LAWS

(Situational)

1. 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 b. Yes, a third party may acquire by prescription the
meters. With the permission of Jose, Vicente cultivated 200 square meters, increase in area, because it is not
the said area. Ten years later, a big flood occurred in included in the Torrens Title of the riparian owner.
the river and transferred the 1000 square meters to the Hence, this does not involve the imprescriptibility
opposite bank, beside the land of Agustin. The land conferred by Section 47, P.D. No. 1529. The fact that
transferred is now contested by Jose and Agustin as the riparian land is registered does not automatically
riparian owners and by Vicente who claims ownership make the accretion thereto a registered land (Grande v.
by prescription. Who should prevail,? Why? CA, 115 521 (1962); Jagualing v. CA, 194 SCRA 607
(1991).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jose should prevail. The disputed area, which is an 3. Builder; Good Faith (1992)
alluvion, belongs by right of accretion to Jose, the
riparian owner (Art. 457 CC). When, as given in the A owns a parcel of residential land worth P500,000.00
problem, the very same area” was “transferred” by unknown to A, a residential house costing P
flood waters to the opposite bank, it became an 100,000.00 is built on the entire parcel by B who
avulsion and ownership thereof is retained by Jose who claims ownership of the land. Answer all the following
has two years to remove it (Art. 459, CC). Vicente’s questions based on the premise that B is a builder
claim based on prescription is baseless since his in good faith and A is a landowner in good faith.
possession was by mere tolerance of Jose and,
therefore, did not adversely affect Jose’s possession a) May A acquire the house built by B? If so, how?
and ownership (Art. 537, CC). Inasmuch as his b) If the land increased in value to P500,000.00 by
possession is merely that of a holder, he cannot reason of the building of the house thereon, what
acquire the disputed area by prescription. 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
2. Accretion; Avulsion (2003) and not P100,000.00, may A require B to buy the land?
d) If B voluntarily buys the land as desired by A,
Andres is a riparian owner of a parcel of registered
under what circumstances may A nevertheless be
land. His land, however, has gradually diminished in
entitled to have the house removed?
area due to the current of the river, while the registered
e) In what situation may a “forced lease” arise
land of Mario on the opposite bank has gradually
between A and B. and what terms and conditions
increased in area by 200- square meters.
would govern the lease?
(a) Who has the better right over the 200-square
Give reasons for your answers.
meter area that has been added to Mario’s registered
land, Mario or Andres?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) May a third person acquire said 200-square meter
land by prescription? (a) Yes, A may acquire the house build by B by paying
indemnity to B. Article 448 of the Civil Code provides
SUGGESTED ANSWER: that the owner of the land on which anything has been
a. Mario has a better right over the 200 square meters built, sown or planted in good faith, shall have the
increase in area by reason of accretion, applying right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or
Article 457 of the New Civil Code, which provides planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for
that “to the owners of lands adjoining the banks of in Articles 546 and 546 of the Civil Code.
rivers belong the accretion which they gradually (b) A should pay B the sum of P50,000. Article 548 of
received from the effects of the current of the the Civil Code provides that useful expenses shall be
waters”. refunded to the possessor in good faith with the right
Andres cannot claim that the increase in Mario’s land of retention, the person who has defeated him in the
is his own, because such is an accretion and not result possession having the option of refunding the amount
of the sudden detachment of a known portion of his of the expenses or of paying the increase in value
land and its attachment to Mario’s land, a process which the thing may have acquired by reason thereof.
called “avulsion”. He can no longer claim The increase in value amounts to P50,000.00.
ownership of the portion of his registered land which (c) Yes, A may require B to buy the land. Article 448
was gradually and naturally eroded due to the current of the Civil Code provides that the owner of the land
of the river, because he had lost it by operation of law. on which anything has been built in good faith shall
That portion of the land has become part of the public have the right to oblige the one who built to pay the
domain. 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 that he should be paid the current market value of the
the house removed (Depra vs. Dumlao, 136 SCRA building, which was much higher because of
475). inflation.
(e) Article 448 of the Civil Code provides that the 1) Who is correct Pedro or Pablo?
builder cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is
2) In the meantime that Pedro is not yet paid, who is
considerably more than that of the building. In such
entitled to the rentals of the building, Pedro or Pablo?
case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the
land does not choose to appropriate the building after SUGGESTED ANSWER:
proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the
terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the 1.Pablo is correct. Under Article 448 of the New Civil
court fix the terms thereof. Code in relation to Article 546, the builder in good
faith is entitled to a refund of the necessary and useful
4. Builder; Good Faith vs. Bad Faith (1999) expenses incurred by him, or the increase in value
which the land may have acquired by reason of the
(a) Because of confusion as to the boundaries of the
improvement, at the option of the landowner. The
adjoining lots that they bought from the same
builder is entitled to a refund of the expenses he
subdivision company, X constructed a house on the
incurred, and not to the market value of the
adjoining lot of Y in the honest belief that it is the land
improvement.
that he bought from the subdivision company. What
are the respective rights of X and Y with respect to X’s The case of Pecson v. CA, 244 SCRA 407, is not
house? applicable to the problem. In the Pecson case, the
builder was the owner of the land who later lost the
(b) Suppose X was in good faith but Y knew that X
property at a public sale due to non-payment of taxes.
was constructing on his (Y’s) land but simply kept
The Court ruled that Article 448 does not apply to
quiet about it, thinking perhaps that he could get X’s
the case where the owner of the land is the builder but
house later. What are the respective rights of the
who later lost the land; not being applicable, the
parties over X’s house in this case?
indemnity that should be paid to the buyer must be the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: fair market value of the building and not just the cost
of construction thereof. The Court opined in that case
(a) The rights of Y, as owner of the lot, and of X, as
that to do otherwise would unjustly enrich the new
builder of a house thereon, are governed by Art. 448 of
owner of the land.
the Civil Code which grants to Y the right to choose
between two remedies: (a) appropriate the house by ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
indemnifying X for its value plus whatever necessary
Pedro is correct. In Pecson vs. CA, it was held that
expenses the latter may have incurred for the
Article 546 of the New Civil Code does not
preservation of the land, or (b) compel X to buy the
specifically state how the value of useful
land if the price of the land is not considerably more
improvements should be determined in fixing the
than the value of the house. If it is, then X cannot be
amount of indemnity that the owner of the land should
obliged to buy the land but he shall pay reasonable
pay to the builder in good faith. Since the objective of
rent, and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the
the law is to adjust the rights of the parties in such
terms of the lease.
manner as “to administer complete justice to both of
(b) Since the lot owner Y is deemed to be in bad faith them in such a way as neither one nor the other may
(Art 453), X as the party in good faith may (a) remove enrich himself of that which does not belong to him”,
the house and demand indemnification for damages the Court ruled that the basis of reimbursement should
suffered by him, or (b) demand payment of the value be the fair market value of the building.
of the house plus reparation for damages (Art 447, in
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
relation to Art 454). Y continues as owner of the lot
and becomes, under the second option, owner of the 2) Pablo is entitled to the rentals of the building. As the
house as well, after he pays the sums demanded. owner of the land, Pablo is also the owner of the
building being an accession thereto. However, Pedro
5. Builder; Good Faith vs. Bad Faith (2000)
who is entitled to retain the building is also entitled to
In good faith, Pedro constructed a five-door retain the rentals. He, however, shall apply the
commercial building on the land of Pablo who was rentals to the indemnity payable to him after
also in good faith. When Pablo discovered the deducting reasonable cost of repair and maintenance.
construction, he opted to appropriate the building by
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
paying Pedro the cost thereof. However, Pedro insists
Pablo is entitled to the rentals. Pedro became a encroachment was done in good faith [Technogas Phils
possessor in bad faith from the time he learned that the v. CA, 268 SCRA 5, 15 (1997)].
land belongs to Pablo. As such, he loses his right to the
2) None of the preferences shall be followed. The
building, including the fruits thereof, except the right
preference of Mike cannot prevail because under
of retention.
Article 448 of the Civil Code, it is the owner of the
6. Builder; Good Faith vs. Bad Faith; land who has the option or choice, not the builder. On
Accession (2000) the other hand, the option belongs to Jose, he cannot
demand that the portion of the house encroaching on
a) Demetrio knew that a piece of land bordering the
his land be destroyed or removed because this is not
beach belonged to Ernesto. However, since the latter
one of the options given by law to the owner of the
was studying in Europe and no one was taking care of
land. The owner may choose between the
the land, Demetrio occupied the same and constructed
appropriation of what was built after payment of
thereon nipa sheds with tables and benches which he
indemnity, or to compel the builder to pay for the land
rented out to people who want to have a picnic by the
if the value of the land is not considerably more than
beach. When Ernesto returned, he demanded the return
that of the building. Otherwise, the builder shall pay
of the land. Demetrio agreed to do so after he has
rent for the portion of the land encroached.
removed the nipa sheds. Ernesto refused to let
Demetrio remove the nipa sheds on the ground that ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
these already belonged to him by right of accession.
1) Mike cannot be considered a builder in good
Who is correct?
faith because he built his house without first
SUGGESTED ANSWER: determining the corners and boundaries of his lot to
make sure that his construction was within the
Ernesto is correct, Demetrio is a builder in bad
perimeter of his property. He could have done this with
faith because he knew beforehand that the land
the help of a geodetic engineer as an ordinary prudent
belonged to Ernesto, under Article 449 of the New
and reasonable man would do under the circumstances.
Civil Code, one who builds on the land of another
loses what is built without right to indemnity. Ernesto 2) Jose’s preference should be followed. He may
becomes the owner of the nipa sheds by right of have the building removed at the expense of Mike,
accession. Hence, Ernesto is well within his right in appropriate the building as his own, oblige Mike to
refusing to allow the removal of the nipa sheds. buy the land and ask for damages in addition to any of
the three options. (Articles 449, 450, 451, CC)
7. Builder; Good Faith vs. Bad Faith;
Presumption (2001) 8. Chattel Mortgage vs. Pledge (1999)
Mike built a house on his lot in Pasay City. Two years Distinguish a contract of chattel mortgage from a
later, a survey disclosed that a portion of the building contract of pledge.
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 SUGGESTED ANSWER:
destroyed or removed. Mike replies that he is a builder In a contract of CHATTEL MORTGAGE possession
in good faith and offers to buy the land occupied by the belongs to the creditor, while in a contract of PLEDGE
building instead. possession belongs to the debtor.
1) Is Mike a builder in good faith or bad faith? Why? A chattel mortgage is a formal contract while a pledge
2) Whose preference should be followed? Why? is a real contract.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: A contract of chattel mortgage must be recorded in a

public instrument to bind third persons while a contract
1) Yes, Mike is a builder in good faith. There is no of pledge must be in a public instrument containing
showing that when he built his house, he knew that a description of the thing pledged and the date thereof to
portion thereof encroached on Jose’s lot. Unless one is bind third persons.
versed in the science of surveying, he cannot
determine the precise boundaries or location of his 9. Chattel Mortgage; Immovables (1994)
property by merely examining his title. In the absence Vini constructed a building on a parcel of land he
of contrary proof, the law presumes that the leased from Andrea. He chattel mortgaged the land
to Felicia. When he could not pay Felicia. Felicia X constructed a house on a lot which he was leasing
initiated foreclosure proceedings. Vini claimed that the from Y. Later, X executed a chattel mortgage over said
building he had constructed on the leased land cannot house in favor of Z as security for a loan obtained
be validly foreclosed because the building was, by law, from the latter. Still later, X acquired ownership of the
an immovable. land where his house was constructed, after which he
mortgaged both house and land in favor of a bank,
Is Vini correct?
which mortgage was annotated on the Torrens
SUGGESTED ANSWERS: Certificate of Title. When X failed to pay his loan to
the bank, the latter, being the highest bidder at the
a) The Chattel Mortgage is void and cannot be foreclosure sale, foreclosed the mortgage and acquired
foreclosed because the building is an immovable and X’s house and lot. Learning of the proceedings
cannot be an object of a chattel mortgage. conducted by the bank, Z is now demanding that the
b) It depends. If the building was intended and is built bank reconvey to him X’s house or pay X’s loan to him
of light materials, the chattel mortgage may be plus interests. Is Z’s demand against the bank valid and
considered as valid as between the parties and it may sustainable? Why?
be considered in respect to them as movable SUGGESTED ANSWER:
property, since it can be removed from one place to
another. But if the building is of strong material and is No, Z’s demand is not valid. A building is immovable
not capable of being removed or transferred without or real property whether it is erected by the owner of
being destroyed, the chattel mortgage is void and the land, by a usufructuary, or by a lessee. It may be
cannot be foreclosed. treated as a movable by the parties to chattel mortgage
but such is binding only between them and not on third
c) If it was the land which Vini chattel mortgaged, parties (Evangelista v. Alto Surety Col, Inc. 103 Phil.
such mortgage would be void, or at least 401 [1958]). In this case, since the bank is not a party
unenforceable, since he was not the owner of the land. to the chattel mortgage, it is not bound by it, as far as
If what was mortgaged as a chattel is the building, the the Bank is concerned, the chattel mortgage, does not
chattel mortgage is valid as between the parties only, exist. Moreover, the chattel mortgage does not exist.
on grounds of estoppel which would preclude the Moreover, the chattel mortgage is void because it was
mortgagor from assailing the contract on the ground not registered. Assuming that it is valid, it does not
that its subject- matter is an immovable. Therefore bind the Bank because it was not annotated on the title
Vini’s defense is untenable, and Felicia can foreclose of the land mortgaged to the bank. Z cannot demand
the mortgage over the building, observing, however, that the Bank pay him the loan Z extended to X,
the procedure prescribed for the execution of sale of a because the Bank was not privy to such loan
judgment debtor’s immovable under Rule 39, Rules of transaction.
Court, specifically, that the notice of auction sale
should be published in a newspaper of general
circulation. ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:

d) The problem that Vini mortgaged the land by way No, Z’s demand against the bank is not valid. His
of a chattel mortgage is untenable. Land can only be demand that the bank reconvey to him X’s house
the subject matter of a real estate mortgage and only an presupposes that he has a real right over the house.
absolute owner of real property may mortgage a parcel All that Z has is a personal right against X for
of land. (Article 2085 (2) Civil Code). Hence, there damages for breach of the contract of loan.
can be no foreclosure.
The treatment of a house, even if built on rented land,
But on the assumption that what was mortgaged by as movable property is void insofar as third persons,
way of chattel mortgage was the building on leased such as the bank, are concerned. On the other
land, then the parties are treating the building as hand, the Bank already had a real right over the house
chattel. A building that is not merely superimposed on and lot when the mortgage was annotated at the back
the ground is an immovable property and a chattel of the Torrens title. The bank later became the owner
mortgage on said building is legally void but the in the foreclosure sale. Z cannot ask the bank to pay
parties cannot be allowed to disavow their contract on for X’s loan plus interest. There is no privity of
account of estoppel by deed. However, if third parties contract between Z and the bank.
are involved such chattel mortgage is void and has no
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
effect.
10. Chattel Mortgage; Immovables (2003)
The answer hinges on whether or not the bank is Under the prevailing rulings of the Supreme Court, A
an innocent mortgagee in good faith or a mortgagee in can recover the car from the Savings and Loan
bad faith. In the former case, Z’s demand is not valid. Association provided he pays the price at which the
In the latter case, Z’s demand against the bank is valid Association bought the car at a public auction. Under
and sustainable. that doctrine, there has been an unlawful deprivation
by B of A of his car and, therefore, A can recover it
Under the Torrens system of land registration, every
from any person in possession thereof. But since it was
person dealing with registered land may rely on the
bought at a public auction in good faith by the
correctness of the certificate of title and the law will
Savings and Loan Association, he must reimburse
not in any way oblige to him to look behind or beyond
the Association at the price for which the car was
the certificate in order to determine the condition of
bought.
the title. He is not bound by anything not annotated or
reflected in the certificate. If he proceeds to buy the ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
land or accept it as a collateral relying on the
Yes, A can recover his car from the Savings and Loan
certificate, he is considered a buyer or a mortgagee in
Association. In a Chattel Mortgage, the mortgagor
good faith. On this ground, the Bank acquires a clean
must be the absolute owner of the thing mortgaged.
title to the land and the house.
Furthermore, the person constituting the mortgage
However, a bank is not an ordinary mortgagee. must have the free disposal of the property, and in the
Unlike private individuals, a bank is expected to absence thereof, must be legally authorized for the
exercise greater care and prudence in its dealings. The purpose. In the case at bar, these essential requisites
ascertainment of the condition of a property offered as did not apply to the mortgagor B, hence the Chattel
collateral for a loan must be a standard and Mortgage was not valid.
indispensable part of its operation. The bank should
12. Chattel Mortgage; Preference of Creditors
have conducted further inquiry regarding the house
(1995)
standing on the land considering that it was already
standing there before X acquired the title to the land. Lawrence, a retired air force captain, decided to go
The bank cannot be considered as a mortgagee in good into the air transport business. He purchased an aircraft
faith. On this ground, Z’s demand against the Bank is in cash except for an outstanding balance of
valid and sustainable. P500,000.00. He incurred an indebtedness of
P300,000.00 for repairs with an aircraft repair
11. Chattel Mortgage; Possession (1993)
company. He also borrowed P1 Million from a bank
A, about to leave the country on a foreign for additional capital and constituted a chattel
assignment, entrusted to B his brand new car and its mortgage on the aircraft to secure the loan.While on a
certificate of registration. Falsifying A’s signature. B test flight the aircraft crashed causing physical injuries
sold A’s car to C for P200,000.00. C then registered the to a third party who was awarded damages of
car in his name. To complete the needed amount, C P200,000.00. Lawrence’s insurance claim for damage
borrowed P100.000.00 from the savings and loan to the aircraft was denied thus leaving him nothing else
association in his office, constituting a chattel but the aircraft which was then valued only at P1
mortgage on the car. For failure of C to pay the amount Million. Lawrence was declared insolvent. Assuming
owed, the savings and loan association filed in the that the aircraft was sold for Pl Million, give the order
RTC a complaint for collection with application for of preference of the creditors of Lawrence and
issuance of a writ of replevin to obtain possession of distribute the amount of P1 Million.
the vehicle so that the chattel mortgage could be
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
foreclosed. The RTC issued the writ of replevin. The
car was then seized from C and sold by the sheriff at Assuming that the aircraft was sold for P1 Million,
public auction at which the savings and loan there is no order of preference. The P1 Million will all
association was the lone bidder. Accordingly, the car go to the bank as a chattel mortgagee because a
was sold to it. A few days later, A arrived from his chattel mortgage under Art. 2241 (4) NCC defeats Art.
foreign assignment. Learning of what happened to his 2244 (12) and (14}. Art. 2241 (3) and (5) are not
car, A sought to recover possession and ownership of it applicable because the aircraft is no longer in the
from the savings and loan association. possession of the creditor.
Can A recover his car from the savings and 13. Easement vs. Usufruct (1995)
loan association? Explain your answer.
1. What is easement? Distinguish easement from
SUGGESTED ANSWER: usufruct.
2. Can there be (a) an easement over a usufruct? (b) a (b) There can be no usufruct over an easement. While a
usufruct over an easement? (c) an easement over usufruct maybe created over a right, such right must
another easement? Explain. have an existence of its own independent of the
property. A servitude cannot be the object of a
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
usufruct because it has no existence independent of the
1. An EASEMENT or servitude is an encumbrance property to which It attaches.
imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of another
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
immovable belonging to a different owner. (Art. 613,
NCC). There cannot be a usufruct over an easement since an
easement presupposes two (2) tenements belonging to
USUFRUCT gives a right to enjoy the property of
different persons and the right attaches to the tenement
another with the obligation of preserving its form and
and not to the owner. While a usufruct gives the
substance, unless the title constituting it or the law
usufructuary a right to use, right to enjoy, right to the
otherwise provides (Art. 562, NCC).
fruits, and right to possess, an easement gives only a
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: limited use of the servient estate.

