half of the land in 1985 by claiming to be the sole heir of his parents. Having reached
retirement age in 1990 Rosario returned to the province and upon learning what had transpired,
demanded that the remaining half of the land be given to her as her share. Ramon opposed,
asserting that he has already acquired ownership of the land by prescription, and that Rosario is
barred by laches from demanding partition and reconveyance. Decide the conflicting claims.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ramon is wrong on both counts: prescription and laches. His possession as co-owner did not
give rise to acquisitive prescription. Possession by a co-owner is deemed not adverse to the other
co-owners but is, on the contrary, deemed beneficial to them (Pongon v. GA, 166 SCRA 375).
Ramon’s possession will become adverse only when he has repudiated the co-ownership and
such repudiation was made known to Rosario. Assuming that the sale in 1985 where Ramon
claimed he was the sole heir of his parents amounted to a repudiation of the co-ownership, the
prescriptive period began to run only from that time. Not more than 30 years having lapsed
since then, the claim of Rosario has not as yet prescribed. The claim of laches is not also
meritorious. Until the repudiation of the co-ownership was made known to the other co-owners,
no right has been violated for the said co-owners to vindicate. Mere delay in vindicating the
right, standing alone, does not constitute laches.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Ramon has acquired the land by acquisitive prescription, and because of laches on the part of
Rosario. Ramon’s possession of the land was adverse because he asserted sole ownership thereof
and never shared the harvest therefrom. His adverse possession having been continuous and
uninterrupted for more than 30 years, Ramon has acquired the land by prescription. Rosario is
also guilty of laches not having asserted her right to the harvest for more than 40 years.
Ownership; Co-Ownership; Prescription (2002)
Senen and Peter are brothers. Senen migrated to Canada early while still a teenager. Peter stayed
in Bulacan to take care of their widowed mother and continued to work on the Family farm even
after her death. Returning to the country some thirty years after he had left, Senen seeks a
partition of the farm to get his share as the only co-heir of Peter. Peter interposes his
opposition, contending that acquisitive prescription has already set in and that estoppel lies to
bar the action for partition, citing his continuous possession of the property for at least 10
years, for almost 30 years in fact. It is undisputed that Peter has never openly claimed sole
ownership of the property. If he ever had the intention to do so, Senen was completely ignorant
of it. Will Senen’s action prosper? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Senen’s action will prosper. Article 494 of the New Civil Code provides that “no prescription
shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he
expressly or impliedly recognizes the co- ownership nor notified Senen of his having repudiated
the same.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Senen’s action will prosper. This is a case of implied trust. (Art 1441, NCC) For purposes of
prescription under the concept of an owner (Art. 540, NCC). There is no such concept here.
Peter was a co-owner, he never claimed sole ownership of the property. He is therefore estopped
under Art. 1431, NCC.
Ownership; Co-Ownership; Redemption (1993)
In 1937, A obtained a loan of P20,000.00 from the National City Bank of New York, an
American-owned bank doing business in the Philippines. To guarantee payment of his
obligation, A constituted a real estate mortgage on his 30- hectare parcel of agricultural land. In
1939, before he could pay his obligation. A died intestate leaving three children. B, a son by a
first marriage, and C and D, daughters by a second marriage. In 1940, the bank foreclosed the
mortgage for non-payment of the principal obligation. As the only bidder at the extrajudicial
foreclosure sale, the bank bought the property and was later issued a certificate of sale. The war
supervened in 1941 without the bank having been able to obtain actual possession of the
property which remained with A’s three children who appropriated for themselves the income
from it. In 1948, B bought the property from the bank using the money he received as back pay
from the U. S. Government, and utilized the same in agribusiness. In 1960, as B’s business
flourished, C and D sued B for partition and accounting of the income of the
property, claiming that as heirs of their father they were co-owners thereof and offering to
reimburse B for whatever he had paid in purchasing the property from the bank.
In brief, how will you answer the complaint of C and D, if you were engaged by D as his counsel?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As counsel of B, I shall answer the complaint as follows: When B bought the property, it was not
by a right of redemption since the period therefore had already expired. Hence, B bought the
property in an independent unconditional sale. C and D are not co-owners with B of the
property. Therefore, the suit of C and D cannot prosper.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
As counsel of B, I shall answer the complaint as follows: From the facts described, it would
appear that the Certificate of sale has not been registered. The one-year period of redemption
begins to run from registration. In this case, it has not yet even commenced. Under the Rules of
Court, the property may be released by the Judgment debtor or his successor in interest. (Sec.
29, Rule 27). It has been held that this includes a joint owner. (Ref. Magno vs.
