Saint Paul School of Professional Studies

SCHOOL OF LAW

SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE

MID TERM Examination Questions in CIVIL LAW REVIEW I
DIRECTIONS:
Read carefully the questions very and ANSWER them legibly, clearly, and concisely.
Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the relevant facts presented by the
question and should show your knowledge and understanding of the pertinent principles of law
involved and apply the law to the given facts. Present your answers in a logical and “lawyer-like
manner”. A mere “Yes” or “No” answer without the corresponding explanation/discussion will
have no credit. Thus, always fully but briefly explain your answers.
I
[5 points]
Define or Explain in your own words what is meant by Quieting of Title? Does an Action
to Quiet Title Prescribe? Explain briefly but exhaustively
weve
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud
or doubt or uncertainty on the title of real property. This cloud or doubt is
created or a result of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or
proceeding that is apparently valid or effective , but is actually invalid,
ineffective or voidable that may be prejudicial to said title.
An action to Quiet title is imprescriptible (or does not prescribe) if the
real property is in the possession of the plaintiff. However, if the real property
is in the possession of the defendant the action for quieting of title prescribes
in 30 years. The reason for the latter is that the action is in the nature of a
recovery of real property, the prescriptive period of which is 30 years.

(NOTES: The prescriptive period of 30 years above discussed refers to

Extinctive prescription/ prescription of action [ Article 1141] not the 30 year
acquisitive prescription [ Article 1117 in relation to 1134]

II
[5 points]
Discuss the relevance of the Distinction between Real and Personal Property. [Explain,
do not merely enumerate.]

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The distinction between Real and Personal property is important or relevant
because of the following:
a) In applying the rules in acquisitive prescription, Either 10 or 30 years of
possession is required in acquisitive prescription over real property, while 4 or 8 years
possession is required in acquisitive prescription over personal property;

1
 b) Only movables or personal property can be the object of the contracts of pledge
or chattel mortgage while only immovable can be the object of real estate mortgage;
c) There is likewise a different rule on the formalities of a donation: in donation of
personal properties and that of real property. Donations of personal property which does
not exceed P 5,000.00 may be made orally as long as thee is simultaneous delivery, while
donations exceeding P 5,000.00 the donation and acceptance must be in writing either in a
private document or a public document. On the other hand donation and acceptance of a
real property must in a public document.
None compliance with the above requirements renders the donation void.
d) Only personal property can be the object of crimes of theft and robbery, while
usurpation can be committed with respect to real property;
e) There is likewise a different rule in determining venue : If the action affects title
or possession or interest over real property venue is in the court where the real property is
situated. While the venue in cases involving personal property is commenced where the
plaintiff or defendant resides at the option of the plaintiff;
f) In extrajudicial deposit: Only movable properties may be the object of
extrajudicial deposit.

[NOTE: An answer which has four of the above is entitled to full credit]

III
[5 points]
Mark de Mon has been in possession and occupation since 1950, built two houses, and
applied for registration before the Regional Trial Court over said parcel of land which was
formerly a National Road (Highway) but which the state (government) abandoned by non-use
since it constructed another but wider road to decongest the traffic. The Solicitor General
opposed the petition for registration on the ground that the property applied for is a land of
public dominion. The Sol-gen likewise cited the Regalia Doctrine to buttress his opposition.
In his reply Mark argued that he acquired ownership over the property in view of his 30
years’ possession and occupation of the same, further arguing that the property applied for is
already patrimonial property and no longer property of public dominion, hence susceptible to
acquisition by prescription. He cited Article 422 in relation to Article 1134 of the Civil Code,
which reads:
Article 422. Property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public
use of for public service shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State.
Article 1137 Ownership and other real rights over immovable property also
prescribe through uninterrupted adverse possession thereof for thirty years , without need of title
or of good faith.

Assuming that you are the judge handing the land registration case, rule on
the opposing contentions of Mark and the Solicitor General.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will uphold the contention or position of the Solicitor General. Lands
of PUBLIC DOMINION are not susceptible to acquisitive prescription
because they are beyond the commerce of men. An abandonment of intention
to use a property for public service makes property of public dominion into
patrimonial property under Article 422 of the civil code, The abandonment
and consequent conversion into patrimonial property of the state must be

2
definite and must be made by the authorized person or entity, Hence, there
must be a clear declaration, either by congress or by the President thru a
Presidential Proclamation in cases authorized by law, that the property is no
longer needed for public service or the generation/ development of national
wealth. Only then after this is complied with can the property be susceptible
to acquisition.
[ See: Heirs of Malabanan vs. Republic; Laurel vs. Garcia]

IV
[5 points]

James built a house on his newly purchase Lot in Palo, Leyte. He then built a residential
house on it. On the other hand Lebron purchased the LOT adjacent to that of James. The
relocation survey commissioned by Lebron y disclosed that a portion of James house stood on a
portion of Lebron’s lot to the extent of 50 square meters. Lebron claims that James is a builder
in bad faith because he should know the boundaries of his lot, and demands that the portion of
James’ house which encroached on his land be removed/destroyed. James replies that he is a
builder in good faith, because this was the lot boundaries pointed to by the owner when he
purchased the property, and offers to buy the portion of the lot occupied by his house.