Easement is an encumbrance imposed upon an However, a usufruct can be constituted over a

immovable for the benefit of another immovable property that has in its favor an easement or one
belonging to a different owner in which case it is burdened with servitude. The usufructuary will
called real or predial easement, or for the benefit of a exercise the easement during the period of usufruct.
community or group of persons in which case it is
(c) There can be no easement over another easement
known as a personal easement.
for the same reason as in (a). An easement, although it
The distinctions between usufruct and easement are: is a real right over an immovable, is not a corporeal
right. There is a Roman maxim which says that: There
a) Usufruct includes all uses of the property and for can be no servitude over another servitude.
all purposes, including jus fruendi. Easement is limited
to a specific use. 14. Easement; Effects; Discontinuous
Easements; Permissive Use (2005)
b) Usufruct may be constituted on immovable or
movable property. Easement may be constituted only Don was the owner of an agricultural land with no
on an immovable property. access to a public road. He had been passing through
the land of Ernie with the latter’s acquiescence for over
c) Easement is not extinguished by the death of 20 years. Subsequently, Don subdivided his
the owner of the dominant estate while usufruct is property into 20 residential lots and sold them to
extinguished by the death of the usufructuary unless a different persons. Ernie blocked the pathway and
contrary intention appears. refused to let the buyers pass through his land.
d) An easement contemplates two (2) estates a) Did Don acquire an easement of right of way?
belonging to two (2) different owners; a usufruct Explain.
contemplates only one property (real or personal)
whereby the usufructuary uses and enjoys the property ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
as well as its fruits, while another owns the naked title
No, Don did not acquire an easement of right of way.
during the period of the usufruct.
An easement of right of way is discontinuous in nature
e) A usufruct may be alienated separately from — it is exercised only if a man passes over somebody’s
the property to which it attaches, while an easement land. Under Article 622 of the Civil Code,
cannot be alienated separately from the property to discontinuous easements, whether apparent or not, may
which it attaches. only be acquired by virtue of a title. The Supreme
Court, in Abellana, Sr. v. Court of Appeals (G.R. N0.
NOTE: It is recommended by the Committee that any 97039, April 24, 1992), ruled that an easement of right
two (2) distinction sshould be given full credit. of way being discontinuous in nature is not acquirable
SUGGESTED ANSWER: by prescription.

2. (a) There can be no easement over a usufruct. Since Further, possession of the easement by Don is only
an easement may be constituted only on a permissive, tolerated or with the acquiescence of
corporeal immovable property, no easement may be Ernie. It is settled in the case of Cuaycong v. Benedicto
constituted on a usufruct which is not a corporeal right. (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 constructed a waste disposal lagoon for his piggery, it
prescription. is inadequate to contain the waste water containing pig
manure, and it often overflows and inundates Lauro’s
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
plantation. This has increased the acidity of the soil in
Yes, Don acquired an easement of right of way. the plantation, causing the trees to wither and die.
An easement that is continuous and apparent can be Lauro sues for damages caused to his plantation.
acquired by prescription and title. According to Hernando invokes his right to the benefit of a natural
Professor Tolentino, an easement of right of way may easement in favor of his higher estate, which imposes
have a continuous nature if there is a degree of upon the lower estate of Lauro the obligation to
regularity to indicate continuity of possession and receive the waters descending from the higher estate.
that if coupled with an apparent sign, such easement of Is Hernando correct?
way may be acquired by prescription.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Hernando is wrong. It is true that Lauro’s land is
Yes, Ernie could close the pathway on his land. Don burdened with the natural easement to accept or
has not acquired an easement of right of way receive the water which naturally and without
either by agreement or by judicial grant. Neither did interruption of man descends from a higher estate to a
the buyers. Thus, establishment of a road or unlawful lower estate. However, Hernando has constructed a
use of the land of Ernie would constitute an invasion of waste disposal lagoon for his piggery and it is this
possessory rights of the owner, which under Article waste water that flows downward to Lauro’s land.
429 of the Civil Code may be repelled or prevented. Hernando has, thus, interrupted the flow of water and
Ernie has the right to exclude any person from the has created and is maintaining a nuisance. Under Act.
enjoyment and disposal of the land. This is an attribute 697 NCC, abatement of a nuisance does not preclude
of ownership that Ernie enjoys. recovery of damages by Lauro even for the past
existence of a nuisance.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The claim for damages may also be premised in Art.
Yes, Ernie may close the pathway, subject however, to 2191 (4) NCC.
the rights of the lot buyers. Since there is no access to
the public road, this results in the creation of a legal ANOTHER ANSWER:
easement. The lot buyers have the right to demand that
Hernando is not correct. Article 637 of the New Civil
Ernie grant them a right of way. In turn, they have the
Code provides that the owner of the higher estate
obligation to pay the value of the portion used as a
cannot make works which will increase the burden on
right of way, plus damages.
the servient estate. (Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. CA,
c) What are the rights of the lot buyers, if any? 330 SCRA 145 [2000]). The owner of the higher
Explain. estate may be compelled to pay damages to the
owner of the lower estate.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
16. Easements; Classification (1998)
Prior to the grant of an easement, the buyers of
the dominant estate have no other right than to compel Distinguish between:
grant of easement of right of way. 1. Continuous and discontinuous easements;
2. Apparent and non-apparent easements; and
Since the properties of the buyers are surrounded by 3. Positive and negative easements.
other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a
public highway and the isolation is not due to their SUGGESTED ANSWER:
acts, buyers may demand an easement of a right of
1. CONTINUOUS EASEMENTS are those the use
way provided proper indemnity is paid and the right of
of which is or may be incessant, without the
way demanded is the shortest and least prejudicial to
intervention of any act of man, while
Ernie. (Villanueva v. Velasco, G.R. No. 130845,
DISCONTINUOUS EASEMENTS are those which
November 27,2000).
are used at intervals and depend upon the acts of man.
15. Easement; Nuisance; Abatement (2002) (Art. 615, Civil Code)

Lauro owns an agricultural land planted mostly with 2. APPARENT EASEMENTS are those which are
fruit trees. Hernando owns an adjacent land made known and are continually kept in view by
devoted to his piggery business, which is two (2) external signs that reveal the use and enjoyment of the
meters higher in elevation. Although Hernando has same, while NON- APPARENT EASEMENTS are
those which show no external indication of their through a portion of the land of Romulo to bring his
existence. (Art. 615, Civil Code) coconut products to the market. He has chosen a point
where he will pass through a housing project of
3. POSITIVE EASEMENTS are those which impose
Romulo. The latter wants him to pass another way
upon the owner of the servient estate the obligation of
which is one kilometer longer. Who should prevail?
allowing something to be done or of doing it himself,
while NEGATIVE EASEMENTS are those which SUGGESTED ANSWER:
prohibit the owner of the servient estate from doing
Romulo will prevail. Under Article 650 of the New
something which he could lawfully do if the easement
Civil Code, the easement of right of way shall be
did not exist. (Art. 615. Civil Code)
established at the point least prejudicial to the servient
17. Easements; Right of Way (1993) estate and where the distance from the dominant estate
to a public highway is the shortest. In case of conflict,
Tomas Encarnacion’s 3,000 square meter parcel of
the criterion of least prejudics prevails over the
land, where he has a plant nursery, is located just
criterion of shortest distance. Since the route chosen by
behind Aniceta Magsino’s two hectare parcel land.
Federico will prejudice the housing project of Romulo,
To enable Tomas to have access to the highway,
Romulo has the right to demand that Federico pass
Aniceta agreed to grant him a road right of way a
another way even though it will be longer.
meter wide through which he could pass. Through the
years Tomas’ business flourished which enabled him to 19. Easements; Right of Way; Inseparability
buy another portion which enlarged the area of his (2001)
plant nursery. But he was still landlocked. He could
Emma bought a parcel of land from Equitable-PCI
not bring in and out of his plant nursery a jeep or
Bank, which acquired the same from Felisa, the
delivery panel much less a truck that he needed to
original owner. Thereafter, Emma discovered that
transport his seedlings. He now asked Aniceta to grant
Felisa had granted a right of way over the land in favor
him a wider portion of her property, the price of which
of the land of Georgina, which had no outlet to a
he was willing to pay, to enable him to construct a road
public highway, but the easement was not annotated
to have access to his plant nursery. Aniceta refused
when the servient estate was registered under the
claiming that she had already allowed him a previous
Torrens system. Emma then filed a complaint for
road right of way.
cancellation of the right of way, on the ground that it
Is Tomas entitled to the easement he now demands had been extinguished by such failure to annotate.
from Aniceta? How would you decide the controversy?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The complaint for cancellation of easement of right of
way must fail. The failure to annotate the easement
Art. 651 of the Civil Code provides that the width of
upon the title of the servient estate is not among the
the easement must be sufficient to meet the needs of
grounds for extinguishing an easement under Art. 631
the dominant estate, and may accordingly change from
of the Civil Code. Under Article 617, easements are
time to time. It is the need of the dominant estate
inseparable from the estate to which they actively or
which determines the width of the passage. These
passively belong. Once it attaches, it can only be
needs may vary from time to time. As Tomas’ business
extinguished under Art. 631, and they exist even if
grows, the need for use of modern conveyances
they are not stated or annotated as an encumbrance on
requires widening of the easement.
the Torrens title of the servient estate. (II Tolentino
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: 326, 1987 ed.)