Ciola, 61 Phil. 80).
Ambrosio died, leaving his three daughters, Belen, Rosario and Sylvia a hacienda which
was mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank due to the failure of the daughters to pay the
bank, the latter foreclosed the mortgage and the hacienda was sold to it as the highest bidder.
Six months later, Sylvia won the grand prize at the lotto and used part of it to redeem the
hacienda from the bank. Thereafter, she took possession of the hacienda and refused to share its
fruits with her sisters, contending that it was owned exclusively by her, having bought it from
the bank with her own money. Is she correct or not?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Sylvia is not correct. The 3 daughters are the co-owners of the hacienda being the only heirs of
Ambrosio. When the property was foreclosed, the right of redemption belongs also to the 3
daughters. When Sylvia redeemed the entire property before the lapse of the redemption period,
she also exercised the right of redemption of her co-owners on their behalf. As such she is
holding the shares of her two sisters in the property, and all the fruits corresponding thereto, in
trust for them. Redemption by one co-owner inures to the benefit of all (Adille v. CA,
157 SCRA 455). Sylvia, however, is entitled to be reimbursed the shares of her two sisters in
the redemption price.
Antonio, Bart, and Carlos are brothers. They purchased from their parents specific portions
of a parcel of land as evidenced by three separates deeds of sale, each deed referring to a
particular lot in meter and bounds. When the deeds were presented for registration, the Register
of Deeds could not issue separate certificates of Title had to be issued, therefore, in the
names of three brothers as co- owners of the entire property. The situation has not changed
up to now, but each of the brothers has been receiving rentals exclusively from the lot
actually purchased by him. Antonio sells his lot to a third person, with notice to his brothers. To
enable the buyer to secure a new title in his name, the deed of sale was made to refer to
undivided interest in the property of the seller (Antonio), with the metes and bounds of the lot
sold being stated. Bart and Carlos reacted by signifying their exercise of their right of
redemption as co owners. Antonio in his behalf and in behalf of his buyer, contends that
they are no longer co- owners, although the title covering the property has remained in their
names as such.
May Bart and Carlos still redeem the lot sold by Antonio? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, they may not redeem because there was no Co- ownership among Antonio, Bart, and Carlos
to start with. Their parents already partitioned the land in selling separate portions to them. The
situation is the same as in the case Si v. Court of Appeals, (342 SCRA 653 [2000]).
Possession (1998)
Using a falsified manager’s check, Justine, as the buyer, was able to take delivery of a second
hand car which she had just bought from United Car Sales Inc. The sale was registered with the
Land Transportation Office. A week later, the seller learned that the check had been
dishonored, but by that time, Justine was nowhere to be seen. It turned out that Justine had sold
the car to Jerico, the present possessor who knew nothing about the falsified check. In a suit by
United Car Sales, Inc. against Jerico for recovery of the car, plaintiff alleges it had been
unlawfully deprived of its property through fraud and should, consequently, be allowed to
recover it without having to reimburse the defendant for the price the latter had paid. Should the
suit prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The suit should prosper as to the recovery of the car. However, since Jerico was not guilty of any
fraud and appears to be an innocent purchaser for value, he should be reimbursed for the price
he paid. This is without prejudice to United Car Sales, Inc. right of action against Justine. As
between two innocent parties, the party causing the injury should suffer the loss. Therefore,
United Car Sales, Inc. should suffer the loss.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, the suit will prosper because the criminal act of estafa should be deemed to come within the
meaning of unlawful deprivation under Art. 559, Civil Code, as without it plaintiff would not
have parted with the possession of its car.
ANOTHER ANSWER:
No, the suit will not prosper. The sale is valid and Jerico is a buyer in good faith.
ANOTHER ANSWER:
Under the law on Sales, when the thing sold is delivered by the seller to the buyer without
reservation of ownership, the ownership is transferred to the buyer. Therefore in the suit of
United Car Sales, Inc. against Jerico for the recovery of the car, the plaintiff should not be
allowed to recover the car without reimbursing the defendant for the price that the latter paid.
(EDCA Publishing and Distributing Corp. vs. Santos, 184 SCRA 614. April 26,
1900).
Property; Real vs. Personal Property (1995)
Salvador, a timber concessionaire, built on his lot a warehouse where he processes and stores his
timber for shipment. Adjoining the warehouse is a furniture factory owned by NARRAMIX of
which Salvador is a majority stockholder. NARRAMIX leased space in the warehouse where it
placed its furniture-making machinery.
1. How would you classify the furniture-making machinery as property under the Civil Code?
Explain.
2. Suppose the lease contract between Salvador and NARRAMIX stipulates that at the end
of the lease the machinery shall become the property of the lessor, will your answer be the same?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. The furniture-making machinery is movable property because it was not installed by