QUESTIONS:
A) Is James a builder in good faith? Why? [2.5)

B) Whose preference or demand should prevail or be followed? Why? [2.5]

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A] Yes, James is a builder in good faith. A builder in good faith is one who has no
knowledge or is not aware in the defect or flaw in his title. In this case James relied in good
faith on the identification of his lot from his seller (previous owner) who pointed to him the
location and boundary of his property. Lebon’s contention that James should know the
boundary of his lot is without merit since there is no indication that James is a geodetic
engineer or other has technical knowledge of conducting surveys. Besides, good faith is
always presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary.

B] Neither the preference of James nor Lebron can or should prevail. James’ offer
to buy the occupied property is not proper or cannot be granted because the option to
choose whether to appropriate the improvement (and pay indemnity) or sell the land
belongs to Lebron. On the other hand the right to demolish the improvement is not one of
the options granted by law to the owner of the land. It is only when the builder (James)
agrees to purchase the land but fails to pay can he recover the land and remove/ demolish
the improvement.
V
[7.5 points]

3
 A] Rene and Marlon one after another purchased separate but adjoining lots at Kassel
Homes Subdivision. Because of confusion as to the boundaries of the adjoining LOTS that they
bought from the subdivision company. Rene constructed his house on the adjoining lot owned by
Marlon believing that it is the land that he bought from the subdivision company. Assuming that
Marlon is in good faith, what are the respective rights (and or options) of Rene and Marlon with
respect to the house built by Rene? Briefly explain [5 points].
B] Assume that Rene knew all along that the lot which he built his house was the
property purchased by Marlon, but he purposely did so that the latter will be forced to sell the
property to him. Discuss the respective rights of Rene and Marlon with respect to the house built
by Rene, assuming that Marlon was in good faith [2.5 points]

SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
A] If both Rene (builder) and Marlon (land owner) are in good faith, the following
are their respective rights: Marlon (the owner of the Land) has the option to choose either
to acquire the improvement by paying indemnity for the value of the improvement as well
as the necessary, , or if he does not want to appropriate the improvement Marlon can
obligate builder/planter to buy the land or collect or if not he can collect rent for the land
from builder. However, land owner cannot obligate the builder to buy if the value of land
is more than the building.
On the other hand, Rene (the builder) is entitled to received indemnity for the value
of the improvement and the necessary expenses. Should Marlon opt to appropriate the
improvement, Rene has the right of retention over the improvement without having to pay
for the rent until the land owner pays the indemnity. If the Marlo does not appropriate the
luxurious improvements, Rene can remove the same provided there is no injury to the
principal thing.
B] If Rene is in bad faith, because he knew all along that the land in which he builds
his house belongs to Marlon, while the latter is in good faith, the land owner (Marlon) has
the right to retain or appropriate the improvement without indemnity except for the
necessary expenses of preservation, plus he is entitled to damages.
On the other hand the builder on bad faith (Rene) losses the improvement or
accessory and in addition he is liable for damages.
VI
[10 points]
A] Define or explain the Doctrine of Irrevindicability [2.5 points]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Doctrine of Irrevindicability provides that movables acquired in
good faith does only create a presumption of ownership, but is already

4
equivalent to title. For this doctrine to apply two requisites must be present,
namely: a) the movable property must be acquired in good faith, and; b) the
possession must be in the concept of owner.
The following however, are the exemptions to the application of the
doctrine: when the owner 1) has lost the thing; or 2) has been unlawfully
deprived thereof.

B] Alex sold to Marie a diamond studded golden ring for P15,000.00. It turned out that
Alex only stole the ring from Judy and Marie was not aware of this. When Judy saw her ring in
the possession of Marie, she filed a case for REPLIVEN against Marie. In her answer, Marie
stated the she acquired the ring in good faith and raised the Doctrine/ Principle of
Irrevindicability, asserting that under Article 559 of the Civil Code possession of movable
property in good faith is equivalent to title. After trial, the Judge ordered Marie to return the ring
to Judy without ordering her to reimburse Marie the amount she paid to Alex.
Was the ruling of the Judge denying reimbursement to Marie legally correct? [5 points]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
[B] The ruling of the judge, in denying reimbursement to Marie, is legally correct.
Under the law the above indicated exceptions are present, that is the owner has lost the
thing or has been unduly deprived of the movable property, the owner may recover the
same without reimbursing the holder.
C] Will your answer the same if Alex pledged (“pawned”) the ring to Palawan Pawnshop
and that Marie purchased said ring at the public auctionconducted by Palawan Pawnshop?
Explain your answer [2.5 points]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
[C] My answer will not be the same. The law provides that if the
possessor in good faith acquired the property in a merchant store or in a
public auction, then the owner cannot recover the same from the possessor
without reimbursing the amount he paid for.
VII
[7.5 points]