The facts show that the need for a wider right of way ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
arose from the increased production owing to the
Under Section 44, PD No. 1529, every registered
acquisition by Tomas of an additional area. Under Art.
owner receiving a certificate of title pursuant to a
626 of the Civil Code, the easement can be used only
decree of registration, and every subsequent innocent
for the immovable originally contemplated. Hence, the
purchaser for value, shall hold the same free from
increase in width is justified and should have been
all encumbrances except those noted on said
granted.
certificate. This rule, however, admits of exceptions.
18. Easements; Right of Way (2000)
Under Act 496, as amended by Act No. 2011, and
The coconut farm of Federico is surrounded by the Section 4, Act 3621, an easement if not registered shall
lands of Romulo. Federico seeks a right of way remain and shall be held to pass with the land
until cutoff or extinguished by the registration of the The easement of right of way shall be established at
servient estate. However, this provision has been the point least prejudicial to the servient estate, and
suppressed in Section 44, PD No. 1529. In other insofar as consistent with this rule, where the
words, the registration of the servient estate did not distance from the dominant estate to a public highway
operate to cut-off or extinguish the right of way. may be the shortest (Art. 650, NCC: Vda. de Baltazar
Therefore, the complaint for the cancellation of the v. CA, 245 SCRA 333)
right of way should be dismissed.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
20. Easements; Right of Way; Requisites (1996)
The requisites for a compulsory easement of right of
David is the owner of the subdivision in Sta. Rosa, way are: (a) the dominant estate is surrounded by other
Laguna, without an access to the highway. When he immovables and is without an adequate outlet to a
applied for a license to establish the subdivision, David public street or highway; (b) proper indemnity must be
represented that he will purchase a rice field located paid; (c) the isolation must not be due to the acts of the
between his land and the highway, and develop it into owner of the dominant estate; and (d) the right of way
an access road. But. when the license was already claimed is at a point least prejudicial to the servient
granted, he did not bother to buy the rice field, which estate and, insofar as is consistent with this rule, where
remains unutilized until the present. Instead, he the distance to the street or highway is shortest.
chose to connect his subdivision with the neighboring
2) Is David entitled to a right of way in this case? Why
subdivision of Nestor, which has an access to the
or why not?
highway. Nestor allowed him to do this, pending
negotiations on the compensation to be paid. When SUGGESTED ANSWER:
they failed to arrive at an agreement, Nestor built a
wall across the road connecting with David’s No, David is not entitled to the right of way being
subdivision. David filed a complaint in court, for the claimed. The isolation of his subdivision was due to
establishment of an easement of right of way through his own act or omission because he did not develop
the subdivision of Nestor which he claims to be the into an access road the rice field which he was
most adequate and practical outlet to the highway. supposed to purchase according to his own
representation when he applied for a license to
1) What are the requisites for the establishment of a establish the subdivision (Florous v. Llenado, 244
compulsory easement of a right of way? SCRA 713).
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 21. Ejectment Suit vs. Cancellation of Title
(2005)
Art, 649, NCC. The owner, or any person who by
virtue of a real right may cultivate or use any In an ejectment case filed by Don against Cesar, can
immovable which is surrounded by other the latter ask for the cancellation of Don’s title
immovables pertaining to other persons and considering that he (Cesar) is the rightful owner of the
without adequate outlet to a public highway, is entitled lot? Explain.
to demand a right of way through the neighboring
estates, after payment of the property indemnity. SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Should this easement be established in such a manner Cesar cannot ask for the cancellation of Don’s title
that its use may be continuous for all the needs of the even if he is the rightful owner of the lot. In an
dominant estate, establishing a permanent passage, the action for ejectment, the only issue involved is one of
indemnity shall consist of the value of the land possession de facto, the purpose of which is merely to
occupied and the amount of the damage caused to the protect the owner from any physical encroachment
servient estate. from without. The title of the land or its ownership is
not involved, for if a person is in actual possession
In case the right of way is limited to the necessary thereof, he is entitled to be maintained and respected in
passage for the cultivation of the estate surrounded by it even against the owner himself. (Garcia v. Anas,
others and for the gathering of its crops through the G.R. No. L-20617, May 31,1965)
servient estate without a permanent way, the indemnity
shall consist in the payment of the damage cause by Since the case filed by Don against Cesar is an
such encumbrance. ejectment case, the latter cannot ask for the
cancellation of Don’s title. He has to file the proper
This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the action where the issue of ownership over the
immovable is due to the proprietor’s own acts (564a). property can be raised.
22. Ejectment Suit; Commodatum (2006)
Alberto and Janine migrated to the United States (b) In the case of fraud, when through insidious words
of America, leaving behind their 4 children, one of or machinations of one party the other is induced to
whom is Manny. They own a duplex apartment and enter into the contract without which he would not
allowed Manny to live in one of the units. While have agreed to, the action still prosper because under
in the United States, Alberto died. His widow and all Art, 1391 of the Civil Code, in case of fraud, the action
his children executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of for annulment may be brought within four years from
Alberto’s estate wherein the 2- door apartment was the discovery of the fraud.
assigned by all the children to their mother, Janine.
24. Hidden Treasure (1995)
Subsequently, she sold the property to George. The
latter required Manny to sign a prepared Lease Tim came into possession of an old map showing
Contract so that he and his family could continue where a purported cache of gold bullion was hidden.
occupying the unit. Manny refused to sign the contract Without any authority from the government Tim
alleging that his parents allowed him and his family to conducted a relentless search and finally found the
continue occupying the premises. treasure buried in a new river bed formerly part of a
parcel of land owned by spouses Tirso and Tessie. The
If you were George’s counsel, what legal steps will
old river which used to cut through the land of spouses
you take? Explain.
Ursula and Urbito changed its course through natural
SUGGESTED ANSWER: causes.
If I were George’s counsel, I would first demand To whom shall the treasure belong? Explain.
that Manny vacate the apartment. If Manny refuses, I
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
will file an ejectment suit. When Manny was allowed
by his parents to occupy the premises, without The treasure was found in a property of public
compensation, the contract of commodatum was dominion, the new river bed. Since Tim did not have
created. Upon the death of the father, the contract was authority from the government and, therefore, was a
extinguished as it is a purely personal contract. As the trespasser, he is not entitled to the one-half share
new owner of the apartment George is entitled to allotted to a finder of hidden treasure. All of it will go
exercise his right of possession over the same. to the State. In addition, under Art. 438 of the NCC in
order that the finder be entitled to the 1/2 share, the
23. Extra–Judicial Partition; Fraud (1990)
treasure must be found by chance, that is by sheer luck.
X was the owner of a 10,000 square meter property. X In this case, since Tim found the treasure not by
married Y and out of their union. A, B and C were chance but because he relentlessly searched for it, he is
born. After the death of Y, X married Z and they not entitled to any share in the hidden treasure.
begot as children, D, E and F. After the death of X, the
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
children of the first and second marriages executed an
extrajudicial partition of the aforestated property on The law grants a one-half share to a finder of
May 1, 1970. D, E and F were given a one thousand hidden treasure provided he is not a trespasser and the
square meter portion of the property. They were minors finding is by chance. It is submitted that Tim is not a
at the time of the execution of the document. D was 17 trespasser despite his not getting authority from the
years old, E was 14 and F was 12; and they were made government, because the new river bed where he found
to believe by A, B and C that unless they sign the the treasure is property for public use (Art. 420
document they will not get any share. Z was not NCC), to which the public has legitimate access.
present then. In January 1974, D, E and F filed an The question, therefore, boils down to whether or not
action in court to nullify the suit alleging they the finding was by chance in view of the fact that Tim
discovered the fraud only in 1973. “conducted a relentless search” before finding the
treasure. The strict or literal view holds that deliberate
(a) Can the minority of D, E and F be a basis to nullify
the partition? Explain your answer. or intentional search precludes entitlement to the
(b) How about fraud? Explain your answer. one-half share allotted by law to the finder since the
phrase “by chance” means “by accident”, meaning an
SUGGESTED ANSWER: unexpected discovery. The liberal view, however,
would sustain Tim’s right to the allocated share
(a) Yes, minority can be a basis to nullify the partition interpreting the phrase in question as meaning “by a
because D, E and F were not properly represented by stroke of good fortune”, which does not rule out
their parents or guardians at the time they contracted deliberate or intentional search. It is submitted that the
the extra- judicial partition. (Articles 1327. 1391, Civil liberal view should prevail since in practical reality,
Code). hidden treasure is hardly ever found without
conscious effort to find it, and the strict view would 3. The main rule is that hidden treasure belongs to the
tend to render the codal provision in question illusory. owner of the land, building or other property on which
it is found. If it is found by chance by a third person
25. Hidden Treasures (1997)
and he is not a trespasser, he is entitled to one-half
Marcelino, a treasure hunter as just a hobby, has found (1/2). If he is a trespasser, he loses everything.
a map which appears to indicate the location of hidden
26. Mortgage; Pactum Commissorium (1999)
treasure. He has an idea of the land where the treasure
might possibly be found. Upon inquiry, Marcelino (a) X borrowed money from Y and gave a piece of
learns that the owner of the land, Leopoldo, is a land as security by way of mortgage. It was
permanent resident of Canada, Nobody, however, expressly agreed between the parties in the mortgage
could give him Leopoldo’s exact address. Ultimately, contract that upon nonpayment of the debt on time by
anyway, he enters the land and conducts a search. He X, the mortgaged land would already belong to Y. If X
succeeds. defaulted in paying, would Y now become the owner
of the mortgaged land? Why?
Leopoldo learning of Marcelino’s “find”, seeks to
recover the treasure from Marcelino but the latter is (b) Suppose in the preceding question, the agreement
not willing to part with it. Failing to reach an between X and Y was that if X failed to pay the
agreement, Leopoldo sues Marcelino for the recovery mortgage debt on time, the debt shall be paid with the
of the property. Marcelino contests the action. land mortgaged by X to Y. Would your answer be the
same as in the preceding question? Explain.
How would you decide the case?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) No, Y would not become the owner of the land.
I would decide in favor of Marcelino since he is
The stipulation is in the nature of pactum
considered a finder by chance of the hidden treasure,
commissorium which is prohibited by law. The
hence, he is entitled to one-half (1/2) of the hidden
property should be sold at public auction and the
treasure. While Marcelino may have had the
proceeds thereof applied to the indebtedness. Any
intention to look for the hidden treasure, still he is a
excess shall be given to the mortgagor.
finder by chance since it is enough that he tried to look
for it. By chance in the law does not mean sheer luck (b) No, the answer would not be the same. This is a
such that the finder should have no intention at all to valid stipulation and does not constitute pactum
look for the treasure. By chance means good luck, commissorium. In pactum commissorium, the
implying that one who intentionally looks for the acquisition is automatic without need of any further
treasure is embraced in the provision. The reason is action. In the instant problem another act is required to
that it is extremely difficult to find hidden treasure be performed, namely, the conveyance of the property
without looking for it deliberately. as payment (dacion en pago).
Marcelino is not a trespasser since there is no 27. Mortgage; Pactum Commissorium (2001)
prohibition for him to enter the premises, hence, he is
To secure a loan obtained from a rural bank, Purita
entitled to half of the treasure.
assigned her leasehold rights over a stall in the public
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS: market in favor of the bank. The deed of assignment
provides that in case of default in the payment of the
1. Marcelino did not find the treasure by chance
loan, the bank shall have the right to sell Purita’s rights
because he had a map, he knew the location of the
over the market stall as her attorney-in-fact, and to
hidden treasure and he intentionally looked for the
apply the proceeds to the payment of the loan.
treasure, hence, he is not entitled to any part of the
treasure. 1) Was the assignment of leasehold rights a mortgage
or a cession? Why?
2. Marcelino appears to be a trespasser and although
there may be a question of whether he found it by 2) Assuming the assignment to be a mortgage, does
chance or not, as he has found the hidden treasure by the provision giving the bank the power to sell Purita’s
means of a treasure map, he will not be entitled to a rights constitute pactum commissorium or not? Why?
finder’s share. The hidden treasure shall belong to the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
owner.
1) The assignment was a mortgage, not a cession, of 695, citing Wheeler v. River Falls Power Co., 215 Ala.
the leasehold rights. A cession would have 655,111 So. 907).
transferred ownership to the bank. However, the grant
30. Nuisance; Public Nuisance vs.Private
of authority to the bank to sell the leasehold rights in
Nuisance (2005)
case of default is proof that no such ownership was
transferred and that a mere encumbrance was State with reason whether each of the following is
constituted. There would have been no need for such a nuisance, and if so, give its classification, whether
authority had there been a cession. public or private: Article 694 of the Civil Code defines
nuisance as any act, omission, establishment, business,
2) No, the clause in question is not a pactum
condition or property, or anything else which injures or
commissorium. It is pactum commissorium when
endangers the health or safety of others, or annoys or
default in the payment of the loan automatically vests
offends the senses, or shocks, defies or disregards
ownership of the encumbered property in the bank. In
decency or morality or obstructs or interferes with the
the problem given, the bank does not automatically
free passage of any public highway or street or any
become owner of the property upon default of the
body of water or hinders or impairs the use of property.
mortgagor. The bank has to sell the property and
apply the proceeds to the indebtedness. 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
28. Mortgage; Right of Redemption vs.Equity
number of persons. It violates only private rights.
of Redemption (1999)
a) A squatter’s hut
Are the right of redemption and the equity of
redemption given by law to a mortgagor the same? If constructed on public streets or riverbeds, it is a
Explain. public nuisance because it obstructs the free use by the
public of said places. (City of Manila v. Garcia, G.R.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. L-26053, February 21, 1967). If constructed on
The equity of redemption is different from the right private land, it is a private nuisance because it hinders
of redemption. EQUITY OF REDEMPTION is the or impairs the use of the property by the owner.
right of the mortgagor after judgment in a judicial
b) A swimming pool
foreclosure to redeem the property by paying to the
court the amount of the judgment debt before the sale This is not a nuisance in the absence of any
or confirmation of the sale. On the other hand, RIGHT unusual condition or artificial feature other than the
OF REDEMPTION is the right of the mortgagor to mere water. In Hidalgo Enterprises v. Balandan (G.R.
redeem the property sold at an extra-judicial No. L-3422, June 13, 1952), the Supreme Court ruled
foreclosure by paying to the buyer in the foreclosure that a swimming pool is but a duplication of nature —
sale the amount paid by the buyer within one year from thus, could not be considered as a nuisance.
such sale.
c) A house of prostitution
29. Nuisance; Family House; Not Nuisance per
Irrespective of its location and how its
se (2006)
business is conducted, it is a nuisance since it defies,
A drug lord and his family reside in a small bungalow shocks and disregards decency and morality. It is a
where they sell shabu and other prohibited drugs. public nuisance because of its injury to the public.
When the police found the illegal trade, they
d) A noisy o rdangerous factory in a privateland
immediately demolished the house because according
to them, it was a nuisance per se that should be abated. If the noise injuriously affects the health and comfort
Can this demolition be sustained? Explain. of ordinary people in the vicinity to an unreasonable
extent, it is a nuisance. It is a public nuisance
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
because there is a tendency to annoy the public.
No, the demolition cannot be sustained. The house is (Velasco v. Manila Electric Co., G.R. No. L-18390,
not a nuisance per se or at law as it is not an act, August 6,1971)
occupation, or structure which is a nuisance at all times
e) Uncollected garbage
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.
It will become a nuisance if it substantially (d) C’s sole decision to build the grotto is not binding
impairs the comfort and enjoyment of the adjacent upon A and B who cannot be required to contribute to
occupants. The annoyance and the smell must be the expenses for the embellishment of the thing owned
substantial as to interfere sensibly with the use and in common if not decided upon by the majority of the
enjoyment by persons of ordinary sensibilities. It is a co- owners who represent the controlling interest (Arts.
public nuisance because of its injury to the public. 489 and 492, Civil Code).
31. Ownership; Co-Ownership (1992) (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
A, B and C are the co-owners in equal shares of a
in the land (Art. 493, Civil Code). B shall have the
residential house and lot. During their co-ownership,
right to redeem the 2/3 share sold to X by A and C
the following acts were respectively done by the co-
since X is a third person (Art. 1620, Civil Code).
owners:
1) A undertook the repair of the foundation of the
32. Ownership; Co-Ownership; Prescription
house, then tilting to one side, to prevent the house
(2000)
from collapsing.
2) B and C mortgaged the house and lot to secure a In 1955, Ramon and his sister Rosario inherited a
loan. parcel of land in Albay from their parents. Since
3) B engaged a contractor to build a concrete fence all Rosario was gainfully employed in Manila, she left
around the lot.
Ramon alone to possess and cultivate the land.
4) C built a beautiful grotto in the garden.
However, Ramon never shared the harvest with
5) A and C sold the land to X for a very good price.
Rosario and was even able to sell one-half of the land
(a) Is A’s sole decision to repair the foundation of the in 1985 by claiming to be the sole heir of his parents.
house binding on B and C? May A require B and C to Having reached retirement age in 1990 Rosario
contribute their 2/3 share of the expense? Reasons. returned to the province and upon learning what had
(b) What is the legal effect of the mortgage contract transpired, demanded that the remaining half of the
executed by B and C? Reasons. land be given to her as her share. Ramon opposed,
(c) Is B’s sole decision to build the fence binding asserting that he has already acquired ownership of the
upon A and C? May B require A and C to contribute land by prescription, and that Rosario is barred by
their 2/ 3 share of the expense? Reasons. laches from demanding partition and reconveyance.
(d) Is C’s sole decision to build the grotto binding Decide the conflicting claims.
upon A and B? May C require A and B to contribute
their 2/ 3 share of the expense? Reasons. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(e) What are the legal effects of the contract of sale
executed by A. C and X? Reasons. Ramon is wrong on both counts: prescription and
laches. His possession as co-owner did not give rise to
SUGGESTED ANSWER: acquisitive prescription. Possession by a co-owner is
deemed not adverse to the other co-owners but is, on
(a) Yes. A’s sole decision to repair the the contrary, deemed beneficial to them (Pongon v.
foundation is binding upon B and C. B and C must GA, 166 SCRA 375). Ramon’s possession will become
contribute 2/3 of the expense. Each co-owner has the adverse only when he has repudiated the co-
right to compel the other co-owners to contribute to the ownership and such repudiation was made known to
expense of preservation of the thing (the house) owned Rosario. Assuming that the sale in 1985 where Ramon
in common in proportion to their respective interests claimed he was the sole heir of his parents amounted to
(Arts. 485 and 488, Civil Code). a repudiation of the co-ownership, the prescriptive
(b) The mortgage shall not bind the 1/3 right and period began to run only from that time. Not more than
interest of A and shall be deemed to cover only the 30 years having lapsed since then, the claim of Rosario
rights and interests of B and C in the house and lot. has not as yet prescribed. The claim of laches is not
The mortgage shall be limited to the portion (2/3) also meritorious. Until the repudiation of the co-
which may be allotted to B and C in the partition (Art. ownership was made known to the other co-owners, no
493, Civil Code). right has been violated for the said co-owners to
vindicate. Mere delay in vindicating the right, standing
(c) B’s sole decision to build the concrete fence is alone, does not constitute laches.
not binding upon A and C. Expenses to improve the
thing owned in common must be decided upon by a ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
majority of the co-owners who represent the Ramon has acquired the land by acquisitive
controlling interest (Arts. 489 and 492. Civil Code). prescription, and because of laches on the part of
Rosario. Ramon’s possession of the land was adverse marriage, and C and D, daughters by a second
because he asserted sole ownership thereof and never marriage. In 1940, the bank foreclosed the mortgage
shared the harvest therefrom. His adverse possession for non-payment of the principal obligation. As the
having been continuous and uninterrupted for more only bidder at the extrajudicial foreclosure sale, the
than 30 years, Ramon has acquired the land by bank bought the property and was later issued a
prescription. Rosario is also guilty of laches not having certificate of sale. The war supervened in 1941 without
asserted her right to the harvest for more than 40 years. 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.
33. Ownership; Co-Ownership; Prescription Government, and utilized the same in agribusiness. In
(2002) 1960, as B’s business flourished, C and D sued B
Senen and Peter are brothers. Senen migrated to for partition and accounting of the income of the
Canada early while still a teenager. Peter stayed in property, claiming that as heirs of their father they
Bulacan to take care of their widowed mother and were co-owners thereof and offering to reimburse B
continued to work on the Family farm even after her for whatever he had paid in purchasing the property
death. Returning to the country some thirty years after from the bank.
he had left, Senen seeks a partition of the farm to get In brief, how will you answer the complaint of C and
his share as the only co-heir of Peter. Peter interposes D, if you were engaged by D as his counsel?
his opposition, contending that acquisitive
prescription has already set in and that estoppel lies to SUGGESTED ANSWER:
bar the action for partition, citing his continuous
As counsel of B, I shall answer the complaint as
possession of the property for at least 10 years, for
follows: When B bought the property, it was not by a
almost 30 years in fact. It is undisputed that Peter has
right of redemption since the period therefore had
never openly claimed sole ownership of the property.
already expired. Hence, B bought the property in an
If he ever had the intention to do so, Senen was
independent unconditional sale. C and D are not co-
completely ignorant of it. Will Senen’s action prosper?
owners with B of the property. Therefore, the suit of
Explain.
C and D cannot prosper.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Senen’s action will prosper. Article 494 of the New
As counsel of B, I shall answer the complaint as
Civil Code provides that “no prescription shall run in
follows: From the facts described, it would
favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or
appear that the Certificate of sale has not been
co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly
registered. The one-year period of redemption begins
recognizes the co- ownership nor notified Senen of his
to run from registration. In this case, it has not yet even
having repudiated the same.
commenced. Under the Rules of Court, the property
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: may be released by the Judgment debtor or his
successor in interest. (Sec. 29, Rule 27). It has been
Senen’s action will prosper. This is a case of implied held that this includes a joint owner. (Ref. Magno vs.
trust. (Art 1441, NCC) For purposes of prescription Ciola, 61 Phil. 80).
under the concept of an owner (Art. 540, NCC). There
is no such concept here. Peter was a co-owner, he 35. Ownership; Co-Ownership; Redemption
never claimed sole ownership of the property. He is (2000)
therefore estopped under Art. 1431, NCC.
Ambrosio died, leaving his three daughters, Belen,
34. Ownership; Co-Ownership; Redemption Rosario and Sylvia a hacienda which was
(1993) mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank due to
the failure of the daughters to pay the bank, the latter
In 1937, A obtained a loan of P20,000.00 from the foreclosed the mortgage and the hacienda was sold to
National City Bank of New York, an American-owned it as the highest bidder. Six months later, Sylvia won
bank doing business in the Philippines. To guarantee the grand prize at the lotto and used part of it to
payment of his obligation, A constituted a real estate redeem the hacienda from the bank. Thereafter, she
mortgage on his 30- hectare parcel of agricultural land. took possession of the hacienda and refused to share its
In 1939, before he could pay his obligation. A died fruits with her sisters, contending that it was owned
intestate leaving three children. B, a son by a first
exclusively by her, having bought it from the bank Using a falsified manager’s check, Justine, as the
with her own money. Is she correct or not? buyer, was able to take delivery of a second hand car
which she had just bought from United Car Sales Inc.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The sale was registered with the Land Transportation
Sylvia is not correct. The 3 daughters are the co- Office. A week later, the seller learned that the check
owners of the hacienda being the only heirs of had been dishonored, but by that time, Justine was
Ambrosio. When the property was foreclosed, the right nowhere to be seen. It turned out that Justine had sold
of redemption belongs also to the 3 daughters. When the car to Jerico, the present possessor who knew
Sylvia redeemed the entire property before the lapse of nothing about the falsified check. In a suit by United
the redemption period, she also exercised the right of Car Sales, Inc. against Jerico for recovery of the car,
redemption of her co-owners on their behalf. As such plaintiff alleges it had been unlawfully deprived of its
she is holding the shares of her two sisters in the property through fraud and should, consequently, be
property, and all the fruits corresponding thereto, in allowed to recover it without having to reimburse the
trust for them. Redemption by one co-owner inures to defendant for the price the latter had paid. Should the
the benefit of all (Adille v. CA, 157 SCRA 455). suit prosper?
Sylvia, however, is entitled to be reimbursed the shares
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of her two sisters in the redemption price.
The suit should prosper as to the recovery of the car.
36. Ownership; Co-Ownership; Redemption
However, since Jerico was not guilty of any fraud and
(2002)
appears to be an innocent purchaser for value, he
Antonio, Bart, and Carlos are brothers. They should be reimbursed for the price he paid. This is