the owner of the tenement. To become immovable under Art. 415 (5) of the NCC, the
machinery must be installed by the owner of the tenement.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
It depends on the circumstances of the case. If the machinery was attached in a fixed
manner, in such a way that it cannot be separated from the tenement without breaking the
material or causing deterioration thereof, it is immovable property [Art. 415 (3), NCC]. However,
if the machinery can be transported from place to place without impairment of the tenement to
which they were fixed, then it is movable property. [Art. 416 (4), NCC]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. It is immovable property. When there is a provision in the lease contract making the lessor, at
the end of the lease, owner of the machinery installed by the lessee, the said machinery is
considered to have been installed by the lessor through the lessee who acted merely as his agent.
Having been installed by the owner of the tenement, the machinery became immovable .under
Art. 415 of the NCC. (Davao Sawmill v. Castillo 61 Phil. 709)
Property; Real vs.Personal Property (1997)
Pedro is the registered owner of a parcel of land situated in Malolos, Bulacan. In 1973, he
mortgaged the land to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) to secure a loan of P100.000.00. For
Pedro’s failure to pay the loan, the PNB foreclosed on the mortgage in 1980, and the land was
sold at public auction to PNB for being the highest bidder. PNB secured title thereto in 1987.
In the meanwhile, Pedro, who was still in possession of the land, constructed a warehouse on the
property. In 1988, the PNB sold the land to Pablo, the Deed of Sale was amended in 1989 to
include the warehouse.
Pedro, claiming ownership of the warehouse, files a complaint to annul the amended Deed of
Sale before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, where he resides, against both the PNB and
Pablo. The PNB filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for improper venue contending that the
warehouse is real property under Article 415(1) of the Civil Code and therefore the action should
have instead been filed in Malolos, Bulacan. Pedro claims otherwise. The question arose as to
whether the warehouse should be considered as real or as personal property.
If consulted, what would your legal advice be?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The warehouse which is a construction adhered to the soil is an immovable by nature under Art.
415 (1) and the proper venue of any case to recover ownership of the same, which is what the
purpose of the complaint to annul the amended Deed of Sale amounts to, should be the place
where the property is located, or the RTC of Bulacan.
ADDITIONAL ANSWERS:
1. Buildings are always immovable property, and even in the instances where the parties to a
contract seem to have dealt with it separate and apart from the land on which it stood in no wise
does it change its character as immovable property. A building is an immovable even if not
erected by the owner of the land. The only criterion is union or incorporation with the soil
(Ladera vs. Hodges (CA)48 O.G. 4374) (Reyes and Puno, Outline of Philippine Civil
Law, Vol. 2. p. 7).
2. The warehouse built by Pedro on the mortgaged property is real property within the
context of Article 415 of the New Civil Code, although it was built by Pedro after the foreclosure
sale without the knowledge and consent of the new owner which makes him a builder in bad
faith, this does not alter the character of the warehouse as a real property by incorporation. It is
a structure which cannot be removed without causing injury to the land. So, my advice to Pedro
is to file the case with the RTC of Bulacan, the situs of the property,
(Note: If the examinee does not mention that the structure was built by a builder in bad faith, it
should be given full credit).
Sower; Good Faith/ Bad Faith (2000)
Felix cultivated a parcel of land and planted it to sugar cane, believing it to be his own. When the
crop was eight months old, and harvestable after two more months, a resurvey of the land
showed that it really belonged to Fred. What are the options available to Fred?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As to the pending crops planted by Felix in good faith, Fred has the option of allowing Felix to
continue the cultivation and to harvest the crops, or to continue the cultivation and harvest the
crops himself. In the latter option, however, Felix shall have the right to a part of the
expenses of cultivation and to a part of the net harvest, both in proportion to the time of
possession (Art. 545 NCC).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Since sugarcane is not a perennial crop. Felix is considered a sower in good faith. Being so, Art.
448 applies. The options available to Fred are: (a) to appropriate the crop after paying Felix the
indemnity under Art. 546, or (b) to require Felix to pay rent.
Usufruct (1997)
On 1 January 1980, Minerva, the owner of a building, granted Petronila a usufruct over the
property until 01 June 1998 when Manuel, a son of Petronila, would have reached his 30th
birthday. Manuel, however, died on 1 June 1990 when he was only 26 years old. Minerva
notified Petronila that the usufruct had been extinguished by the death of Manuel and
demanded that the latter vacate the premises and deliver the same to the former. Petronila
refused to vacate the place on the ground that the usufruct in her favor would expire only on 1
June 1998 when Manuel would have reached his 30th birthday and that the death of Manuel
before his 30th birthday did not extinguish the usufruct.
Whose contention should be accepted?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Petronila’s contention is correct. Under Article 606 of the Civil Code, a usufruct granted for the
time that may elapse before a third person reaches a certain age shall subsist for the number of
years specified even if the third person should die unless there is an express stipulation in the
contract that states otherwise. In the case at bar, there is no express stipulation that the
consideration for the usufruct is the existence of Petronila’s son. Thus, the general rule and not
the exception should apply in this case.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
This is a usufruct which is clearly intended for the benefit of Manuel until he reaches 30 yrs. of
age with Petronila serving only as a conduit, holding the property in trust for his benefit. The
death of Manuel at the age of 26 therefore, terminated the usufruct.
From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS in CIVIL LAW by the UP

