DAEP, APRIL DAWN A.

LAW4B

FINAL EXAMINATION
Property Law

I.A.

Under the New Civil Code of the Philippines, possession and occupation are
distinguished on the following grounds:

As to definition, possession is the holding of the thing or the enjoyment of a right.

It may be the real right of possession or jus possessiones or it can be merely the right to
possess or jus possedendi, which are among the basic rights of ownership. On the other
hand, Occupation is an original mode of acquiring ownership. It is a mode of acquiring
dominion by the seizure of corporeal things which have no owner, or acquiring
ownership upon seizure of a res nullius by the occupant who has the intention to become
the owner thereof.

As to application, possession applies to properties whether with or without an

owner while occupation only applies to properties with an owner.

As to ownership, in possession it does not confer ownership and there can be

possession without ownership while in occupation it confers ownership and there can
be no occupation without ownership.

I.B.

Under the New Civil Code of the Philippines, easement and usufruct are
distinguished on the following grounds:

As to its constitution, easement is constituted on real property may be constituted

in favor, or burdening , a piece of land hold in usufruct, while usufruct is constituted on
real and personal property and cannot be constituted on an easement but it may be
constituted on the land burdened by an easement.

As to right of possession, in easement there is no possessory right over an

immovable while in usufruct it involves a right of possession in an immovable or
movable.

As to effect of death, in easement it is not extinguished by death of dominant owner

while in usufruct it is extinguished by death of usufructuary.

As to transmissibility, both easement and usufruct is transmissible.

I.C.

Under Art. 448 of the New Civil Code, the specific rights of a builder in bad faith
in case the landowner is also in bad faith are:

1. Right of retention for necessary and useful expenses provided for under Article
546 and 548; and

2. Right to pay the value of the land if its value is not considerably more than the
value of the building or trees or in case of a sower, right to rent the land.

II.
Marciano’s contention is correct.

Marciano automatically owns the accretion. Since the accretion that was deposited
on his land is by the action of the waters of the river and he did not construct any structure
to increase the deposition of soil and silt, His real right of ownership is enforceable against
the whole world including Ulpiano and his two married children.

FINAL EXAMINATION
Property Law
Page 1 of 5
DAEP, APRIL DAWN A.
LAW4B

Although Marciano’s land is registered, the three (3) hectares land deposited
through accretion was not automatically registered. As an unregistered land, it is subject
to acquisitive prescription by third persons. Although Ulpiano and his children live in the
three (3) hectare unregistered land owned by Marciano, they are farm workers; therefore,
they are possessors not in the concept of owners but in the concept of mere holders.

Hence, even if they possess the land for more than 30 years, they cannot become
the owners thereof through extraordinary acquisitive prescription, because the law
requires possession in the concept of the owner. Payment of taxes and tax declaration are
not enough to make their possession one in the concept of owner. They must repudiate
the possession in the concept of holder by executing unequivocal acts of repudiation
amounting to ouster of Marciano, known to Marciano and must be proven by clear and
convincing evidence. Only then would his possession become adverse.

III.

Under the New Civil Code, Cathy has the right to:

1. Demand the demolition of bobby’s house, since its construction is illegal, in order
to replace thing in its former condition at the expense of Bobby; or
2. Compel Bobby to pay the price of the land on which his house is erected ;and
3. To be entitled to damages from the Bobby.

Bobby is only entitled to the reimbursement of the necessary expenses he spent

for the preservation of Cathy’s land. He cannot offer to purchase the lot portion on which
his house was constructed because such right is not vested to the builder in bad faith.
Being a builder in bad faith, he loses what he has built on the land of Cathy without right
to indemnity.

IV.

Yes, Anthony acquired ownership of the property through acquisitive prescription.

In this case, Anthony is a buyer/possessor in good faith because he was not aware
of the defect in Bert's title. As such, Anthony can acquire ownership and other real rights
over immovable property through open, continuous possession of 10 years. Anthony
needs nine (9) more years of possession, in addition to his one (1) year of possession in
good faith.

V.A.

No, they cannot both claim ownership over the additional land deposited along
their properties.

Under the New Civil Code, it provides that accretion is the effect of the current of
the water. Where the land is not formed solely by the natural effect of the water current of
the river bordering land but is also the consequences of the direct and deliberate
intervention of man, it is man-made accretion and a part of the public
Domain.

Therefore, only Jenny can acquire claim ownership over the additional one meter
of land deposited along her property. Jessica cannot claim ownership over the additional
two meters of land deposited along her property as the same was not formed solely by the
natural effect of the water current of the river but is also the consequences of her direct
and deliberate construction of a barrier which caused the deposit of soil and other
materials on her property. The increase in her property was not caused by nature but was
manmade which accretion belongs and part of the public dominion.

FINAL EXAMINATION
Property Law
Page 2 of 5
DAEP, APRIL DAWN A.
LAW4B

V.B

No. The benefit of registration does automatically extend to the increased area of
their property.

Jurisprudence states that accretion does not automatically become registered land
because there is a specific technical description of the lot in its Torrens title. There must
be a separate application for registration of the alluvial deposits under the Torrens
System.

Therefore, even if the properties of Jenny and Jessica are registered properties, the
benefit of such registration does not extend to the increased area of their properties.

VI.A.

No, Don did not acquire an easement of right of way.

Under the Civil Code, the easement of right of way is considered discontinuous
because it is exercised only if a person passes or sets foot on somebody else’s land. Being
discontinuous easement, it may only be acquired by virtue of a title and is not acquirable
by prescription.

Therefore, possession of the easement by Don is only permissive, tolerated or with

the acquiescence of Ernie. It is a settled rule that a permissive use of a road over the land
of another, no matter how long it may be, will not create an easement of way by
prescription.