purchased from their parents specific portions of a without prejudice to United Car Sales, Inc. right of
parcel of land as evidenced by three separates deeds of action against Justine. As between two innocent
sale, each deed referring to a particular lot in meter and parties, the party causing the injury should suffer the
bounds. When the deeds were presented for loss. Therefore, United Car Sales, Inc. should suffer
registration, the Register of Deeds could not issue the loss.
separate certificates of Title had to be issued,
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
therefore, in the names of three brothers as co- owners
of the entire property. The situation has not Yes, the suit will prosper because the criminal act of
changed up to now, but each of the brothers has estafa should be deemed to come within the meaning
been receiving rentals exclusively from the lot actually of unlawful deprivation under Art. 559, Civil Code,
purchased by him. Antonio sells his lot to a third as without it plaintiff would not have parted with the
person, with notice to his brothers. To enable the buyer possession of its car.
to secure a new title in his name, the deed of sale was
ANOTHER ANSWER:
made to refer to undivided interest in the property of
the seller (Antonio), with the metes and bounds of the No, the suit will not prosper. The sale is valid and
lot sold being stated. Bart and Carlos reacted by Jerico is a buyer in good faith.
signifying their exercise of their right of redemption
as co owners. Antonio in his behalf and in behalf ANOTHER ANSWER:
of his buyer, contends that they are no longer co- Under the law on Sales, when the thing sold is
owners, although the title covering the property delivered by the seller to the buyer without reservation
has remained in their names as such. of ownership, the ownership is transferred to the buyer.
May Bart and Carlos still redeem the lot sold by Therefore in the suit of United Car Sales, Inc. against
Antonio? Explain. Jerico for the recovery of the car, the plaintiff should
not be allowed to recover the car without reimbursing
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the defendant for the price that the latter paid. (EDCA
Publishing and Distributing Corp. vs. Santos, 184
No, they may not redeem because there was no Co-
SCRA 614. April 26, 1900).
ownership among Antonio, Bart, and Carlos to start
with. Their parents already partitioned the land in 38. Property; Real vs. Personal Property (1995)
selling separate portions to them. The situation is the
same as in the case Si v. Court of Appeals, (342 SCRA Salvador, a timber concessionaire, built on his lot a
653 [2000]). warehouse where he processes and stores his timber
for shipment. Adjoining the warehouse is a furniture
37. Possession (1998) factory owned by NARRAMIX of which Salvador is a
majority stockholder. NARRAMIX leased space in the
warehouse where it placed its furniture-making and Pablo. The PNB filed a motion to dismiss the
machinery. complaint for improper venue contending that the
warehouse is real property under Article 415(1) of the
1. How would you classify the furniture-making
Civil Code and therefore the action should have
machinery as property under the Civil Code? Explain.
instead been filed in Malolos, Bulacan. Pedro claims
2. Suppose the lease contract between Salvador otherwise. The question arose as to whether the
and NARRAMIX stipulates that at the end of the lease warehouse should be considered as real or as personal
the machinery shall become the property of the lessor, property. If consulted, what would your legal advice
will your answer be the same? Explain. be?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1. The furniture-making machinery is movable The warehouse which is a construction adhered to the
property because it was not installed by the soil is an immovable by nature under Art. 415 (1) and
owner of the tenement. To become immovable under the proper venue of any case to recover ownership of
Art. 415 (5) of the NCC, the machinery must be the same, which is what the purpose of the complaint
installed by the owner of the tenement. to annul the amended Deed of Sale amounts to, should
be the place where the property is located, or the RTC
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: of Bulacan.
It depends on the circumstances of the case. If ADDITIONAL ANSWERS:
the machinery was attached in a fixed manner, in such
a way that it cannot be separated from the tenement 1. Buildings are always immovable property, and
without breaking the material or causing deterioration even in the instances where the parties to a contract
thereof, it is immovable property [Art. 415 (3), NCC]. seem to have dealt with it separate and apart from the
However, if the machinery can be transported from land on which it stood in no wise does it change its
place to place without impairment of the tenement to character as immovable property. A building is an
which they were fixed, then it is movable property. immovable even if not erected by the owner of the
[Art. 416 (4), NCC] land. The only criterion is union or incorporation with
the soil (Ladera vs. Hodges (CA)48 O.G. 4374)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (Reyes and Puno, Outline of Philippine Civil Law, Vol.
2. It is immovable property. When there is a provision 2. p. 7).
in the lease contract making the lessor, at the end of 2. The warehouse built by Pedro on the
the lease, owner of the machinery installed by the mortgaged property is real property within the context
lessee, the said machinery is considered to have been of Article 415 of the New Civil Code, although it was
installed by the lessor through the lessee who acted built by Pedro after the foreclosure sale without the
merely as his agent. Having been installed by the knowledge and consent of the new owner which makes
owner of the tenement, the machinery became him a builder in bad faith, this does not alter the
immovable .under Art. 415 of the NCC. (Davao character of the warehouse as a real property by
Sawmill v. Castillo 61 Phil. 709) incorporation. It is a structure which cannot be
39. Property; Real vs.Personal Property (1997) removed without causing injury to the land. So, my
advice to Pedro is to file the case with the RTC of
Pedro is the registered owner of a parcel of land Bulacan, the situs of the property,
situated in Malolos, Bulacan. In 1973, he mortgaged
the land to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) to (Note: If the examinee does not mention that the
secure a loan of P100.000.00. For Pedro’s failure to structure was built by a builder in bad faith, it should
pay the loan, the PNB foreclosed on the mortgage in be given full credit).
1980, and the land was sold at public auction to PNB 40. Sower; Good Faith/ Bad Faith (2000)
for being the highest bidder. PNB secured title thereto
in 1987. In the meanwhile, Pedro, who was still in Felix cultivated a parcel of land and planted it to sugar
possession of the land, constructed a warehouse on the cane, believing it to be his own. When the crop was
property. In 1988, the PNB sold the land to Pablo, the eight months old, and harvestable after two more
Deed of Sale was amended in 1989 to include the months, a resurvey of the land showed that it really
warehouse. Pedro, claiming ownership of the belonged to Fred. What are the options available to
warehouse, files a complaint to annul the amended Fred?
Deed of Sale before the Regional Trial Court of
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Quezon City, where he resides, against both the PNB
As to the pending crops planted by Felix in good faith, A is the owner of a lot on which he constructed a
Fred has the option of allowing Felix to continue the building in the total cost of P10,000,000.00. Of
cultivation and to harvest the crops, or to continue the that amount B contributed P5,000,000.00 provided
cultivation and harvest the crops himself. In the latter that the building as a whole would be leased to him (B)
option, however, Felix shall have the right to a for a period of ten years from January 1. 1985 to
part of the expenses of cultivation and to a part of December 31, 1995 at a rental of P100,000.00 a year.
the net harvest, both in proportion to the time of To such condition, A agreed. On December 20,
possession (Art. 545 NCC). 1990, the building was totally burned. Soon thereafter,
A’s workers cleared the debris and started
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
construction of a new building. B then served notice
Since sugarcane is not a perennial crop. Felix is upon A that he would occupy the building being
considered a sower in good faith. Being so, Art. 448 constructed upon completion, for the unexpired portion
applies. The options available to Fred are: (a) to of the lease term, explaining that he had spent
appropriate the crop after paying Felix the indemnity partly for the construction of the building that was
under Art. 546, or (b) to require Felix to pay rent. burned. A rejected B’s demand. Did A has a right in
rejecting B’s demand?
41. Usufruct (1997)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
On 1 January 1980, Minerva, the owner of a
building, granted Petronila a usufruct over the property Yes. A was correct in rejecting the demand of B. As a
until 01 June 1998 when Manuel, a son of Petronila, result of the total destruction of the building by
would have reached his 30th birthday. Manuel, fortuitous event, the lease was extinguished. (Art.
however, died on 1 June 1990 when he was only 26 1655, Civil Code.)
years old. Minerva notified Petronila that the usufruct
43. Implied New Lease (1999)
had been extinguished by the death of Manuel and
demanded that the latter vacate the premises and Under what circumstances would an implied new lease
deliver the same to the former. Petronila refused to or a tacita reconduccion arise?
vacate the place on the ground that the usufruct in her
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
favor would expire only on 1 June 1998 when Manuel
would have reached his 30th birthday and that the An implied new lease or tacita reconduccion arises if
death of Manuel before his 30th birthday did not at the end of the contract the lessee should continue
extinguish the usufruct. enjoying the thing leased for 15 days with the
acquiescence of the lessor, and unless a notice to the
Whose contention should be accepted?
contrary by either parties has previously been given
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (Art. 1670). In short, in order that there may be tacita
reconduccion there must be expiration of the contract;
Petronila’s contention is correct. Under Article 606 of
there must be continuation of possession for 15 days or
the Civil Code, a usufruct granted for the time that
more; and there must be no prior demand to vacate.
may elapse before a third person reaches a certain age
shall subsist for the number of years specified even 44. Lease of Rural Lands (2000)
if the third person should die unless there is an
In 1995, Mark leased the rice land of Narding in
express stipulation in the contract that states otherwise.
Nueva Ecija for an annual rental of P1,000.00 per
In the case at bar, there is no express stipulation that
hectare. In 1998, due to the El Nino phenomenon, the
the consideration for the usufruct is the existence of
rice harvest fell to only 40% of the average harvest for
Petronila’s son. Thus, the general rule and not the
the previous years. Mark asked Narding for a reduction
exception should apply in this case.
of the rental to P500.00 per hectare for that year but
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: the latter refused. Is Mark legally entitled to such
reduction?
This is a usufruct which is clearly intended for the
benefit of Manuel until he reaches 30 yrs. of age with SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Petronila serving only as a conduit, holding the
No, Mark is not entitled to a reduction. Under Article
property in trust for his benefit. The death of Manuel at
1680 of the Civil Code, the lessee of a rural land is
the age of 26 therefore, terminated the usufruct.
entitled to a reduction of the rent only in case of loss of
42. Extinguishment; Total Destruction; Leased more than 1/2 of the fruits through extraordinary
Property (1993) and unforeseen fortuitous events. While the drought
brought about by the “El Nino” phenomenon may be
classified as extraordinary, it is not considered as building even though the principal thing may suffer
unforeseen. damage but B should not cause any more impairment
upon the property leased than is necessary. The
claim of B that he was a possessor and builder in
good faith with the right of retention is not
tenable. B is not a builder in good faith because as
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: lessee he does not claim ownership over the property
Yes, Mark is entitled to a reduction of the rent. His loss leased.
was more than 1/2 of the fruits and the loss was due to b) The landowner/lessor may refuse to reimburse 1/2
an extraordinary and unforeseen fortuitous event. The of the value of the improvements and require the lessee
“El Nino” phenomenon is extraordinary because it is to remove the improvements. [Article 1678, Civil
uncommon; it does not occur with regularity. And Code),
neither could the parties have foreseen its occurrence.
The event should be foreseeable by the parties so that 46. Leasee; Death Thereof; Effects (1997)
the lessee can change the time for his planting, or
Stating briefly the thesis to support your answer to
refrain from planting, or take steps to avoid the loss.
each of the following cases, will the death – a) of
To be foreseeable, the time and the place of the
the lessee extinguish the lease agreement?
occurrence, as well as the magnitude of the adverse
effects of the fortuitous event must be capable of being SUGGESTED ANSWER:
predicted. Since the exact place, the exact time, and the
No. The death of the lessee will not extinguish the
exact magnitude of the adverse effects of the “El Nino”
lease agreement, since lease is not personal in
phenomenon are still unpredictable despite the
character and the right is transmissible to the heirs.
advances in science, the phenomenon is considered
(Heirs of Dimaculangan vs. IAC, 170 SCRA 393).
unforeseen.
47. Option to Buy; Expired (2001)
45. Leasee & Lessor; Rights and Obligations
(1990) On January 1, 1980, Nestor leased the fishpond of
Mario for a period of three years at a monthly rental of
A vacant lot several blocks from the center of the town
P1,000.00, with an option to purchase the same during
was leased by its owner to a young businessman B for
the period of the lease for the price of P500,000.00.
a term of fifteen (15) years renewal upon agreement of
After the expiration of the three-year period, Mario
the parties. After taking possession of the lot, the
allowed Nestor to remain in the leased premises at the
lessee built thereon a building of mixed materials and a
same rental rate. On June 15, 1983, Nestor tendered
store. As the years passed, he expanded his business,
the amount of P500,000.00 to Mario and demanded
earning more profits. By the tenth (10th) year of his
that the latter execute a deed of absolute sale of the
possession, he was able to build a three (3)-story
fishpond in his favor. Mario refused, on the ground
building worth at least P300,000.00. Before the end of
that Nestor no longer had an option to buy the
the term of the lease, B negotiated with the landowner
fishpond. Nestor filed an action for specific
for its renewal, but despite their attempts to do so, they
performance. Will the action prosper or not? Why?
could not agree on the new conditions for the renewal.
Upon the expiration of the term of the lease, the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
landowner asked B to vacate the premises and remove
his building and other improvements. B refused unless No, the action will not prosper. The implied renewal of
he was reimbursed for necessary and useful expenses. the lease on a month-to-month basis did not have the
B claimed that he was a possessor and builder in good effect of extending the life of the option to purchase
faith, with right of retention. This issue is now which expired at the end of the original lease period.
before the court for resolution in a pending litigation. The lessor is correct in refusing to sell on the
ground that the option had expired.
a) What are the rights of B?
b) What are the rights of the landowner? 48. Sublease vs. Assignment of Lease;
Rescission of Contract (2005)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under a written contract dated December 1, 1989,
a) B has the right to remove the building and other Victor leased his land to Joel for a period of five (5)
improvements unless the landowner decides to retain years at a monthly rental of Pl,000.00, to be increased
the building at the time of the termination of the lease to Pl,200.00 and Pl,500.00 on the third and fifth year,
and pay the lessee one-half of the value of the respectively. On January 1, 1991, Joel subleased the
improvements at that time. The lessee may remove the
land to Conrad for a period of two (2) years at a Sevilla v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 49823, February
monthly rental of Pl,500.00. 26, 1992).
On December 31, 1992, Joel assigned the lease to his 49. Sublease; Delay in Payment of Rentals
compadre, Ernie, who acted on the belief that Joel was (1994)
the rightful owner and possessor of the said lot. Joel
In January 1993, Four-Gives Corporation leased the
has been faithfully paying the stipulated rentals to
entire twelve floors of the GQS Towers Complex, for a
Victor. When Victor learned on May 18, 1992 about
period of ten years at a monthly rental of
the sublease and assignment, he sued Joel, Conrad and
P3,000,000.00. There is a provision in the contract that
Ernie for rescission of the contract of lease and for
the monthly rentals should be paid within the first five
damages.
days of the month. For the month of March, May,
a)Will the action prosper? If so, against whom? June, October and December 1993, the rentals were
Explain. not paid on time with some rentals being delayed
up to ten days. The delay was due to the heavy paper
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
work involved in processing the checks.
Yes, the action of for rescission of the contract of lease
Four-Gives Corporation also subleased five of the
and for damages will prosper. Under Article 1659 of
twelve floors to wholly-owned subsidiaries. The lease
the Civil Code, “if the lessor or the lessee should not
contract expressly prohibits the assignment of the lease
comply with the obligations set forth in Articles
contract or any portion thereof. The rental value of the
1654 and 1657, the aggrieved party may ask for
building has increased by 50% since its lease to Four-
rescission of the contract and indemnification for
Gives Corporation.
damages, or only the latter, allowing the contract to
remain in force.” Article 1649 of the same Code 1) Can the building owner eject Four-Gives
provides that “the lessee cannot assign the lease Corporation on grounds of the repeated delays in the
without the consent of the lessor, unless there is a payment of the rent?
stipulation to the contrary.” Consent is necessary
2} Can the building owner ask for the cancellation of
because assignment would cause novation by the
the contract for violation of the provision against
substitution of one of the parties (Bangayan v. Court of
assignment?
Appeals, G.R. No. 123581, August 29, 1997).
However, the rule is different in the case of subleasing. SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
When there is no express prohibition in the Contract of
Lease, the lessee may sublet the thing leased. (Art. 1) a) The “repeated delays” in the payment of rentals
1650, Civil Code) would, at best, be a slight or casual breach which does
not furnish a ground for ejectment especially
In the given case, when Joel assigned the lease to because the delays were only due to heavy paper
Ernie, the same was done without the consent of work. Note that there was not even a demand for
Victor. The assignment is void. However, there is no payment obviously because the delay lasted for only a
indication that in the written contract of lease between few days (10 days being the longest), at the end of
Victor and Joel, that subleasing the premises is which time payments were presumably made and were
prohibited. Hence, the sublease of Joel with Conrad accepted. There was, therefore, no default. Note also
is valid. In view of the foregoing, Victor can file that there was no demand made upon the lessee to
the case of rescission and damages only against Joel vacate the premises for non-payment of the monthly
and Ernie but he cannot include Conrad. rent. There is, therefore, no cause of action for
ejectment arising from the “repeated delays”.
b) In case of rescission, discuss the rights and
obligations of the parties. b) The building owner cannot eject Four-Gives
Corporation on the ground of repeated delays in
Rescission of the lease necessarily requires the return
the payment of rentals. The delay in the payment of the
of the thing to the lessor. Hence, the judgment granting
rentals is minimal and cannot be made the basis of an
rescission of the contract should also order the lessee
ejectment suit. The delay was due to the heavy
to vacate and return the leased premises to the lessor.
paperwork involved in processing the checks. It would
However, since the sublessee can invoke no right
be otherwise if the lease contract stated that in the
superior to that of his sublessor, the moment the
payment of rentals within the first five days of the
sublessor is duly ousted from the premises, the
month, time is of the essence or that the lessee will be
sublessee has no leg to stand on. The sublessee’s right,
in delay if he falls to pay within the agreed period
if any, is to demand reparation for damages from
without need of demand. In this case he can
his sublessor, should the latter be at fault. (Heirs of
judicially eject the tenant on the ground of lack of lessor every usurpation or untoward act which any
payment of the price stipulated after a demand to third person may have committed or may be openly
vacate, (Article 1673 (2), New Civil Code), preparing to carry out upon the thing leased; advise the
owner the need for all repairs; to return the thing
c) No. Resolution of a contract will not be permitted
leased upon the termination of the lease just as he
for a slight or casual breach, but only for such
received it, save what has been lost or impaired by the
substantial and fundamental breach as would defeat the
lapse of time or by ordinary wear and tear or from
very object of the parties in making the agreement
an inevitable cause; responsible for the
(Zepeda v. CA, 216 SCRA 293). The delay of ten
deterioration or loss of the thing leased, unless he
(10)) days is not such a substantial and fundamental
proves that it took place without his fault.
breach to warrant the resolution of the contract of lease
specially so when the delay was due to the heavy 51. Sublease; Sublessee; Liability (2000)
paperwork in processing the checks.
A leased his house to B with a condition that the leased
2) a) No. Sublease is different from assignment of premises shall be used for residential purposes only. B
lease. Sublease, not being prohibited by the contract of subleased the house to C who used it as a warehouse
lease is therefore allowed and cannot be invoked as a for fabrics. Upon learning this, A demanded that C stop
ground to cancel the lease. using the house as a warehouse, but C ignored the
demand, A then filed an action for ejectment against C,
b) No, the lessor cannot have the lease cancelled for
who raised the defense that there is no privity of
alleged violation of the provision against assignment.
contract between him and A, and that he has not been
The lessee did not assign the lease, or any portion
remiss in the payment of rent. Will the action prosper?
thereof, to the subsidiaries. It merely subleased some
floors to its subsidiaries. Since the problem does not SUGGESTED ANSWER:
state that the contract of lease contains a prohibition
Yes, the action will prosper. Under Article 1651 of the
against sublease, the sublease is lawful, the rule being
Civil Code, the sublessee is bound to the lessor for all
that in the absence of an express prohibition a lessee
acts which refer to the use and preservation of the
may sublet the thing leased, in whole or in part,
thing leased in the manner stipulated between the
without prejudice to his/its responsibility to the lessor
lessor and the lessee.
for the performance of the contract.
52. Sublease; Validity; Assignment of Sublease
50. Sublease; Sublessee; Liability (1999)
(1990)
May a lessee sublease the property leased without
A leased a parcel of land to B for a period of two years.
the consent of the lessor, and what are the respective
The lease contract did not contain any express
liabilities of the lessee and sub-lessee to the lessor in
prohibition against the assignment of the leasehold or
case of such sublease? (3%)
the subleasing of the leased premises. During the third
SUGGESTED ANSWER: year of the lease, B subleased the land to C. In turn, C,
without A’s consent, assigned the sublease to D. A then
Yes, provided that there is no express prohibition
filed an action for the rescission of the contract of lease
against subleasing. Under the law, when in the contract
on the ground that B has violated the terms and
of lease of things there is no express prohibition, the
conditions of the lease agreement. If you were the
lessee may sublet the thing leased without prejudice to
judge, how would you decide the case, particularly
his responsibility for the performance of the contract
with respect to the validity of:
toward the lessor (Art, 1650).
(a) B’s sublease to C? and
In case there is a sublease of the premises being leased, (b) C’s assignment of the sublease to D?
the sublessee is bound to the lessor for all the acts
which refer to the use and preservation of the thing SUGGESTED ANSWER:
leased in the manner stipulated between the lessor
and the lessee (Art. 1651). (a) B’s sublease to C is valid. Although the original
period of two years for the lease contract has expired,
The sublessee is subsidiarily liable to the lessor for any the lease continued with the acquiescence of the lessor
rent due from the lessee. However, the sublessee shall during the third year. Hence, there has been an implied
not be responsible beyond the amount of the rent due renewal of the contract of lease. Under Art. 1650 of the
from him (Art. 1652). Civil Code, the lessee may sublet the thing leased, in
As to the lessee, the latter shall still be responsible to whole or in part, when the contract of lease does not
the lessor for the rents; bring to the knowledge of the contain any express prohibition (Articles 1650, 1670
Civil Code). A’s action for rescission should not anymore because the information has already been
prosper on this ground. filed in court and to do it is illegal. That the
consideration for the promissory note is the stifling of
(b) C’s assignment of the sublease to D is not valid.
the criminal prosecution is evident from the execution
Under Art. 1649, of the Civil Code, the lessee cannot
by the finance company of the affidavit of desistance
assign the lease without the consent of the lessor,
immediately after the execution by Lolita’s parents of
unless there is a stipulation to the contrary. There is no
the promissory note. The consideration being illegal,
such stipulation in the contract. If the law prohibits
the promissory note is invalid and may not be enforced
assignment of the lease without the consent of the
by court action.
lessor, all the more would the assignment of a
sublease be prohibited without such consent. This is 55. Contract of Option; Elements (2005)
a violation of the contract and is a valid ground for
Marvin offered to construct the house of Carlos for a
rescission by A.
very reasonable price of P900,000.oo, giving the latter
53. Consensual vs.Real Contracts; Kinds of 10 days within which to accept or reject the offer. On
Real Contracts (1998) the fifth day, before Carlos could make up his mind,
Marvin withdrew his offer.
Distinguish consensual from real contracts and
name at least four (4) kinds of real contracts under the a) What is the effect of the withdrawal of Marvin’s
present law. offer?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CONSENSUAL CONTRACTS are those which The withdrawal of Marvin’s offer will cause the offer
are perfected by mere consent (Art. 1315. Civil Code). to cease in law. Hence, even if subsequently accepted,
there could be no concurrence of the offer and the
REAL CONTRACTS are those which are perfected by
acceptance. In the absence of concurrence of offer and
the delivery of the object of the obligation. (Art. 1316,
acceptance, there can be no consent (Laudico v. Arias
Civil Code) Examples of real contracts are
Rodriguez, G.R. No. 16530, March 31, 1992). Without
deposit, pledge, commodatum and simple loan
consent, there is no perfected contract for the
(mutuum).
construction of the house of Carlos (Salonga v.
54. Consideration; Validity (2000) Farrales, G.R. No. L-47088, July 10, 1981). Article
1318 of the Civil Code provides that there can be no
Lolita was employed in a finance company. Because contract unless the following requisites concur: (1)
she could not account for the funds entrusted to her, consent of the parties; (2) object certain which is the
she was charged with estafa and ordered arrested. In subject matter of the contract; and (3) cause of the
order to secure her release from jail, her parents obligation.
executed a promissory note to pay the finance
company the amount allegedly misappropriated by Marvin will not be liable to pay Carlos any damages
their daughter. The finance company then executed an for withdrawing the offer before the lapse of the
affidavit of desistance which led to the withdrawal of period granted. In this case, no consideration was
the information against Lolita and her release from given by Carlos for the option given, thus there is no
jail. The parents failed to comply with their perfected contract of option for lack of cause of
promissory note and the finance company sued them obligation. Marvin cannot be held to have breached the
for specific performance. Will the action prosper or contract. Thus, he cannot be held liable for damages.
not?
b) Will your answer be the same if Carlos paid Marvin
SUGGESTED ANSWER: P10,000.00 as consideration for that option?