Simon and Peter are brothers and co-owners of a 10 hectares’ farm land. Simon migrated
to the United States at an early age while Peter stayed in the country and cultivated and
administered the farm. Peter has never openly claimed sole ownership of the property. If he ever
had the intention to claim sole ownership, the same was never made know to Simon. In fact, he
deposited the share of Simon from the proceeds of the farm in a bank for 15 years, though he
later changed his mind and withdraw the same and spent them for his personal needs.
When Simon returned to the Philippines after 35 years in the US he filed an action for
judicial partition of the 10 hectare to get his share. Peter opposes the partition raising the
following contentions in his answer:
A] Extinctive Prescription, to bar (prevent) the action for partition, [2.5 points]
and
B] Acquisitive Prescription, arguing that he had been in possession of the
farm for thirty-five (35) years now [5 points].

Discuss whether or not the above “twin contentions” of Peter are legally tenable or
not? Discuss and briefly explain separately Peters two contention

5
 A] Peter’s contention or defense of Extinctive Prescription is not legally
tenable. An Action for Partition by a co-owner is imprescriptible. This is so
since under Article 494 of the Civil Code no co-owner shall be obliged to
remain in the co-ownership. Each co-owner may demand at any time the
partition of the thing owned in common, in so far as his share is concerned.
B] Neither is the defense of Acquisitive Prescription legally tenable since
no prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-
owner or co-heirs so long as he recognized expressly or impliedly the co-
ownership. In this case, Peter has never repudiated the co-ownership since he
never openly claimed sole ownership of the property. He also never made
known to Simon
His intention to claim sole ownership. In fact, he deposited in a bank the share
of Simon from the proceeds of the farm, a clear indication that he recognizes
the co-ownership.
VIII
[7.5 points]

Nestor leased from Bikoy, for 15 years, Lot 543 - a farmland covered by OCT 123,
situated along the bank of the river which he cultivated and planted with fruits and vegetables.
Over several years, the action of the river gradually brought sand, silt and sediment from its
sources thereby increasing the area of the property owned by Bikoy by two hectares. Nestor also
occupied and cultivated this additional area and built three houses for himself and his two
married children.
When Bikoy learned of this additional area he ordered Nestor to demolish the three
houses and demanded that he be given a share of the produce/ harvest along the additional area,
raising the following arguments:
a) That under the Civil Code the riparian owner owns the additional areal resulting
from the alluvium/accretion.
b) That since Lot 543 is covered by Torrens Title, the additional area is also covered
by the title, and therefore not susceptible to acquisitive prescription;
Nestor countered that since he has been in possession and occupation of the additional
area for more than ten (10) y years now, he has acquired ownership by ordinary prescription over
the accretion (additional area).
QUESTIONS:
A] Discuss separately whether or not the two arguments raised by Bikoy are legally
tenable. Briefly explain your answer. [NOTE: Your answer in Question letter A should be A-1)
& A-2] [5 points]
B] Is the contention of Nestor, that he acquired ownership of the accretion by prescription
legally tenable? Briefly explain [2.5 points].
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A]
a-1) Bikoy’s contention that he owns the additional area brought about by the
accretion or alluvium is legally correct since he is the riparian owner. Under the Civil Code
the riparian owner owns the additional area resulting from the alluvium/accretion along
the river.

a-2) Bikoy’s second contention is however not legally tenable. Under the law on
property and the Land Registration Decree even if the land along the bank of the river is
title the additional area brought about by the accretion is not automatically covered by
title. Hence, it may be acquired by prescription by third persons or strangers. The riparian

6
owner must still apply for apply for titling over the same so it may not be susceptible to
acquisitive prescription. B] The contention of Nestor that he acquired ownership over
the additional area brought about by alluvium is likewise not legally tenable. Since he is
merely a lease to the property of Bikoy his possession to Lot 453 and the additional area
brought about by accretion is not in the concept of owner (but only in the concept of
holder).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER TO No. VIII –B] :
An answer which avers that Nestor has not acquired ownership by prescription over
the accretion because he has not complied with the required years of possession because he
is not in good faith will also be considered with a few points deduction.
IX
[7.5 points]