LAW COMPLEX and PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Civil Law Bar Exam Answers: Civil Law Bar Exam Answers:
Deposit Lease
Trust Conflict of Laws
Commodatum and Mutuum Quasi-Contract
Share this:
Posted in Bar Exams, Civil Law
LEAVE A REPLY
Comment
Name * Email *
Website
POST COMMENT
← PREVIOUS NEXT →
SEARCH
Law Tech World

581 likes
Like Page
Be the first of your friends to like this
POPULAR POSTS
Pokemon Revolution: How to Get to Giovanni in Silph Co Maze (27,939)

Pokemon Revolution: Eevee Mission at Game Corner Guide (20,807)
Pokemon Revolution: How to Get HM01 – Cut (17,375)
2014 Case Digest: Arigo v. Swift (16,357)
Pokemon Revolution: How to Get to Articuno in Seafoam Island (13,583)
2017 Case Digest: Estipona v. Lobrigo and People (13,476)
2015 Case Digest: Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC (12,860)
Case Digest: Estrada v. Escritor (11,610)
Case Digest: THE PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO, et al .… (11,441)
Case Digest: LA BUGAL B’LAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION… (11,314)
This work by Law Tech World is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License.
Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2019 Law Tech World.
Powered by WordPress and Live Wire.

0 - Civil Law Bar Exam Answers - Property PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

0 - Civil Law Bar Exam Answers - Property PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

0 - Civil Law Bar Exam Answers - Property PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/15/2019 Civil Law Bar Exam Answers: Property

HOME LAW NOTES + PH ELECTIONS + CASE DIGESTS + TRAVEL GAMES + TOYS

LAW TECH WORLD

CIVIL LAW BAR EXAM ANSWERS: PROPERTY

Accretion; Alluvion (2001)

Accretion; Avulsion (2003)

Builder; Good Faith (1992)

A owns a parcel of residential land worth P500,000.00 unknown to A, a residential house

a) May A acquire the house built by B? If so, how?

Give reasons for your answers.

Builder; Good Faith vs. Bad Faith (1999)

(b) Since the lot owner Y is deemed to be in bad faith

Builder; Good Faith vs. Bad Faith (2000)

1) Who is correct Pedro or Pablo?

Builder; Good Faith vs. Bad Faith; Accession (2000)

Builder; Good Faith vs. Bad Faith; Presumption (2001)

1) Is Mike a builder in good faith or bad faith? Why?

2) Whose preference should be followed? Why?

Chattel Mortgage vs. Pledge (1999)

Distinguish a contract of chattel mortgage from a contract of pledge.

In a contract of CHATTEL MORTGAGE possession belongs to the creditor, while in a contract of

A chattel mortgage is a formal contract while a pledge is a real contract.

pledged and the date thereof to bind third persons.

Chattel Mortgage; Immovables (1994)

Chattel Mortgage; Immovables (2003)

ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:

However, a bank is not an ordinary mortgagee. Unlike private individuals, a bank is

Chattel Mortgage; Possession (1993)

Chattel Mortgage; Preference of Creditors (1995)

Easement vs. Usufruct (1995)

1. What is easement? Distinguish easement from usufruct.

2. Can there be (a) an easement over a usufruct? (b) a

usufruct over an easement? (c) an easement over another easement? Explain.

1. An EASEMENT or servitude is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the

Easement is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of another

The distinctions between usufruct and easement are:

b) Usufruct may be constituted on immovable or movable property. Easement may be

NOTE: It is recommended by the Committee that any two (2) distinction

Easement; Effects; Discontinuous Easements; Permissive Use (2005)

a) Did Don acquire an easement of right of way? Explain.

c) What are the rights of the lot buyers, if any? Explain.

Easement; Nuisance; Abatement (2002)

Easements; Classification (1998)

1. Continuous and discontinuous easements;

2. Apparent and non-apparent easements; and

3. Positive and negative easements.

Easements; Right of Way (1993)

Is Tomas entitled to the easement he now demands from Aniceta?

Easements; Right of Way (2000)

Easements; Right of Way; Inseparability (2001)

Easements; Right of Way; Requisites (1996)

2) Is David entitled to a right of way in this case? Why or why not?

Ejectment Suit vs. Cancellation of Title (2005)

Ejectment Suit; Commodatum (2006)

Extra–Judicial Partition; Fraud (1990)

(b) How about fraud? Explain your answer.

Hidden Treasure (1995)

To whom shall the treasure belong? Explain.

Hidden Treasures (1997)