The action will prosper. The promissory note executed My answer will be the same as to the perfection of the
by Lolita’s parents is valid and binding, the contract for the construction of the house of Carlos. No
consideration being the extinguishment of Lolita’s civil perfected contract arises because of lack of consent.
liability and not the stifling of the criminal With the withdrawal of the offer, there could be no
prosecution. concurrence of offer and acceptance.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: My answer will not be the same as to damages. Marvin

will be liable for damages for breach of contract of
The action will not prosper because the consideration option. With the payment of the consideration for the
for the promissory note was the non-prosecution of option given, and with the consent of the parties and
the criminal case for estafa. This cannot be done the object of contract being present, a perfected
contract of option was created (San Miguel, Inc. v. open, he was offered a more attractive pay plus fringes
Huang, G.R. No. 137290, July 31, 2000). Under benefits by Sweet Taste, Inc. Roland accepted the offer
Article 1170 of the Civil Code, those who in the and transferred to Sweet Taste. Lady Love sues Roland
performance of their obligation are guilty of and Sweet Taste for breach of contract. Defendants
contravention thereof, as in this case, when Marvin did claim that the restriction to play for Lady Love alone
not give Carlos the agreed period of ten days, are liable is void, hence, unenforceable, as it constitutes an
for damages. undue interference with the right of Roland to enter
into contracts and the impairment of his freedom to
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
play and enjoy basketball.
My answer will not be the same if Carlos paid Marvin
Can Roland be bound by the contract he entered into
P10,000.00 because an option contract was perfected.
with Lady Love or can he disregard the same? Is he
Thus, if Marvin withdrew the offer prior to the
liable at all? How about Sweet Taste? Is it liable to
expiration of the 10-day period, he breached the
Lady Love?
option contract. (Article 1324, Civil Code)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) Supposing that Carlos accepted the offer before
Marvin could communicate his withdrawal thereof? Roland is bound by the contract he entered into with
Discuss the legal consequences. Lady Love and he cannot disregard the same, under the
principles of obligatoriness of contracts. Obligations
A contract to construct the house of Carlos is
arising from contracts have the force of law between
perfected. Contracts are perfected by mere consent
the parties.
manifested by the meeting of the offer and the
acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to Yes, Roland is liable under the contract as far as Lady
constitute the contract. (Gomez v. Court of Appeals, Love is concerned. He is liable for damages under
G.R. No. 120747, September 21,2000) Article 1170 of the Civil Code since he contravened
the tenor of his obligation. Not being a contracting
Under Article 1315 of the Civil Code, Carlos and
party, Sweet Taste is not bound by the contract but it
Marvin are bound to fulfill what has been expressly
can be held liable under Art. 1314. The basis of its
stipulated and all consequences thereof. Under Article
liability is not prescribed by contract but is founded on
1167, if Marvin would refuse to construct the house,
quasi-delict, assuming that Sweet Taste knew of the
Carlos is entitled to have the construction be done by a
contract. Article 1314 of the Civil Code provides
third person at the expense of Marvin. Marvin in that
that any third person who induces another to violate
case will be liable for damages under Article 1170.
his contract shall be liable for damages to the other
56. Inexistent Contracts vs.Annullable contracting party.
Contracts (2004)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Distinguish briefly but clearly between Inexistent
It is assumed that Lady Love knew of the contract.
contracts and annullable contracts.
Neither Roland nor Sweet Taste would be liable,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: because the restriction in the contract is violative of
Article 1306 as being contrary to law morals, good
INEXISTENT CONTRACTS are considered as not customs, public order or public policy.
having been entered into and, therefore, void ob initio.
They do not create any obligation and cannot be
ratified or validated, as there is no agreement to ratify
or validate. On the other hand, ANNULLABLE or
VOIDABLE CONTRACTS are valid until invalidated
by the court but may be ratified. In inexistent
58. Nature of Contracts; Privity of Contract
contracts, one or more requisites of a valid contract are
(1996)
absent. In anullable contracts, all the elements of a
contract are present except that the consent of one of Baldomero leased his house with a telephone to Jose.
the contracting parties was vitiated or one of them has The lease contract provided that Jose shall pay for all
no capacity to give consent. electricity, water and telephone services in the leased
premises during the period of the lease. Six months
57. Nature of Contracts; Obligatoriness (1991)
later. Jose surreptitiously vacated the premises. He left
Roland, a basketball star, was under contract for one behind unpaid telephone bills for overseas telephone
year to play-for-play exclusively for Lady Love, Inc. calls amounting to over P20,000.00. Baldomero
However, even before the basketball season could refused to pay the said bills on the ground that Jose
had already substituted him as the customer of the Corporation v. Court of Appeals, (333 SCRA 170, G.R.
telephone company. The latter maintained that No. 115117, June 8, 2000).
Baldomero remained as his customer as far as their
Suplico cannot be held liable for damages, for breach
service contract was concerned, notwithstanding the
of contract, as it was not he who violated the order
lease contract between Baldomero and Jose. Who is
agreement, but Printado. Suplico cannot be held
correct, Baldomero or the telephone company?
liable for Printado’s breach of contract with Publico.
Explain.
He is not a party to the agreement entered into by and
SUGGESTED ANSWER: between Printado and Publico. Theirs is not a
stipulation pour atrui. [Aforesaid] Such contracts do
The telephone company is correct because as far as it
could not affect third persons like Suplico because of
is concerned, the only person it contracted with was
the basic civil law principle of relativity of contracts
Baldomero. The telephone company has no contract
which provides that contracts can only bind the
with Jose. Baldomero cannot substitute Jose in his
parties who entered into it, and it cannot favor or
stead without the consent of the telephone company
prejudice a third person, even if he is aware of such
(Art. 1293, NCC). Baldomero is, therefore, liable
contract and has acted with knowledge thereof
under the contract.
(Integrated Packaging Corporation v. CA, supra.).
59. Nature of Contracts; Relativity of Contracts
60. Rescission of Contracts; Proper Party
(2002)
(1996)
Printado is engaged in the printing business.
In December 1985, Salvador and the Star
Suplico supplies printing paper to Printado pursuant to
Semiconductor Company (SSC) executed a Deed of
an order agreement under which Suplico binds himself
Conditional Sale wherein the former agreed to sell his
to deliver the same volume of paper every month for a
2,000 square meter lot in Cainta, Rizal, to the latter for
period of 18 months, with Printado in turn agreeing to
the price of P1,000,000.00, payable P100,000.00
pay within 60 days after each delivery. Suplico
down, and the balance 60 days after the squatters in the
has been faithfully delivering under the order
property have been removed. If the squatters are not
agreement for 10 months but thereafter stopped doing
removed within six months, the P100,000.00 down
so, because Printado has not made any payment at all.
payment shall be returned by the vendor to the vendee,
Printado has also a standing contract with publisher
Salvador filed ejectment suits against the squatters, but
Publico for the printing of 10,000 volumes of school
in spite of the decisions in his favor, the squatters still
textbooks. Suplico was aware of said printing contract.
would not leave. In August, 1986, Salvador offered to
After printing 1,000 volumes, Printado also fails to
return the P100,000.00 down payment to the vendee,
perform under its printing contract with Publico.
on the ground that he is unable to remove the squatters
Suplico sues Printado for the value of the unpaid
on the property. SSC refused to accept the money and
deliveries under their order agreement. At the same
demanded that Salvador execute a deed of absolute
time Publico sues Printado for damages for breach of
sale of the property in its favor, at which time it will
contract with respect to their own printing agreement.
pay the balance of the price. Incidentally, the value of
In the suit filed by Suplico, Printado counters that: (a)
the land had doubled by that time.
Suplico cannot demand payment for deliveries made
under their order agreement until Suplico has Salvador consigned the P 100,000.00 in court, and
completed performance under said contract; (b) filed an action for rescission of the deed of conditional
Suplico should pay damages for breach of contract; sale, plus damages. Will the action prosper? Explain.
and (c) with Publico should be liable for Printado’s
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
breach of his contract with Publico because the order
agreement between Suplico and Printado was for the No, the action will not prosper. The action for
benefit of Publico. Are the contentions of Printado rescission may be brought only by the aggrieved party
tenable? Explain your answers as to each contention. to the contract. Since it was Salvador who failed to
comply with his conditional obligation, he is not the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
aggrieved party who may file the action for
No, the contentions of Printado are untenable. Printado rescission but the Star Semiconductor Company. The
having failed to pay for the printing paper covered by company, however, is not opting to rescind the contract
the delivery invoices on time, Suplico has the right to but has chosen to waive Salvador’s compliance with
cease making further delivery. And the latter did not the condition which it can do under Art. 1545, NCC.
violate the order agreement (Integrated Packaging
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The action for rescission will not prosper. The buyer 2) The liability of Julio’s parents to Jake’s parents
has not committed any breach, let alone a substantial arises from quasi-delict (Arts. 2176 and 2180 Civil
or serious one, to warrant the rescission/resolution Code) and shall cover specifically the following:
sought by the vendor. On the contrary, it is the vendor
a) P50,000.00 for the death of the son;
who appears to have failed to comply with the
b) such amount as would correspond to lost
condition imposed by the contract the fulfillment of
earning capacity; and
which would have rendered the obligation to pay the c) moral damages.
balance of the purchase price demandable. Further, far
from being unable to comply with what is incumbent 62. Family Code; Retroactive Application;
upon it, ie., pay the balance of the price – the buyer has Vested Rights (2000)
offered to pay it even without the vendor having
complied with the suspensive condition attached to the On April 15, 1980, Rene and Angelina were married to
payment of the price, thus waiving such condition as each other without a marriage settlement. In 1985, they
well as the 60-day term in its favor The stipulation that acquired a parcel of land in Quezon City. On June 1,
the P100,000.00 down payment shall be returned by 1990, when Angelina was away in Baguio, Rene sold
the vendor to the vendee if the squatters are not the said lot to Marcelo. Is the sale void or voidable?
removed within six months, is also a covenant for the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
benefit of the vendee, which the latter has validly
waived by implication when it offered to pay the The sale is void. Since the sale was executed in 1990,
balance of the purchase price upon the execution of a the Family Code is the law applicable. Under Article
deed of absolute sale by the vendor. (Art. 1545, NCC). 124 of the FC, the sale of a conjugal property by a
spouse without the consent of the other is void.
61. Emancipation (1993)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Julio and Lea, both 18 years old, were sweethearts. At
a party at the house of a mutual friend. Lea met Jake, The sale is voidable. The provisions of the Family
also 18 years old, who showed interest in her. Lea Code may apply retroactively but only if such
seemed to entertain Jake because she danced with him application will not impair vested rights. When Rene
many times. In a fit of jealousy, Julio shot Jake with and Angelina got married in 1980, the law that
his father’s 38 caliber revolver which, before going to governed their property relations was the New Civil
the party he was able to get from the unlocked drawer Code. Under the NCC, as interpreted by the Supreme
inside his father’s bedroom. Jake died as a result of the Court in Heirs of Felipe v. Aldon, 100 SCRA 628 and
lone gunshot wound he sustained. His parents sued reiterated in Heirs of Ayuste v. Malabonga, G.R. No.
Julio’s parents for damages arising from quasi-delict. 118784, 2 September 1999, the sale executed by the
At the time of the incident, Julio was 18 years old husband without the consent of the wife is voidable.
living with his parents. Julio’s parents moved to The husband has already acquired a vested right on the
dismiss the complaint against them claiming that since voidable nature of dispositions made without the
Julio was already of majority age, they were no longer consent of the wife. Hence, Article 124 of the Family
liable for his acts. Code which makes the sale void does not apply.

1) Should the motion to dismiss be granted? Why? 63. Family Home; Dwelling House (1994)
2) What is the liability of Julio’s parents to Jake’s In 1991, Victor established judicially out of conjugal
parents? Explain your answer. property, a family home in Manila worth P200.000.00
and extrajudicially a second family home in Tagaytay
SUGGESTED ANSWER: worth P50.000.00. Victor leased the family home in
1) No, the Motion to Dismiss should not be granted. Manila to a foreigner. Victor and his family transferred
Article 236 of the Family Code as amended by to another house of his in Pasig.
Republic Act 6809, provides in the third paragraph that Can the two family homes be the subject of execution
“nothing in this Code shall be construed to derogate on a judgment against Victor’s wife for non-payment
from the duty or responsibility of parents and of the purchase in 1992 of household appliances?
guardians for children and wards below twenty-one
years of age mentioned in the second and third SUGGESTED ANSWER:
paragraphs of Article 2180 of the Civil Code”.
The two (2) so-called family homes can be the subject
of execution. Neither of the abodes are considered
family homes because for purposes of availing the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
benefits under the Family Code, there can only be one
The suit will prosper. While an adverse claim duly
(1) family home which is defined as the “dwelling
annotated at the back of a title under Section 7O of
house” where the husband and the wife and their
P.D. 1529 is good only for 30 days, cancellation
family actually “reside” and the land on which it is
thereof is still necessary to render it ineffective,
situated. (Arts. 152 and 161, Family Code)
otherwise, the inscription thereof will remain
64. Acquisition of Lands; Citizenship annotated as a lien on the property. While the life of
Requirement (2003) adverse claim is 3O days under P.D. 1529, it
continuous to be effective until it is canceled by formal
In 1970, the spouses Juan and Juana de la Cruz,
petition filed with the Register of Deeds.
then Filipinos, bought the parcel of unregistered land
in the Philippines on which they built a house which The cancellation of the notice of levy is justified under
became their residence. In 1986, they migrated to Section 108 of P.D. 1529 considering that the levy on
Canada and became Canadian citizens. execution can not be enforced against the buyer whose
adverse claim against the registered owner was
Thereafter, in 1990, they applied, opposed by the
recorded ahead of the notice of levy on execution.
Republic, for the registration of the aforesaid land in
their names. Should the application of the spouses de 66. Annotation of Lis Pendens; When Proper
la Cruz be granted over the Republic’s opposition? (2001)
Why?
Mario sold his house and lot to Carmen for P1 million
SUGGESTED ANSWER: payable in five (5) equal annual installments. The sale
was registered and title was issued in Carmen’s name.
Yes, the application should be granted. As a rule, the
Carmen failed to pay the last three installments and
Constitution prohibits aliens from owning private lands
Mario filed an. action for collection, damages and
in the Philippines. This rule, however, does not apply
attorneys fees against her. Upon filing of the
to the spouses Juan and Juana de la Cruz because at the
complaint, he caused a notice of lis pendens to be
time they acquired ownership over the land, albeit
annotated on Carmen’s title. Is the notice of lis
imperfect, they were still Filipino citizens. The
pendens proper or not? Why?
application for registration is a mere confirmation of
the imperfect title which the spouses have already SUGGESTED ANSWER:
acquired before they became Canadian citizens.
The notice of lis pendens is not proper for the reason
(Republic v. CA, 235 SCRA 567 [1994]).
that the case filed by Mario against Carmen is only for
65. Adverse Claims; Notice of Levy (1998) collection, damages, and attorney’s fees.
Section 70 of Presidential Decree No. 1529,
concerning adverse claims on registered land, provides
Annotation of a lis pendens can only be done in cases
a 30-day period of effectivity of an adverse claim,
involving recovery of possession of real property,
counted from the date of its registration. Suppose a
or to quiet title or to remove cloud thereon, or for
notice of adverse claim based upon a contract to sell
partition or any other proceeding affecting title to the
was registered on March 1, 1997 at the instance of the
land or the use or occupation thereof. The action filed
BUYER, but on June 1, 1997, or after the lapse of the
by Mario does not fall on anyone of these.
30-day period, a notice of levy on execution in favor of
a JUDGMENT CREDITOR was also registered to 67. Foreshore Lands (2000)
enforce a final judgment for money against the
registered owner. Then, on June 15, 1997 there having Regina has been leasing foreshore land from the
been no formal cancellation of his notice of adverse Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources for the
claim, the BUYER pays to the seller-owner the agreed past 15 years. Recently, she learned that Jorge was
purchase price in full and registers the corresponding able to obtain a free patent from the Bureau of
deed of sale. Because the annotation of the notice of Agriculture, covering the same land, on the basis of a
levy is carried over to the new title in his name, the certification by the District Forester that the same
BUYER brings an action against the JUDGMENT is already “alienable and disposable”. Moreover,
CREDITOR to cancel such annotation, but the latter Jorge had already registered the patent with the
claims that his lien is superior because it was Register of Deeds of the province, and he was issued
annotated after the adverse claim of the BUYER had an Original Certificate of Title for the same. Regina
ipso facto ceased to be effective. Will the suit prosper? filed an action for annulment of Jorge’s title on the
ground that it was obtained fraudulently. Will the a) Did Rod acquire title to the land? Explain.
action prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Rod did not acquire title to the land. The
An action for the annulment of Jorge’s Original inscription in the registry, to be effective, must be
Certificate of Title will prosper on the following made in good faith. The defense of indefeasibility of a
grounds: Torrens Title does not extend to a transferee who takes
the certificate of title with notice of a flaw. A holder in
(1) Under Chapter IX of C .A, No. 141, otherwise
bad faith of a certificate of title is not entitled to the
known as the Public Land Act, foreshore lands are
protection of the law, for the law cannot be used as a
disposable for residential, commercial, industrial, or
shield for frauds. (Samonte v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
similar productive purposes, and only by lease when
No. 104223, July 12, 2001)
not needed by the government for public service.
In the case at bar, Rod only forged Cesar’s signature on
(2) If the land is suited or actually used for fishpond or
the Deed of Sale. It is very apparent that there was bad
aquaculture purposes, it comes under the Jurisdiction
faith on the part of Rod from the very beginning. As
of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
such, he is not entitled to the protection of the Land
(BFAR) and can only be acquired by lease (P.D. 705).
Registration Act.
(3) Free Patent is a mode of concession under Section
b) Discuss the rights of Don, if any, over the
41, Chapter VII of the Public Land Act, which is
property.
applicable only for agricultural lands.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(4) The certificate of the district forester that the land
is already “alienable and disposable” simply means It is a well-known rule in this jurisdiction that
that the land is no longer needed for forest purposes, persons dealing with registered land have the legal
but the Bureau of Lands could no longer dispose of right to rely on the face of the Torrens Certificate of
it by free patent because it is already covered by a Title and to dispense with the need to inquire further,
lease contract between BFAR and Regina. That except when the party concerned has actual knowledge
contract must be respected. of facts and circumstances that would impel a
reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry
(5) The free patent of Jorge is highly irregular and
(Naawan Community Rural Bank v. Court of Appeals,
void ab initio, not only because the Bureau has no
G.R. No. 128573, January 13, 2003).
statutory authority to issue a free patent over a
foreshore area, but also because of the false statements In the given problem, the property was already
made in his sworn application that he has occupied and registered in the name of Rod when he bought the
cultivated the land since July 4, 1945, as required by same from the latter. Thus, Don could be considered as
the free patent law. Under Section 91 of the Public a buyer in good faith and for value. However, since
Land Act, any patent concession or title obtained thru Rod did not actually sell any property to him, Don has
false representation is void ab initio. In cases of this no right to retain ownership over the property. He has
nature, it is the government that shall institute only the right to recover the purchase price plus
annulment proceedings considering that the suit carries damages.
with it a prayer for the reversion of the land to
69. Forgery; Innocent Purchaser; Mirror
the state. However, Regina is a party in interest and
Principle (1991)
the case will prosper because she has a lease contract
for the same land with the government. Bruce is the registered owner, of a parcel of land with
a building thereon and is in peaceful possession
68. Forgery; Innocent Purchaser; Holder in
thereof. He pays the real estate taxes and collects the
Bad Faith (2005)
rentals therefrom. Later, Catalino, the only brother of
Rod, the owner of an FX taxi, found in his Bruce, filed a petition where he, misrepresenting to
vehicle an envelope containing TCT No. 65432 over a be the attorney-in-fact of Bruce and falsely alleging
lot registered in Cesar’s name. Posing as Cesar, Rod that the certificate of title was lost, succeeded in
forged Cesar’s signature on a Deed of Sale in Rod’s obtaining a second owner’s duplicate copy of the title
favor. Rod registered the said document with the and then had the same transferred in his name through
Register of Deeds, and obtained a new title in his a simulated deed of sale in his favor. Catalino then
name. After a year, he sold the lot to Don, a buyer in mortgaged the property to Desiderio who had the
good faith and for value, who also registered the lot in mortgage annotated on the title. Upon learning of the
his name. fraudulent transaction, Bruce filed a complaint against
Catalino and Desiderio to have the title of Catalino and submitted to the Register of Deeds and on the basis
the mortgage in favor of Desiderio declared null and thereof, OCT No, 375 was cancelled and Transfer
void. Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 4576 was issued in the
name of Eddie. In 1986, the Director of Lands filed a
Will the complaint prosper, or will the title of Catalino
complaint for annulment of OCT No, 375 and TCT
and the mortgage to Desiderio be sustained?
No. 4576 on the ground that Nestor obtained the Free
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Patent through fraud. Eddie filed a motion to dismiss
on the ground that he was an innocent purchaser for
The complaint for the annulment of Catalino’s Title value and in good faith and as such, he has acquired a
will prosper. In the first place, the second owner’s copy title to the property which is valid, unassailable and
of the title secured by him from the Land Registration indefeasible. Decide the motion.
Court is void ab initio, the owner’s copy thereof
having never been lost, let alone the fact that said SUGGESTED ANSWER:
second owner’s copy of the title was fraudulently
The motion of Nestor to dismiss the complaint for
procured and improvidently issued by the Court. In the
annulment of O.C.T. No. 375 and T.C.T. No. 4576
second place, the Transfer Certificate of Title procured
should be denied for the following reasons:
by Catalino is equally null and void, it having been
issued on the basis of a simulated or forged Deed of 1) Eddie cannot claim protection as an
Sale. A forged deed is an absolute nullity and conveys innocent purchaser for value nor can he interpose the
no title. defense of indefeasibility of his title, because his TCT
is rooted on a void title. Under Section 91 of CA No.
The mortgage in favor of Desiderio is likewise null
141, as amended, otherwise known as the Public Land
and void because the mortgagor is not the owner of the
Act, statements of material facts in the applications
mortgaged property. While it may be true that
for public land must be under oath. Section 91 of the
under the “Mirror Principle” of the Torrens System
same act provides that such statements shall be
of Land Registration, a buyer or mortgagee has the
considered as essential conditions and parts of the
right to rely on what appears on the Certificate of Title,
concession, title, or permit issued, any false
and in the absence of anything to excite suspicion, is
statement therein, or omission of facts shall ipso facto
under no obligation to look beyond the certificate and
produce the cancellation of the concession. The patent
investigate the mortgagor’s title, this rule does not
issued to Nestor in this case is void ab initio not only
find application in the case at hand because here.
because it was obtained by fraud but also because it
Catalino’s title suffers from two fatal infirmities,
covers 30 hectares which is far beyond the maximum
namely:
of 24 hectares provided by the free patent law.
2) The government can seek annulment of the
a) The fact that it emanated from a forged deed of a original and transfer certificates of title and the
simulated sale; reversion of the land to the state. Eddie’s defense is
untenable. The protection afforded by the Torrens
b) The fact that it was derived from a System to an innocent purchaser for value can be
fraudulently procured or improvidently issued second availed of only if the land has been titled thru judicial
owner’s copy, the real owner’s copy being still intact proceedings where the issue of fraud becomes
and in the possession of the true owner, Bruce. academic after the lapse of one (1) year from the
The mortgage to Desiderio should be cancelled issuance of the decree of registration. In public land
without prejudice to his right to go after Catalino grants, the action of the government to annul a title
and/or the government for compensation from the fraudulently obtained does not prescribe such action
assurance fund. and will not be barred by the transfer of the title to an
innocent purchaser for value.
70. Fraud; Procurement of Patent; Effect
(2000) 71. Homestead Patents; Void Sale (1999)

In 1979, Nestor applied for and was granted a Free In 1950, the Bureau of Lands issued a Homestead
Patent over a parcel of agricultural land with an area of patent to A. Three years later, A sold the homestead to
30 hectares, located in General Santos City. He B. A died in 1990, and his heirs filed an action to
presented the Free Patent to the Register of Deeds, recover the homestead from B on the ground that its
and he was issued a corresponding Original sale by their father to the latter is void under Section
Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 375, Subsequently, 118 of the Public Land Law. B contends, however, that
Nestor sold the land to Eddie. The deed of sale was the heirs of A cannot recover the homestead from him
anymore because their action has prescribed and that because of public policy. The law is designed for the
furthermore, A was in pari delicto. Decide. protection of the plaintiff so as to enhance the public
policy of the Public Land Act to give land to the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
landless.
The sale of the land by A to B 3 years after issuance of
If the heirs are not allowed to recover, it could be on
the homestead patent, being in violation of Section 118
the ground of laches inasmuch as 40 years had elapsed
of the Public Land Act, is void from its inception.
and the owner had not brought any action against B
The action filed by the heirs of B to declare the nullity especially if the latter had improved the land. It would
or inexistence of the contract and to recover the land be detrimental to B if the plaintiff is allowed to
should be given due course. recover.