A] Define or explain in your own words the concept of C0- OWNERSHIP

B] Jake, Jerry and James are co-owners of a parcel of agricultural land, designated as Lot
234, located in Palo, Leyte. Jake sold the ENTIRE property owned in common to Liza without
the knowledge and consent of Jerry and James. Is the sale of made by Jake to Liza valid? Briefly
explain your answer [2.5 points]

C] Under the same facts and circumstances in Question # III B except that instead selling
the land, Jake mortgaged the land to Liza. James later redeemed the property from Liza and
consequently refused to give Jake and Jerry their share of the fruits/proceeds of the farm saying
the property is already his exclusive property because Jake and Jerry did not contribute anything
in redeeming the property. Is the contention of James correct? Explain [2.5 points]
X
[7.5]

A] Distinguish Action for Forcible Entry and action for Unlawful Detainer [2.5
points]
B] In June 14, 2020, JV Reyes filed an action in the MTC, against RR Pads, for unlawful
detainer, alleging among others:
1) That plaintiff is the owner possessor of Lot 555, but was dis-possessed of said property
by RR Pads because the latter occupied the property without his knowledge and consent;
2) On June 14, 2013 plaintiff learned that defendant occupied the property in question on
June 3, 2010, but since RR Pads is his distant relative he allowed and tolerated his stay without
rent;
4) On December 30, 2019, plaintiff sent a letter of demand to vacate the property since
he is now going to use the same, but RR Pads refused to vacate the property;
5) Plaintiff prays the court that defendant be ordered to vacate the property, and return the
same to plaintiff, stating that defendant’s refusal to vacate the property renders his stay in the
premises illegal and unlawful, hence this complaint for unlawful detainer.
In his answer, RR Pads asked for the dismissal of the case alleging that this is case for
unlawful detainer is improper. The proper action should have been for forcible entry but the
same was filed beyond the one year reglementary period.
Assuming that you are the judge handling this case, and that the conditions precedent has
been complied with, rule on the contention/arguments of RR Pads. [5points]

SUGGESTED ANSWERS:

7
 A] The distinction between Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer are
the following:
1) In forcible entry the plaintiff must prove that he was in prior
physical possession of the premises until he was dispossessed or otherwise
deprived thereof, while in Unlawful Detainer the plaintiff need not have been
in prior physical possession;
2) In forcible entry the possession of the land by the defendant
is unlawful from the beginning since he acquires thereof by force,
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, while in unlawful detainer the
possession of the defendant is at first lawful but became unlawful or
illegal by reason of the termination of his right to the possession of the
property;
3) In forcible entry the law does not require a previous
demand to the defendant to vacate the property, but in unlawful
detainer the plaintiff must first make such demand, and this demand is
jurisdictional in nature

B] If I were the judge trying this case I will uphold the contention of RR
Pads and dismiss the case. The complaint alleged plaintiff was dis-possessed of
his by defendant who occupied the property without his knowledge and
consent. In other words, defendant occupied the property by strategy or
stealth making the complaint in the nature of FORCIBLE ENTRAY, which
must be within one year from such disposition. Hence, the complaint for
unlawful detainer is not proper.
For a case for unlawful detainer based on tolerance to prosper, the
tolerance must be from the beginning, which is not true in this case. For
plaintiff to be allowed to file an unlawful detainer case on the based on
tolerance, would amount to allowing him to convert an unlawful detainer case
to one for unlawful detainer. This would result in an absurdity since the
remedy of forcible entry would be useful because plaintiff would simply allege
tolerance to evade noncompliance of the reglementary period.

XI
[7.5]

A) Briefly explain or define what a usufruct is? [2.5]

B) Can the usufructuary, alienate or lease the usufruct? Can he also sell the
property subject of the usufruct? Briefly explain your answer. [2.5 points]
C) Can the owner [naked owner} alienate or sell the property subject of the
usufruct? [2.5 points]

SUGGESTED ANSWERS:

8
 A] A usufruct is essentially a real right, temporary in character, which
may be exercised over a real or personal property allowing the usufructuary
the right to possess, to enjoy the property as well as to receive the fruits.
B] Yes, subject to a few exceptions such as the legal usufruct of parents
over the property of unemancepated children under Article 226 of the Family
Code, THE USUFRUCTUARY may alienate or lease the usufruct without the
consent of the naked owner of the property. The usufructuary has absolute
control and dominion over his usufructuary right. The law does not require
the usufructuary to personally enjoy the property in usufruct.
The usufructuary cannot however alienate the property subject of the
usufruct. This is so since the usufructuary has the obligation to preserve the
form and substance of the property subject of the usufruct.
C] Yes the naked owner can alienate or sell (or mortgage) the property
subject of the usufruct because the naked owner retains the right to dispose or
alienate the property subject of the usufruct. However, the naked owner he
cannot however alter its form or substance or otherwise or otherwise actions
which will prejudice the usufructuary.