B’s defense of prescription is untenable because an 72. Innocent Purchaser for Value (2001)
action which seeks to declare the nullity or
Cesar bought a residential condominium unit from
inexistence of A contract does not prescribe. (Article
High Rise Co. and paid the price in full. He moved
1410; Banaga vs. Soler, 28 SCRA 765)
into the unit, but somehow he was not given the
On the other hand, B’s defense of pari delicto is Condominium Certificate of Title covering the
equally untenable. While as a rule, parties who are in property. Unknown to him, High Rise Co.
pari delicto have no recourse against each other on the subsequently mortgaged the entire condominium
principle that a transgressor cannot profit from his own building to Metrobank as security for a loan of P500
wrongdoing, such rule does not apply to violations million. High Rise Co. failed to pay the loan and the
of Section 118 of the Public Land Act because of the bank foreclosed the mortgage. At the foreclosure sale,
underlying public policy in the said Act “to conserve the bank acquired the building, being the highest
the land which a homesteader has acquired by bidder. When Cesar learned about this, he filed an
gratuitous grant from the government for himself and action to annul the foreclosure sale insofar as his unit
his family”. In keeping with this policy, it has been was concerned. The bank put up the defense that it
held that one who purchases a homestead within the relied on the condominium certificates of title
five-year prohibitory period can only recover the price presented by High Rise Co., which were clean. Hence,
which he has paid by filing a claim against the estate it was a mortgagee and buyer in good faith. Is this
of the deceased seller (Labrador vs. Delos Santos 66 defense tenable or not? Why?
Phil. 579) under the principle that no one shall enrich
himself at the expense of another. Applying the pari
delicto ruleto violation of Section 118 of the Public SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Land Act, the Court of Appeals has ruled that “the
Metrobank’s defense is untenable. As a rule, an
homesteader suffers the loss of the fruits realized by
innocent purchaser for value acquires a good and a
the vendee who in turn forfeits the improvement that
clean title to the property. However, it is settled that
he has introduced into the land.” (Obot vs. Sandadi
one who closes his eyes to facts that should put a
Uas, 69 OG,April 35,1966}
reasonable man on guard is not an innocent purchaser
FIRST ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: for value. In the present problem the bank is expected,
as a matter of standard operating procedure, to have
The action to declare the nullity of the sale did not
conducted an ocular inspection, of the promises before
prescribe (Art. 1410}, such sale being one expressly
granting any loan. Apparently, Metrobank did not
prohibited and declared void by the Public Lands Act
follow this procedure. Otherwise, it should have
[Art. 1409, par. (7)]. The prohibition of the law is
discovered that the condominium unit in question was
clearly for the protection of the heirs of A such that
occupied by Cesar and that fact should have led it to
their recovering the property would enhance the public
make further inquiry. Under the circumstances,
policy regarding ownership of lands acquired by
Metrobank cannot be considered a mortgagee and
homestead patent (Art. 1416). The defense of pari
buyer in good faith.
delicto is not applicable either, since the law itself
allows the homesteader to reacquire the land even if it 73. Mirror Principle (1990)
has been sold.
In 1950’s, the Government acquired a big landed estate
SECOND ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: in Central Luzon from the registered owner for
subdivision into small farms and redistribution of
Prescription does not arise with respect to actions to
bonafide occupants, F was a former lessee of a parcel
declare a void contract a nullity (Article 1410).
of land, five hectares in area. After completion of the
Neither is the doctrine of pari delicto applicable
resurvey and subdivision, F applied to buy the said indefeasible and to preserve that character, the title is
land in accordance with the guidelines of the cleansed anew with every transfer for value (De Jesus
implementing agency. Upon full payment of the price v. City of Manila; 29 Phil. 73; Laperal v. City of
in 1957, the corresponding deed of absolute sale was Manila, 62 Phil. 313; Penullar v. PNB, 120 SCRA
executed in his favor and was registered, and in 1961, 111).
a new title was issued in his name. In 1963, F sold the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
said land to X; and in 1965 X sold it to Y, new titles
were successively issued in the names of the said (b) Even if the government joins C, this will not alter
purchasers. the outcome of the case so much because of estoppel
as an express provision in Sec 45 of Act 496 and Sec
In 1977, C filed an action to annul the deeds of sale to
31 of PD 1529 that a decree of registration and the
F, X and Y and their titles, on the ground that he (C)
certificate of title issued in pursuance thereof “shall be
had been in actual physical possession of the land, and
conclusive upon and against all persons, including the
that the sale to F and the subsequent sales should be set
national government and all branches thereof, whether
aside on the ground of fraud. Upon motion of
mentioned by name in the application or not.”
defendants, the trial court dismissed the complaint,
upholding their defenses of their being innocent 74. Mirror Principle; Forgery; Innocent
purchasers for value, prescription and laches. Purchaser (1999)
Plaintiff appealed.
The spouses X and Y mortgaged a piece of registered
(a) Is the said appeal meritorious? Explain your land to A, delivering as well the OCT to the latter, but
answer they continued to possess and cultivate the land, giving
(b) Suppose the government agency concerned joined 1/2 of each harvest to A in partial payment of their loan
C in filing the said action against the defendants, to the latter, A, however, without the knowledge of
would that change the result of the litigation? Explain.
X and Y, forged a deed of sale of the aforesaid
SUGGESTED ANSWER: land in favor of himself, got a TCT in his name, and
then sold the land to B, who bought the land relying on
(a) The appeal is not meritorious. The trial court ruled A’s title, and who thereafter also got a TCT in his
correctly in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss for name. It was only then that the spouses X and Y
the following reasons: learned that their land had been titled in B’s name.
May said spouses file an action for reconveyance of
the land in question against b? Reason.
1. While there is the possibility that F, a former lessee
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of the land was aware of the fact that C was the
bona fide occupant thereof and for this reason his The action of X and Y against B for reconveyance of
transfer certificate of title may be vulnerable, the the land will not prosper because B has acquired a
transfer of the same land and the issuance of new TCTs clean title to the property being an innocent purchaser
to X and Y who are innocent purchasers for value for value.
render the latter’s titles indefeasible. A person dealing
with registered land may safely rely on the correctness A forged deed is an absolute nullity and conveys no
of the certificate of title and the law will not in any title. The fact that the forged deed was registered and a
way oblige him to go behind the certificate to certificate of title was issued in his name, did not
determine the condition of the property in search operate to vest upon an ownership over the
for any hidden defect or inchoate right which may property of X and Y. The registration of the
later invalidate or diminish the right to the land. This is forged deed will not cure the infirmity. However, once
the mirror principle of the Torrens System of land the title to the land is registered in the name of the
registration. forger and title to the land thereafter falls into the
hands of an innocent purchaser for value, the latter
2. The action to annul the sale was instituted in 1977 or acquires a clean title thereto. A buyer of a registered
more than (10) years from the date of execution land is not required to explore beyond what the record
thereof in 1957, hence, it has long prescribed. in the registry indicates on its face in quest for any
hidden defect or inchoate right which may
3. Under Sec 45 of Act 496, “the entry of a certificate
subsequently defeat his right thereto. This is the
of title shall be regarded as an agreement running with
“mirror principle‘ of the Torrens system which
the land, and binding upon the applicant and all his
makes it possible for a forged deed to be the root of a
successors in title that the land shall be and always
good title.
remain registered land. A title under Act 496 is
Besides, it appears that spouses X and Y are guilty of 76. Notice of Lis Pendens; Transferee Pendente
contributory negligence when they delivered this OCT Lite (2002)
to the mortgagee without annotating the mortgage
Sancho and Pacifico are co-owners of a parcel of
thereon. Between them and the innocent purchaser for
land. Sancho sold the property to Bart. Pacifico sued
value, they should bear the loss.
Sancho and Bart for annulment of the sale and
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: reconveyance of the property based on the fact that the
sale included his one- half pro-indiviso share. Pacifico
If the buyer B, who relied on the teller A’s title, was
had a notice of lis pendens annotated on the title
not aware of the adverse possession of the land by the
covering the property and ordered the cancellation of
spouses X and Y, then the latter cannot recover the
the notice of lis pendens. The notice of lis pendens
property from B. B has in his favor the presumption of
could not be cancelled immediately because the title
good faith which can only be overthrown by adequate
over the property was with a bank to which the
proof of bad faith. However, nobody buys land without
property had been mortgaged by Bart. Pacifico
seeing the property, hence, B could not have been
appealed the case. While the appeal was pending and
unaware of such adverse possession. If after learning
with the notice of lis pendens still uncancelled, Bart
of such possession, B simply closed his eyes and did
sold the property to Carlos, who immediately
nothing about it, then the suit for reconveyance will
caused the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens,
prosper as the buyer’s bad faith will have become
as well as the issuance of a new title in his name.
evident.
Is Carlos (a) a purchaser in good faith, or (b) a
75. Notice of Lis Pendens (1995)
transferee pendente lite? If your answer is (a), how can
Rommel was issued a certificate of title over a parcel the right of Pacifico as co-owner be protected?
of land in Quezon City. One year later Rachelle, Explain.
the legitimate owner of the land, discovered the
fraudulent registration obtained by Rommel. She filed
a complaint against Rommel for reconveyance and
caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
certificate of title issued to Rommel. Rommel now
invokes the indefeasibility of his title considering that A. Carlos is a buyer in bad faith. The notice of lis
one year has already elapsed from its issuance. He also pendens was still annotated at the back of the title at
seeks the cancellation of the notice of Lis pendens. the time he bought the land from Bart. The uncancelled
notice of lis pendens operates as constructive notice of
May the court cancel the notice of lis pendens even
its contents as well as interests, legal or equitable,
before final judgment is rendered? Explain.
included therein. All persons are charged with the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: knowledge of what it contains. In an earlier case, it
was held that a notice of an adverse claim remains
A Notice of Lis Pendens may be cancelled even before
effective and binding notwithstanding the lapse of the
final judgment upon proper showing that the notice is
30 days from its inscription in the registry. This ruling
for the purpose of molesting or harassing the adverse
is even more applicable in a lis pendens. Carlos is a
party or that the notice of lis pendens is not necessary
transferee pendente lite insofar as Sancho’s share in the
to protect the right of the party who caused it to be
co-ownership in the land is concerned because the land
registered. (Section 77, P.D. No. 1529)
was transferred to him during the pendency of the
In this case, it is given that Rachelle is the legitimate appeal.
owner of the land in question. It can be said, therefore,
B. Pacifico can protect his right as a co-owner by
that when she filed her notice of lis pendens her
pursuing his appeal; asking the Court of Appeals to
purpose was to protect her interest in the land and not
order the re-annotation of the lis pendens on the title of
just to molest Rommel. It is necessary to record the
Carlos; and by invoking his right of redemption of
Lis pendens to protect her interest because if she did
Bart’s share under Articles 1620 of the New Civil
not do it, there is a possibility that the land will fall
Code.
into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value
and in that event, the court loses control over the land ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
making any favorable judgment thereon moot and
A. Carlos is a purchaser in good faith. A possessor in
academic. For these reasons, the notice of lis pendens
good faith has been defined as “one who is unaware
may not be canceled.
that there exists a flaw which invalidates his
acquisition of the thing” (Art. 526, NCC). Good faith
consists in the possessor’s belief that the person from consent. In 1950, Winda learned of the sale, when she
whom he received the thing was the owner of the same discovered the deed of sale among the documents in
and could convey his title. In the case [at bar], in her husband’s vault after his demise. Soon after, she
question, while Carlos bought the subject property noticed that the construction of the sports complex had
from Bart while a notice of lis pendens was still started. Upon completion of the construction in 1952,
annotated thereon, there was also an existing court she tried but failed to get free membership privileges
order canceling the same. Hence, Carlos cannot be in Verde.
considered as being “aware of a flaw which
Winda now files a suit against Verde for the annulment
invalidates [their] the acquisition of the thing” since
of the sale on the ground that she did not consent to the
the alleged flaw, the notice of lis pendens, was
sale. In answer, Verde contends that, in accordance
already being ordered cancelled at the time of the
with the Spanish Civil Code which was then in force,
purchase. On this ground alone, Carlos can already be
the sale in 1948 of the property did not need her
considered a buyer in good faith. (PoLam v. Court of
concurrence. Verde contends that in any case the action
Appeals, 347 SCRA 86, [2000]).
has prescribed or is barred by laches. Winda rejoins
B. To protect his right over the subject property, that her Torrens title covering the property is
Pacifico should have timely filed an action for indefeasible, and imprescriptible.
reconveyance and reinstated the notice of lis pendens.
A. Define or explain the term “laches”.
77. Prescription &Laches; Elements of Laches B. Decide the case, stating your reasons for your
(2000) decision.

In an action brought to collect a sum of money based SUGGESTED ANSWER:

on a surety agreement, the defense of laches was raised
as the claim was filed more than seven years from the A. LACHES means failure or neglect, for an
maturity of the obligation. However, the action was unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do
brought within the ten-year prescriptive period what, by exercising due diligence, could or should
provided by law wherein actions based on written have been done earlier. It is negligence or omission to
contracts can be instituted. assert a right within a reasonable time. (De Vera v. CA,
305 SCRA 624 [1999])
a) Will the defense prosper? Reason.
b) What are the essential elements of laches? B. While Article 1413 of the Spanish Civil Code did
not require the consent of the wife for the validity of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the sale, an alienation by the husband in fraud of the
wife is void as held in Uy Coque v. Navas, 45 Phil.
a) No, the defense will not prosper. The problem did 430 (1923). Assuming that the alienation in 1948 was
not give facts from which laches may be inferred. in fraud of Winda and, therefore, makes the sale to
Mere delay in filing an action, standing alone, does not Verde void, the action to set aside the sale,
constitute laches (Agra v. PNB, 309 SCRA 509). nonetheless, is already barred by prescription and
b) The four basic elements of laches are; (1) conduct laches. More than 52 years have already elapsed from
on the part of the defendant or of one under whom he her discovery of the sale in 1950.
claims, giving rise to the situation of which ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
complainant seeks a remedy; (2) delay in asserting the
complainant’s rights, the complainant having had B. Winda’s claim that her Torrens Title covering
knowledge or notice of the defendant’s conduct and the property is indefeasible and imprescriptible [does
having been afforded an opportunity to institute suit; not hold water] is not tenable. The rule of
(3) lack of knowledge on the part of the defendant that indefeasibility of a Torrens Title means that after one
the complainant would assert the right on which he year from the date of issue of the decree of registration
bases his suit; and (4) injury or prejudice to the or if the land has fallen into the hands of an innocent
defendant in the event relief is accorded to the purchaser for value, the title becomes incontestable
complainant, or the suit is not held to be barred. and incontrovertible.

78. Prescription & Laches; Indefeasibility Rule IMPRESCRIPTIBILITY, on the other hand, means
of Torrens Title (2002) that no title to the land in derogation of that of the
registered owner may be acquired by adverse
Way back in 1948, Winda’s husband sold in favor of possession or acquisitive prescription or that the
Verde Sports Center Corp. (Verde) a 10-hectare registered owner does not lose by extinctive
property belonging to their conjugal partnership. The
sale was made without Winda’s knowledge, much less
prescription his right to recover ownership and of the sheriff’s final sale, has obviously prescribed
possession of the land. because:
The action in this case is for annulment of the sale 1) An action to annul a contract on the ground of
executed by the husband over a conjugal fraud must be brought within four (4) years from the
partnership property covered by a Torrens Title. date of discovery of the fraud. Since this is in essence
Action on contracts are subject to prescription. an action to recover ownership, it must be reckoned
from the date of execution of the contract or
79. Prescription (1990)
from the registration of the alleged fraudulent
In 1960, an unregistered parcel of land was mortgaged document with the assessor’s office for the purpose of
by owner O to M, a family friend, as collateral for a transferring the tax declaration, this being unregistered
loan. O acted through his attorney-in-fact, son S, who land, (Baelu v. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. L-
was duly authorized by way of a special power of 74423, Jan. 30, 1989, 169 SCRA 617).
attorney, wherein O declared that he was the absolute
2) If the action is to be treated as an action to
owner of the land, that the tax declarations/receipts
recover ownership of land, it would have prescribed
were all issued in his name, and that he has been
just the same because more than 10 years have already
in open, continuous and adverse possession in the
elapsed since the date of the execution of the sale.
concept of owner.
SECOND ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
As O was unable to pay back the loan plus interest for
the past five [5) years, M had to foreclose the (a) The action to recover has been barred by
mortgage. At the foreclosure sale, M was the highest acquisitive prescription in favor of M considering that
bidder. Upon issuance of the sheriff’s final deed of sale M has possessed the land under a claim of ownership
and registration in January, 1966, the mortgage for ten (10) years with a just title.
property was turned over to M’s possession and control
(b) If M had secured a Torrens Title to the land, all
M has since then developed the said property. In 1967,
the more S and P could not recover because if at all
O died, survived by sons S and P.
their remedies would be:
In 1977, after the tenth (10th) death anniversary
1. A Petition to Review the Decree of Registration.
of his father O. son P filed a suit to annul the
This can be availed of within one (1) year from-the
mortgage deed and subsequent sale of the property,
entry thereof, but only upon the basis of “actual fraud.”
etc., on the ground of fraud. He asserted that the
There is no showing that M committed actual fraud in
property in question was conjugal in nature actually
securing his title to the land; or
belonging, at the time of the mortgage, to O and his
wife, W, whose conjugal share went to their sons (S 2. An action in personam against M for the
and P) and to O. reconveyance of the title in their favor. Again, this
remedy is available within four years from the date of
(a) Is the suit filed by P barred by prescription?
the discovery of the fraud but not later than ten (10)
Explain your answer.
years from the date of registration of the title in the
(b) After the issuance of the sheriff’s final deed of sale name of M.
in 1966 in this case, assuming that M applied for
80. Prescription; Real Rights (1992)
registration under the Torrens System and was issued a
Torrens Title to the said property in question, would A owned a parcel of unregistered land located on the
that added fact have any significant effect on your Tarlac side of the boundary between Tarlac and
conclusion? State your reason. Pangasinan. His brother B owned the adjoining parcel
of unregistered land on the Pangasinan side.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A sold the Tarlac parcel to X in a deed of sale executed
(a) Under Art. 173 of the Civil Code, the action is
as a public instrument by A and X. After X paid in full
barred by prescription because the wife had only ten
the, price of the sale, X took possession of the
(10) years from the transaction and during the marriage
Pangasinan parcel in the belief that it was the Tarlac
to file a suit for the annulment of the mortgage deed.
parcel covered by the deed of sale executed by A and
Alternative Answers to (a) first Alternative Answer: X.
(a) The mortgage contract executed by O, if at all, is After twelve (12) years, a controversy arose between B
only a voidable contract since it involves a conjugal and X on the issue of the ownership of the Pangasinan
partnership property. The action to annul the same parcel, B claims a vested right of ownership over
instituted in 1977, or eleven years after the execution
the Pangasinan parcel because B never sold that parcel of Deeds for registration together with the owner’s
to X or to anyone else. duplicate copy of the title, and paid the corresponding
registration fees. Under Section 56 of PD No. 1529,
On the other hand, X claims a vested right of
the Deed of Sale to Renren is considered registered
ownership over the Pangasinan parcel by acquisitive
from the time the sale was entered in the Day Book
prescription, because X possessed this parcel for
(now called the Primary Entry Book).
over ten (10] years under claim of ownership.
For all legal intents and purposes, Renren is considered
Decide on these claims, giving your reasons.
the registered owner of the land. After all, it was not
SUGGESTED ANSWER: his fault that the Registry of Deeds could not
issue the corresponding transfer certificate of title.
At this point in time, X cannot claim the right of vested
ownership over the Pangasinan parcel by acquisitive Mikaelo’s defense of prescription can not be sustained.
prescription. In addition to the requisites common to A Torrens title is imprescriptible. No title to registered
ordinary and extraordinary acquisitive prescription land in derogation of the title of the registered owner
consisting of uninterrupted, peaceful, public, adverse shall be acquired by prescription or adverse
and actual possession in the concept of owner, ordinary possession. (Section 47, P.D. No, 1529)
acquisitive prescription for ten (10) years requires (1)
The right to recover possession of registered land
possession in good faith and (2) just title. “Just title”
likewise does not prescribe because possession is just a
means that the adverse claimant came into possession
necessary incident of ownership.
of the property through one of the modes recognized
by law for the acquisition of ownership but the grantor
was not the owner or could not transmit any right
b) Mikaelo’s defense of laches, however, appears to be
(Art. 1129. Civil Code). In this case, there is no “just
more sustainable. Renren bought the land and had the
title” and no “mode” that can be invoked by X for the
sale registered way back in 1965. From the facts, it
acquisition of the Pangasinan parcel. There was no
appears that it was only in 1998 or after an
constructive delivery of the Pangasinan parcel because
inexplicable delay of 33 years that he took the first step
it was not the subject-matter of the deed of sale.
asserting his right to the land. It was not even an action
Hence, B retains ownership of the Pangasinan parcel
to recover ownership but only possession of the land.
of land.
By ordinary standards, 33 years of neglect or inaction
81. Primary Entry Book; Acquisitive is too long and maybe considered unreasonable. As
Prescription; Laches (1998) often held by the Supreme Court, the principle of
imprescriptibility sometimes has to yield to the
In 1965, Renren bought from Robyn a parcel of
equitable principle of laches which can convert even a
registered land evidenced by a duly executed deed of
registered land owner’s claim into a stale demand.
sale. The owner presented the deed of sale and the
owner’s certificate of title to the Register of Deeds. Mikaelo’s claim of laches, however, is weak insofar as
The entry was made in the daybook and the element of equity is concerned, there being no
corresponding fees were paid as evidenced by official showing in the facts how he entered into the ownership
receipt. However, no transfer of certificate of title was and possession of the land.
issued to Renren because the original certificate of title
82. Reclamation of Foreshore Lands;
in Robyn’s name was temporarily misplaced after fire
Limitations (2000)
partly gutted the Office of the Register of Deeds.
Meanwhile, the land had been possessed by Republic Act 1899 authorizes municipalities and
Robyn’s distant cousin, Mikaelo, openly, adversely chartered cities to reclaim foreshore lands bordering
and continuously in the concept of owner since 1960. them and to construct thereon adequate docking and
It was only in April 1998 that Renren sued Mikaelo to harbor facilities. Pursuant thereto, the City of
recover possession. Mikaelo invoked a) acquisitive Cavite entered into an agreement with the Fil-Estate
prescription and b) laches, asking that he be declared Realty Company, authorizing the latter to reclaim
owner of the land. Decide the case by evaluating these 300 hectares of land from the sea bordering the
defenses. city, with 30% of the land to be reclaimed to be owned
by Fil-Estate as compensation for its services. The
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Solicitor General questioned the validity of the
a) Renren’s action to recover possession of the land agreement on the ground that it will mean reclaiming
will prosper. In 1965, after buying the land from land under the sea which is beyond the commerce of
Robyn, he submitted the Deed of Sale to the Registry man. The City replies that this is authorized by RA.
1899 because it authorizes the construction of docks instrument or transaction affecting unregistered land is
and harbors. Who is correct? entered in a book provided for the purpose but the
registration thereof is purely voluntary and does
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
not adversely affect third persons who have a better
The Solicitor General is correct. The authority of the right.
City of Cavite under RA 1899 to reclaim land is
b) By recording and registering with the Register of
limited to foreshore lands. The Act did not authorize it
Deeds of the place where the land is located, in
to reclaim land from the sea. “The reclamation being
accordance with Act 3344. However, P.D. 892 required
unauthorized, the City of Cavite did not acquire
holders of Spanish title to bring the same under the
ownership over the reclaimed land. Not being the
Torrens System within 6 months from its effectivity on
owner, it could not have conveyed any portion thereof
February 16, 1976.
to the contractor.
84. Remedies; Judicial Confirmation;
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Imperfect Title (1993)
It depends. If the reclamation of the land from the sea
On June 30, 1986, A filed in the RTC of Abra an
is necessary in the construction of the docks and the
application for registration of title to a parcel of land
harbors, the City of Cavite is correct. Otherwise, it is
under P. D. No. 1529, claiming that since June 12,
not. Since RA 1899 authorized the city to construct
1945, he has been in open, continuous, exclusive
docks and harbors, all works that are necessary for
and notorious possession and occupation of said
such construction are deemed authorized. Including the
parcel of land of the public domain which was
reclamation of land from the sea. The reclamation
alienable and disposable, under a bona fide claim of
being authorized, the city is the owner of the reclaimed
ownership. After issuance of the notice of initial
land and it may convey a portion thereof as payment
hearing and publication, as required by law, the
for the services of the contractor.
petition was heard on July 29, 1987. On the day of the
ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: hearing nobody but the applicant appeared. Neither
was there anyone who opposed the application.
On the assumption that the reclamation contract Thereupon, on motion of the applicant, the RTC issued
was entered into before RA 1899 was repealed by PD an order of general default and allowed the applicant to
3-A, the City of Cavite is correct. Lands under the sea present his evidence. That he did. On September 30,
are “beyond the commerce of man” in the sense that 1989, the RTC dismissed A’s application for lack of
they are not susceptible of private appropriation, sufficient evidence. A appealed to the Court of
ownership or alienation. The contract in question Appeals.
merely calls for the reclamation of 300 hectares of
land within the coastal waters of the city. Per se, The appellant urged that the RTC erred in dismissing
it does not vest, alienate or transfer ownership of his application for registration and in not ordering
land under the sea. The city merely engaged the registration of his title to the parcel of land in question
services of Fil-Estate to reclaim the land for the city. despite the fact that there was no opposition filed by
anybody to his application.
83. Registration; Deed of Mortgage (1994)
Did the RTC commit the error attributed to it?
How do you register now a deed of mortgage of a
parcel of land originally registered under the Spanish SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Mortgage Law?
No, the RTC did not commit the error attributed to it.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: In an application for Judicial confirmation of imperfect
or incomplete title to public agricultural land under
a) After the Spanish Mortgage Law was abrogated by Section 48 of the Public Land Act, the lack of
P.D. 892 on February 16, 1976, all lands covered by opposition and the consequent order of default
Spanish titles that were not brought under the Torrens against those who did not answer or show up on the
system within six (6) months from the date thereof date of initial hearing, does not guarantee the success
have been considered as “unregistered private lands.” of the application. It is still incumbent upon the
Thus, a deed of mortgage affecting land originally applicant to prove with well nigh incontrovertible
registered under the Spanish Mortgage Law is now evidence that he has acquired a title to the land that is
governed by the system of registration of fit for registration. Absent such registrable title, it is
transactions or instruments affecting unregistered the clear duty of the Land Registration Court to
land under Section 194 of the Revised Administrative dismiss the application and declare the land as public
Code as amended by Act No. 3344. Under this law, the land.
An application for land registration is a proceeding in What is the procedure of consult a when an instrument
rem. Its main objective is to establish the status of is denied registration?
the res whether it is still part of our public domain as
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
presumed under the Regalian doctrine or has acquired
the character of a private property. It is the duty of 1) The Register of Deeds shall notify the interested
the applicant to overcome that presumption with party in writing, setting forth the defects of the
sufficient evidence. instrument or the legal ground relied upon for
denying the registration, and advising that if he is not
85. Remedies; Judicial Reconstitution of Title
agreeable to such ruling, he may, without
(1996)
withdrawing the documents from the Registry,
In 1989, the heirs of Gavino, who died on August 10, elevate the matter by Consulta to the Administrator of
1987, filed a petition for reconstitution of his lost or the Land Registration Authority (LRA).
destroyed Torrens Title to a parcel of land in Ermita,
2) Within five {5) days from receipt of notice of
Manila. This was opposed by Marilou who claimed
denial, the party-in-interest shall file his Consulta
ownership of the said land by a series of sales. She
with the Register of Deeds concerned and pay the
claimed that Gavino had sold the property to Bernardo
consulta fee.
way back in 1941 and as evidence thereof, she
presented a Tax Declaration in 1948 in the name of 3) After receipt of the Consulta and payment of the
Bernardo, which cancelled the previous Tax corresponding fee the Register of Deeds makes an
Declaration in the name of Gavino. Then she presented annotation of the pending consulta at the back of the
two deeds of sale duly registered with the Register of certificate of title.
Deeds, the first one executed by Bernardo in 1954
selling the same property to Carlos, and the second one 4) The Register of Deeds then elevates the case to the
executed by Carlos in 1963, selling the same property LRA Administrator with certified records thereof and a
to her. She also claimed that she and her predecessors summary of the facts and issues involved.
in interest have been in possession of the property 5) The LRA Administrator then conducts hearings
since 1948. after due notice or may just require parties to submit
If you were the judge, how will you decide the their memoranda.
petition? Explain. 6) After hearing, the LRA Administrator issues an
SUGGESTED ANSWER: order prescribing the step to be taken or the
memorandum to be made. His resolution in consulta
If I were the judge, I will give due course to the shall be conclusive and binding upon all Registers
petition of the heirs of Gavino despite the opposition of Deeds unless reversed on appeal by the Court of
of Marilou for the following reasons: Appeals or by the Supreme Court. (Section 117, P.D.
1529).
a) Judicial reconstitution of a certificate of title under
RA. No. 26 partakes of a land registration proceeding • The procedure of consulta is a mode of appeal from
and is perforce a proceeding in rem. It denotes denial by the Register of Deeds of the registration of
restoration of an existing instrument which has been the instrument to the Commissioner of Land
lost or destroyed in its original form and condition. Registration.
The purpose of reconstitution of title or any document
is to have the same reproduced, after proceedings. In • Within five days from receipt of the notice of denial,
the same form they were when the loss or destruction the interested party may elevate the matter by consulta
occurred. to the Commissioner of Land Registration who shall
enter an order prescribing the step to be taken or
b) If the Court goes beyond that purpose, it acts memorandum to be made. Resolution in consulta shall
without or in excess of jurisdiction. Thus, where the be binding upon all Registers of Deeds provided that
Torrens Title sought to be reconstituted is in the name the party in interest may appeal to the Court of Appeals
of Gavino, the court cannot receive evidence proving within the period prescribed (Sec. 117, P.D. 1529).
that Marilou is the owner of the land. Marilou’s
dominical claim to the land should be ventilated in a 87. Remedies; Reconveyance vs. Reopening
separate civil action before the Regional Trial Court in of a Decree; Prescriptive Period (2003)
its capacity as a court of general jurisdiction. Louie, before leaving the country to train as a chef in a
86. Remedies; Procedure; Consulta (1994) five- star hotel in New York, U.S.A., entrusted to his
first-degree cousin Dewey an application for
registration, under the Land Registration Act, of a
parcel of land located in Bacolod City. A year later, invokes the indefeasibility of his title considering that
Louie returned to the Philippines and discovered that one year has already elapsed from its issuance. He also
Dewey registered the land and obtained an Original seeks the cancellation of the notice of Lis pendens.
Certificate of Title over the property in his Dewey’s
Will Rachelle’s suit for reconveyance prosper?
name. Compounding the matter, Dewey sold the land
Explain.
to Huey, an innocent purchaser for value. Louie
promptly filed an action for reconveyance of the parcel SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of land against Huey.
Yes, Rachelle’s suit will prosper because all elements
(a) Is the action pursued by Louie the proper for an action for reconveyance are present, namely:
remedy?
(b) Assuming that reconveyance is the proper
remedy, will the action prosper if the case was a) Rachelle is claiming dominical rights over the
filed beyond one year, but within ten years, same land.
from the entry of the decree of registration? b) Rommel procured his title to the land by fraud.
c) The action was brought within the statutory period
Registration Requirements Holder Free Forest Filipino
of four (4) years from discovery of the fraud and not
SUGGESTED ANSWER: later than ten (10} years from the date of registration
of Rommel’s title.
(a) An action for reconveyance against Huey is not the d) Title to the land has not passed into the hands of an
proper remedy, because Huey is an innocent purchaser innocent purchaser for value.
for value. The proper recourse is for Louie to go
after Dewey for damages by reason of the fraudulent Rommel can invoke the indefeasibility of his title if
registration and subsequent sale of the land. If Rachelle had filed a petition to reopen or review the
Dewey is insolvent, Louie may file a claim against decree of registration. But Rachelle instead filed an
the Assurance Fund (Heirs of Pedro Lopez v. De ordinary action in personam for reconveyance. In the
Castro 324 SCRA 591 [2000] citing Sps. Eduarte v. latter action, indefeasibility is not a valid defense
CA, 323 Phil 462, 467 [1996]). because, in filing such action, Rachelle is not seeking
to nullify nor to impugn the indefeasibility of
(b) Yes, the remedy will prosper because the action Rommel’s title. She is only asking the court to compel
prescribes in ten (10) years, not within one (1) year Rommel to reconvey the title to her as the legitimate
when a petition for the reopening of the registration owner of the land.
decree may be filed. The action for reconveyance is
distinct from the petition to reopen the decree of ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
registration (Grey Alba v. De la Cruz, 17 Phil. 49
Yes. The property registered is deemed to be held in
[1910}). There is no need to reopen the registration
trust for the real owner by the person in whose name it
proceedings, but the property should just be
is registered. The Torrens system was not designed to
reconveyed to the real owner.
shield one who had committed fraud or
The action for reconveyance is based on implied or misrepresentation and thus holds the title in bad faith.
constructive trust, which prescribes in ten (10) years (Walstrom v. Mapa Jr.,(G.R 38387, 29 Jan. 1990) as
from the date of issuance of the original certificate of cited in Martinez, D., Summary of SC Decisions,
title. This rule assumes that the defendant is in January to June,1990,p.359].
possession of the land. Where it is the plaintiff who is
89. Remedies; Reconveyance; Prescriptive
in possession of the land, the action for reconveyance
Period (1997)
would be in the nature of a suit for quieting for the title
which action is imprescriptible (David v. Malay, 318 On 10 September 1965, Melvin applied for a free
SCRA 711 [1999]). patent covering two lots – Lot A and Lot B – situated
in Santiago, Isabela. Upon certification by the Public
88. Remedies; Reconveyance; Elements (1995)
Land Inspector that Melvin had been in actual,
Rommel was issued a certificate of title over a parcel continuous, open, notorious, exclusive and adverse
of land in Quezon City. One year later, Rachelle, the possession of the lots since 1925, the Director of Land
legitimate owner of the land, discovered the fraudulent approved Melvin’s application on 04 June 1967. On 26
registration obtained by Rommel. She filed a December 1967, Original Certificate of Title (OCT)
complaint against Rommel for reconveyance and No. P-2277 was issued in the name of Melvln.
caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on the
On 7 September 1971, Percival filed a protest alleging
certificate of title issued to Rommel. Rommel now
that Lot B which he had been occupying and
cultivating since 1947 was included in the Free Patent jurisdiction, may grant prayer for the reconveyance of
issued in the name of Melvin. The Director of Lands Lot B to Percival who has actually possessed the land
ordered the investigation of Percival’s protest. The under a claim of ownership since 1947. After all, if
Special Investigator who conducted the investigation Melvin’s title is declared void ab initio and the land is
found that Percival had been in actual cultivation of reverted to the public domain, Percival would just the
Lot B since 1947. same be entitled to preference right to acquire the land
from the government. Besides, well settled is the rule
On 28 November 1986, the Solicitor General filed in
that once public land has been in open, continuous,
behalf of the Republic of the Philippines a complaint
exclusive and notorious possession under a bonafide
for cancellation of the free patent and the OCT issued
claim of acquisition of ownership for the period
in the name of Melvin and the reversion of the land to
prescribed by Section 48 of the Public Land Act, the
public domain on the ground of fraud and
same ipso jure ceases to be public and in
misrepresentation in obtaining the free patent. On the
contemplation of law acquired the character of private
same date, Percival sued Martin for the reconveyance
land. Thus, reconveyance of the land from Melvin
of Lot B.
to Percival would be the better procedure (Vitale vs.
Melvin filed his answers interposing the sole Anore, 90 Phil. 855; Pena, Land Titles and Deeds,
defense in both cases that the Certificate of Title 1982, p. 427).
issued in his name became incontrovertible and
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
indefeasible upon the lapse of one year from the
issuance of the free patent. The action of the Solicitor General should prosper,
considering that the doctrine of indefeasibility of title
Given the circumstances, can the action of the Solicitor
does not apply to free patent secured through fraud. A
General and the case for reconveyance filed by
certificate of title cannot be used as shield to
Percival possibly prosper?
perpetuate fraud. The State is not bound by the period
SUGGESTED ANSWER: of prescription stated in Sec. 38 of Act 496.
(Director of Lands vs. Abanilla, 124 SCRA 358).
“If fraud be discovered in the application which led to
the issuance of the patent and Certificate of Title, this The action for reconveyance filed by Percival may still
Title becomes ipso facto null and void. Thus, in a case prosper provided that the property has not passed to an
where a person who obtained a free patent, knowingly innocent third party for value (Dablo vs. Court of
made a false statement of material and essential facts Appeals, 226 SCRA 618), and provided that the action
in his application for the same, by stating therein that is filed within the prescriptive period of ten years
the lot in question was part of the public domain not (Tale vs. Court of Appeals, 208 SCRA 266). Since the
occupied or claimed by any other person, his title action was filed by Percival 19 years after the
becomes ipso facto canceled and consequently issuance of Melvin’s title, it is submitted that the same
rendered null and void.” is already barred by prescription.

“It is to the public interest that one who succeeds In ALTERNATIVE ANSWER (to second part of
fraudulently acquiring title to public land should question)
not be allowed to benefit therefrom and the State,
The action for reconveyance filed by Percival will
through the Solicitor General, may file the
prosper, because the land has ceased to be public land
corresponding action for annulment of the patent and
and has become private land by open, continuous,
the reversion of the land involved to the public
public, exclusive possession under a bona fide claim of
domain” (Dinero vs. Director of Lands; Kayaban vs.
ownership for more than thirty years, and Percival is
Republic L-33307, 8-20-73; Director of Lands vs.
still in possession of the property at present. His action
Hon. Pedro Samson Animas, L-37682,3-29-74).
for reconveyance can be considered as an action to
This action does not prescribe. With respect to quiet title, which does not prescribe if the plaintiff is in
Percival’s action for reconveyance, it would have possession of the property. (Olviga v.CA, G.R. No.
prescribed, having been filed more than ten (10) years 1048013, October 21,1993)
after registration and issuance of an O.C.T. in the name
90. Remedies; Reopening of a Decree; Elements
of Melvin, were it not for the inherent infirmity of the
(1992)
latter’s title. Under the facts, the statute of limitations
will not apply to Percival because Melvin knew that a What are the essential requisites or elements for
part of the land covered by his title actually belonged the allowance of the reopening or review of a decree of
to Percival. So, instead of nullifying in toto the title of registration?
Melvin, the court, in the exercise of equity and
SUGGESTED ANSWER: either Judicial or quasi-judicial. System or recording of
evidence of title is merely the registration of evidence
The essential elements are: (1) that the petitioner has a
of acquisitions of land with the Register of Deeds, who
real or dominical right; (2) that he has been deprived
annotates the same on the existing title, cancels the old
thereof through fraud; (3) that the petition is filed
one and issues a new title based on the document
within one (1) year from the issuance of the decree;
presented for registration.
and (4) that the property has not yet been
transferred to an innocent purchaser (Rublico vs. 92. Unregistered Land (1991)
Orellana 30 SCRA 511; Ubudan vs.Gil 45 SCRA 17).
Maria Enriquez failed to pay the realty taxes on
OPTIONAL EXTENDED ANSWER: her unregistered agricultural land located in Magdugo,
Toledo City. In 1989, to satisfy the taxes due, the City
Petition for review of the Decree of Registration. A
sold it at public auction to Juan Miranda, an employee
remedy expressly provided in Section 32 of P. D.
at the Treasurer’s Office of said City, whose bid at
No. 1529 (formerly Section 38. Act 496), this
P10,000.00 was the highest. In due time, a final bill of
remedy has the following elements:
sale was executed in his favor.
a) The petition must be filed by a person
Maria refused to turn-over the possession of the
claiming dominical or other real rights to the land
property to Juan alleging that (1) she had been, in the
registered in the name of respondent.
meantime, granted a free patent and on the basis
b) The registration of the land in the name of thereof an Original Certificate of Title was issued to
respondent was procured by means of actual, her, and (2) the sale in favor of Juan is void from the
(not just constructive) fraud, which must be extrinsic. beginning in view of the provision in the
Fraud is actual if the registration was made through Administrative Code of 1987 which prohibits officers
deceit or any other intentional act of downright and employees of the government from purchasing
dishonesty to enrich oneself at the expense of another. directly or indirectly any property sold by the
It is extrinsic when it is something that was not raised, government for nonpayment of any tax, fee or other
litigated and passed upon in the main proceedings. public charge.

c) The petition must be filed within one (1) year from (a) Is the sale to Juan valid? If so, what is the effect of
the date of the issuance of the decree. the Issuance of the Certificate of Title to Maria?
(b) If the sale is void, may Juan recover the
d) Title to the land has not passed to an P10,000.00? If not, why not?
Innocent purchaser for value (Libudan vs. Gil, 45 (c) If the sale is void, did it not nevertheless, operate
SCRA 27, 1972), Rublico vs. Orrelana. 30 SCRA 511, to divert Maria of her ownership? If it did, who then is
1969); RP vs. CA, 57 G. R No. 40402. March 16, the owner of the property?
1987).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
91. Torrens System vs.Recording of Evidence of
Title (1994) A. The sale of the land to Juan is not valid, being
contrary to law. Therefore, no transfer of ownership of
Distinguish the Torrens system of land registration the land was effected from the delinquent taxpayer to
from the system of recording of evidence of title. him. The original certificates of title obtained by Maria
thru a free patent grant from the Bureau of Lands
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
under Chapter VII, CA 141 is valid but in view of her
a) The TORRENS SYSTEM OF LAND delinquency, the said title is subject to the right of the
REGISTRATION is a system for the registration of City Government to sell the land at public auction. The
title to the land. Thus, under this system what is issuance of the OCT did not exempt the land from the
entered in the Registry of Deeds, is a record of the tax sales. Section 44 of P.O. No. 1529 provides that
owner’s estate or interest in the land, unlike the every registered owner receiving a Certificate of Title
system under the Spanish Mortgage Law or the system shall hold the same free from an encumbrances,
under Section 194 of the Revised Administrative subject to certain exemptions.
Code as amended by Act 3344 where only the
B. Juan may recover because he was not a party to
evidence of such title is recorded. In the latter system,
the violation of the law.
what is recorded is the deed of conveyance from hence
the owner’s title emanated—and not the title itself. C. No, the sale did not divest Maria of her title
precisely because the sale is void. It is as good as if no
b) Torrens system of land registration is that which is
sale ever took place.
prescribed in Act 496 (now PD 1529), which is
In tax sales, the owner is divested of his land initially proper court. However, the land was registered in the
upon award and issuance of a Certificate of Sale, and name of Paulita as “widow”. Hence, the buyer has the
finally after the lapse of the 1 year period from date of right to rely upon what appears in the record of the
registration, to redeem, upon execution by the treasurer Register of Deeds and should, consequently, be
of an instrument sufficient in form and effects to protected. Alberto cannot recover the land from Rafael
convey the property. Maria remained owner of the land but would have the right of recourse against his wife
until another tax sale is to be performed in favor of a
b) The parcel of land is absolute community
qualified buyer.
property having been acquired during the marriage and
93. Property Relations; Absolute Community through Paulita’s industry despite the registration being
(1994) only in the name of Paulita. The land being community
property, its sale to Rafael without the consent of
Paulita left the conjugal home because of the excessive
Alberto is void. However, since the land is registered
drinking of her husband, Alberto. Paulita, out of her
in the name of Paulita as widow, there is nothing in the
own endeavor, was able to buy a parcel of land which
title which would raise a suspicion for Rafael to make
she was able to register under her name with the
inquiry. He, therefore, is an innocent purchaser for
addendum “widow.” She also acquired stocks in a
value from whom the land may no longer be
listed corporation registered in her name. Paulita sold
recovered.
the parcel of land to Rafael, who first examined the
original of the transfer certificate of title. c) No. Rafael is an innocent purchaser in good faith
who, upon relying on the correctness of the certificate
1) Has Alberto the right to share in the shares of stock
of title, acquires rights which are to be protected by the
acquired by Paulita?
courts.
2) Can Alberto recover the land from Rafael?
Under the established principles of land registration
SUGGESTED ANSWER: law, the presumption is that the transferee of registered
land is not aware of any defect in the title of the
1. a) Yes. The Family Code provides that all property property he purchased. (See Tojonera v. Court of
acquired during the marriage, whether the Appeals, 103 SCRA 467).Moreover, the person dealing
acquisition appears to have been made, contracted or with registered land may safely rely on the correctness
registered in the name of one or both spouses, is of its certificate of title and the law will in no way
presumed to be absolute community property unless oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine the
the contrary is proved. condition of the property. [Director of Lands v.
b) Yes. The shares are presumed to be absolute Abache, et al. 73 Phil. 606).No strong considerations
community property having been acquired during the of public policy have been presented which would lead
marriage despite the fact that those shares were the Court to reverse the established and sound doctrine
registered only in her name. Alberto’s right to claim his that the buyer in good faith of a registered parcel of
share will only arise, however, at dissolution land does not have to look beyond the Torrens Title
and search for any hidden defect or inchoate right
c) The presumption is still that the shares of stock are which may later invalidate or diminish his right to
owned in common. Hence, they will form part of the what he purchased. (Lopez v. Court of Appeals, 189
absolute community or the conjugal partnership SCRA 271)
depending on what the property Relations is.
d) The parcel of land is absolute community
d) Since Paulita acquired the shares of stock by property having been acquired during the marriage and
onerous title during the marriage, these are part of the through Paulita’s industry despite registration only in
conjugal or absolute community property, as the case the name of Paulita. The land being community
maybe (depending on whether the marriage was property, its sale to Rafael without the consent of
celebrated prior to. or after, the effectivity of the Alberto is void.
Family Code). Her physical separation from her
husband did not dissolve the community of property. 94. Property Relations; Ante Nuptial
Hence, the husband has a right to share in the shares of Agreement (1995)
stock. Suppose Tirso and Tessie were married on 2 August
2) a) Under a community of property, whether absolute 1988 without executing any ante nuptial agreement.
or relative, the disposition of property belonging to One year after their marriage, Tirso while supervising
such community is void if done by just one spouse the clearing of Tessie’s inherited land upon the latter’s
without the consent of the other or authority of the request, accidentally found the treasure not in the new
river bed but on the property of Tessie. To whom ANOTHER ANSWER:
shall the treasure belong? Explain.
1.Sofia, being her deceased son’s legal heir concurring
SUGGESTED ANSWER: with his surviving spouse (Arts. 985, 986 and 997,
Civil Code), may rightfully claim that the house and
Since Tirso and Tessie were married before the
lot are not conjugal but belong to the hereditary estate
effectivity of the Family Code, their property relation
of Bob. The value of the land being more than the cost
is governed by conjugal partnership of gains. Under
of the improvement (Art. 120, Family Code).
Art. 54 of the Civil Code, the share of the hidden
treasure which the law awards to the finder or the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
proprietor belongs to the conjugal partnership of gains.
2. Yes, the answer would still be the same. Since
The one-half share pertaining to Tessie as owner of the
Bob and Issa contracted their marriage way back in
land, and the one-half share pertaining to Tirso as
1970, then the property relations that will govern is
finder of the treasure, belong to the conjugal
still the relative community or conjugal partnership of
partnership of gains.
gains (Article 119, Civil Code). It will not matter if
95. Property Relations; Conjugal Partnership Bob died before or after August 3. 1988 (effectivity
of Gains (1998) date of the Family Code], what matters is the date
when the marriage was contracted. As Bob and Issa
In 1970, Bob and Issa got married without executing a
contracted their marriage way back in 1970. the
marriage settlement. In 1975, Bob inherited from his
property relation that governs them is still the conjugal
father a residential lot upon which, in 1981, he
partnership of gains. (Art. 158, Civil Code)
constructed a two- room bungalow with savings from
his own earnings. At that time, the lot was worth ANOTHER ANSWER:
P800.000.00 while the house, when finished cost
2. If Bob died be fore August 3, 1988. which is the
P600,000.00. In 1989 Bob died, survived only by his
date the Family Code took effect, the answer will not
wife, Issa and his mother, Sofia. Assuming that the
be the same. Art. 158. Civil Code, would then apply.
relative values of both assets remained at the same
The land would then be deemed conjugal, along with
proportion:
the house, since conjugal funds were used in
1. State whether Sofia can rightfully claim that the constructing it. The husband’s estate would be entitled
house and lot are not conjugal but exclusive property to a reimbursement of the value of the land from
of her deceased son. conjugal partnership funds.
2. Will your answer be the same if Bob died before 96. Donation vs. Sale (2003)
August 3, 1988?
a) May a person sell something that does not belong
SUGGESTED ANSWER: to him? Explain.
1. Since Bob and Sofia got married In 1970, then the b) May a person donate something that does not
law that governs is the New Civil Code (Persons), in belong to him? Explain.
which case, the property relations that should be
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
applied as regards the property of the spouses is the
system of relative community or conjugal partnership (a) Yes, a person may sell something which does not
of gains (Article 119, Civil Code). By conjugal belong to him. For the sale to be valid, the law does
partnership of gains, the husband and the wife place in not require the seller to be the owner of the property at
a common fund the fruits of their separate property and the time of the sale. (Article 1434, NCC). If the seller
the income from their work or Industry (Article 142, cannot transfer ownership over the thing sold at the
Civil Code). In this instance, the lot inherited by Bob time of delivery because he was not the owner
in 1975 is his own separate property, he having thereof, he shall be liable for breach of contact.
acquired the same by lucrative title (par. 2, Art.
148, Civil Code). However, the house constructed (b) As a general rule, a person cannot donate
from his own savings in 1981 during the subsistence of something which he cannot dispose of at the time of
his marriage with Issa is conjugal property and not the donation (Article 751, New Civil Code).
exclusive property in accordance with the principle of
“reverse accession” provided for in Art. 158, Civil
Code.
97. Donations; Condition; Capacity to Sue
(1996)
Sometime in 1955, Tomas donated a parcel of land to exception to the rule, it has been held that a person not
his stepdaughter Irene, subject to the condition that she so obliged may nevertheless ask for annulment if he is
may not sell, transfer or cede the same for twenty prejudiced in his rights regarding one of the
years. Shortly thereafter, he died. In 1965, because she contracting parties (DBP vs.CA, 96SCRA342 and
needed money for medical expenses, Irene sold the othercases) and can show the detriment which would
land to Conrado. The following year, Irene died, result to him from the contract in which he had no
leaving as her sole heir a son by the name of Armando. intervention, (Teves vs. PHHC, 23 SCRA 114).
When Armando learned that the land which he
Such detriment or prejudice cannot be shown by
expected to inherit had been sold by Irene to Conrado,
Armando. As a forced heir, Armando’s interest in the
he filed an action against the latter for annulment of
property was, at best, a mere expectancy. The sale of
the sale, on the ground that it violated the restriction
the land by his mother did not impair any vested right.
imposed by Tomas. Conrado filed a motion to dismiss,
The fact remains that the premature sale made by his
on the ground that Armando did not have the legal
mother (premature because only half of the period of
capacity to sue.
the ban had elapsed) was not voidable at all, none of
If you were the Judge, how will you rule on this the vices of consent under Art. 139 of the NCC being
motion to dismiss? Explain. present. Hence, the motion to dismiss should be
granted.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
98. Donations; Conditions; Revocation (1991)
As judge, I will grant the motion to dismiss. Armando
has no personality to bring the action for annulment of Spouses Michael and Linda donated a 3-hectare
the sale to Conrado. Only an aggrieved party to the residential land to the City of Baguio on the condition
contract may bring the action for annulment thereof that the city government would build thereon thereon
(Art. 1397. NCC). While Armando is heir and a public park with a boxing arena, the construction
successor-in-interest of his mother (Art. 1311, of which shall commence within six (6) months from
NCC), he [standing in place of his mother) has no the date the parties ratify the donation. The donee
personality to annul the contract. Both are not accepted the donation and the title to the property was
aggrieved parties on account of their own violation of transferred in its name. Five years elapsed but the
the condition of, or restriction on, their ownership public park with the boxing arena was never started.
imposed by the donation. Only the donor or his heirs Considering the failure of the donee to comply with
would have the personality to bring an action to the condition of the donation, the donor-spouses
revoke a donation for violation of a condition thereof sold the property to Ferdinand who then sued to
or a restriction thereon. (Garridou vs.CA,236 SCRA recover the land from the city government.
450).Consequently, while the donor or his heirs were
Will the suit prosper?
not parties to the sale, they have the right to annul the
contract of sale because their rights are prejudiced by SUGGESTED ANSWER:
one of the contracting parties thereof [DBP v. CA, 96
SCRA 342; Teves vs. PHHC. 23 SCRA 114]. Since Ferdinand has no right to recover the land. It is true
Armando is neither the donor nor heir of the donor, he that the donation was revocable because of
has no personality to bring the action for annulment. breach of the conditions. But until and unless the
donation was revoked, it remained valid. Hence,
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Spouses Michael and Linda had no right to sell the
land to Ferdinand. One cannot give what he does not
As judge, I will grant the motion to dismiss.
have. What the donors should have done first was to
Compliance with a condition imposed by a donor gives
have the donation annulled or revoked. And after that
rise to an action to revoke the donation under Art. 764,
was done, they could validly have disposed of the land
NCC. However, the right of action belongs to the
in favor of Ferdinand.
donor. Is transmissible to his heirs, and may be
exercised against the donee’s heirs. Since Armando is
an heir of the donee, not of the donor, he has no legal
capacity to sue for revocation of the donation. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Although he is not seeking such revocation but an A. Until the contract of donation has been resolved
annulment of the sale which his mother, the donee, had or rescinded under Article 1191 of the Civil Code or
executed in violation of the condition imposed by revoked under Art. 764 of the Civil Code, the donation
the donor, an action for annulment of a contract stands effective and valid. Accordingly, the sale
may be brought only by those who are principally or made by the donor to Ferdinand cannot be said to have
subsidiarily obliged thereby (Art. 1397, NCC). As an conveyed title to Ferdinand, who, thereby, has no
cause of action for recovery of the land acting for voluntarily. For a donation to be onerous, the burden
and in his behalf. must be imposed by the donor on the donee. In the
problem, there is no such burden imposed by the
B. The donation is onerous, And being onerous,
donor on the donee. The donation not being
what applies is the law on contracts, and not the law on
onerous, it must comply with the formalities of Article
donation (De Luna us. Abrigo, 81 SCRA 150).
749.
Accordingly, the prescriptive period for the filing of
such an action would be the ordinary prescriptive ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
period for contacts which may either be six or ten
Neither Rosa nor Amanda is correct. The donation is
depending upon whether it is verbal or written. The
onerous only as to the portion of the property
filing of the case five years later is within the
corresponding to the value of the installments and
prescriptive period and, therefore, the action can
taxes paid by Amanda.
prosper.
The portion in excess thereof is not onerous. The
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
onerous portion is governed by the rules on contracts
The law on donation lays down a special prescriptive which do not require the acceptance by the donee to be
period in the case of breach of condition, which is four in any form. The onerous part, therefore, is valid. The
years from non-compliance thereof (Article 764 Civil portion which is not onerous must comply with Article
Code). Since the action has prescribed, the suit will not 749 of the New Civil
prosper.
Code which requires the donation and the
99. Donations; Requisites; Immovable Property acceptance thereof to be in a public instrument in order
to be valid. The acceptance not being in a public
Anastacia purchased a house and lot on installments at
instrument, the part which is not onerous is void and
a housing project in Quezon City. Subsequently, she
Rosa may recover it from Amanda.
was employed in California and a year later, she
executed a deed of donation, duly authenticated by the 100. Donations; Unregistered; Effects;
Philippine Consulate in Los Angeles, California, Non–Compliance; Resolutory Condition
donating the house and lot to her friend Amanda. The (2006)
latter brought the deed of donation to the owner of the
Spouses Alfredo and Racquel were active members of
project and discovered that Anastacia left unpaid
a religious congregation. They donated a parcel of land
installments and real estate taxes. Amanda paid these
in favor of that congregation in a duly notarized Deed
so that the donation in her favor can be registered in
of Donation, subject to the condition that the Minister
the project owner’s office. Two months later,
shall construct thereon a place of worship within 1
Anastacia died, leaving her mother Rosa as her sole
year from the acceptance of the donation. In an
heir. Rosa filed an action to annul the donation on the
affidavit he executed on behalf of the congregation, the
ground that Amanda did not give her consent in the
Minister accepted the donation. The Deed of Donation
deed of donation or in a separate public instrument.
was not registered with the Registry of Deeds.
Amanda replied that the donation was an onerous
one because she had to pay unpaid installments and However, instead of constructing a place of worship,
taxes; hence her acceptance may be implied. Who is the Minister constructed a bungalow on the property he
correct? used as his residence. Disappointed with the Minister,
the spouses revoked the donation and demanded that
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
he vacate the premises immediately. But the Minister
Rosa is correct because the donation is void. The refused to leave, claiming that aside from using the
property donated was an immovable. For such bungalow as his residence, he is also using it as a
donation to be valid, Article 749 of the New Civil place for worship on special occasions. Under the
Code requires both the donation and the acceptance circumstances, can Alfredo and Racquel evict the
to be in a public instrument. There being no showing Minister and recover possession of the property? If you
that Amanda’s acceptance was made in a public were the couple’s counsel, what action would you take
instrument, the donation is void. The contention to protect the interest of your clients?
that the donation is onerous and, therefore, need not
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
comply with Article 749 for validity is without merit.
The donation is not onerous because it did not impose Yes, Alfredo and Racquel can bring an action for
on Amanda the obligation to pay the balance on the ejectment against the Minister for recovery of
purchase price or the arrears in real estate taxes. possession of the property evict the Minister and
Amanda took it upon herself to pay those amounts recover possession of the property. An action for
annulment of the donation, reconveyance and damages
should be filed to protect the interests of my client. The
donation is an onerous donation and therefore shall be
governed by the rules on contracts. Because there was
no fulfillment or compliance with the condition which
is resolutory in character, the donation may now be
revoked and all rights which the donee may have
acquired under it shall be deemed lost and
extinguished.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, an action for ejectment will not prosper. I would
advice Alfredo and Racquel that the Minister, by
constructing a structure which also serves as a
place of worship, has pursued the objective of the
donation. His taking up residence in the bungalow
may be regarded as a casual breach and will not
warrant revocation of the donation. Similarily,
therefore, an action for revocation of the
donation will be denied.