VI.B.

No, Don cannot blocked the pathway and refused to let his buyers pass through
the land.

The New Civil Code provides that the owner, or any person who by virtue of a real
right may cultivate or use any immovable, which is surrounded by other immovables
pertaining to other persons and without adequate outlet to a public highway, is entitled to
demand a right of way through the neighboring estates, after payment of the proper
indemnity.

Since the agricultural land had no access to a public road, and that only through
the other land, where one can access the public road, Don cannot block the pathway in his
land. The lot buyers and Ernie may request Don to establish a right of as voluntary
easement by entering into a contract, or file action to constitute a legal easement proving
compliance with the four requisites for creating a legal easement of right of way.

VII.

A can abate the squatter’s hut extra judicially if it hinders or impairs him the use
of his own property. If the squatter's hut is constructed on A’s private land, it is a private
nuisance.

The New Civil Code and jurisprudence states that any person injured by a private
nuisance may abate it by removing, or if necessary, by destroying the thing which
constitutes the nuisance, without committing a breach of the peace or doing unnecessary
injury. However, it is indispensable that the procedure for extrajudicial abatement of a
public nuisance by a private person be followed.

VIII.A.

I will advise him to file an accion reinvindicatoria.

Under the law, Accion Reinvindicatoria is defined as an action to recover real

property based on ownership.

FINAL EXAMINATION
Property Law
Page 3 of 5
DAEP, APRIL DAWN A.
LAW4B

In this case, since Jose is asserting his ownership over the lot, therefore the
action to be filed is an accion reinvindicatoria.

VIII.B.

If I were the judge, I will consider Mike to be a builder in good faith.

Jurisprdence states that unless one is versed in the science of surveying, he cannot
determine the precise boundaries or location of his property by merely examining his title.
In the absence of contrary proof, the law presumes that the encroachment was done in
good faith.

In this case, when Mike built his house there is no showing that he knew that a
portion thereof encroached on Jose's lot. Therefore he is a builder in good faith.

VIII.C.

If I were the judge, I will not grant Mike’s request of buying the land.

Under the New Civil Code, it is the owner of the land who has the option or choice,
not the builder. The owner may choose between the appropriation of what was built after
payment of indemnity, or to compel the builder to pay for the land if the value of the land
is not considerably more than that of the building.

Consider the foregoing, Mike’s request cannot be granted, because it is at Jose’s

option whether or not he may sell the portion of the land. On the other hand, the option
belongs to Jose, he cannot demand that the portion of the house encroaching on his land
be destroyed or removed because this is not one of the options given by law to the owner
of the land.

However, as a Judge, I will advise the party to amicably settle the issue between
the two parties.

IX.

Jose should prevail.

Under the New Civil Code, the disputed area, which is an alluvion, belongs by right
of accretion to the riparian owner, Jose. When, as given in the problem, the very same area"
was "transferred" by flood waters to the opposite bank, it became an avulsion and
ownership thereof is retained by Jose who has two years to remove it.

Vicente's claim based on prescription is baseless since his possession was by mere
tolerance of Jose and, therefore, did not adversely affect Jose's possession and ownership.
Inasmuch as his possession is merely that of a holder, he cannot acquire the disputed area
by prescription.

X.

The complaint for cancellation of easement of right of way is untenable.

Under the New Civil Code, easements are inseparable from the estate to which they
actively or passively belong. Once it attaches, it can only be extinguished on the grounds
stated under the code and they exist even if they are not stated or annotated as an
encumbrance on the Torrens title of the servient estate.

Therefore, Emma’s ground is not sufficient enough for the case to proceed. Thus,
the case should be dismissed due to lack of cause of action again.

XI.

Ernesto’s contention is correct.

FINAL EXAMINATION
Property Law
Page 4 of 5
DAEP, APRIL DAWN A.
LAW4B

Under the New Civil Code, one who builds on the land of another loses what is built
without right to indemnity.
Demetrio is a builder in bad faith because he knew beforehand that the land
belonged to Ernesto. Hence, Ernesto is well within his right in refusing to allow the
removal of the nipa sheds. Therefore, Ernesto becomes the owner of the nipa sheds by
right of accession.

XII.

Yes, Rachelle’s suit for reconveyance will prosper.

Notice of Lis Pendens may be cancelled even before final Judgment upon proper
showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting or harassing the adverse party or
that the notice of lis pendens is not necessary to protect the right of the party who caused
it to be registered.

In the given facts, Rachelle is the legitimate owner of the land in question. It can be
said, therefore, that when she filed her notice of lis pendens her purpose was to protect
her interest in the land and not just to molest Rommel. It is necessary to record the Lis
pendens to protect her interest because if she did not do it, there is a possibility that the
land will fall into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value and in that event, the court
loses control over the land making any favorable judgment thereon moot and academic.

For these reasons, the notice of lis pendens may not be cancelled. Thus, the suit
may prosper.

XIII.

Manuel should prove the following in order for him to file an application for
registration under PD No. 1529.
a. that the land applied for forms part of the alienable and disposable (A &
D) portion of the public domain;

b. that the applicant has been in open, continuous and notorious possession
and occupation thereof under bona fide claim ofownership since June 12,
1945, or earlier. However, it is only necessary that the land is already
declared A & D land “at the time for application for registration is filed”

Another alternative is for Manuel to secure title through administrative

proceedings under the homestead or free patent provisions of the PLA. The title issued has
the same efficacy and validity as a title issued through judicial proceedings, but with the
limitations that the land cannot be sold or disposed of within five years from the issuance
of patent.

The documentation that are necessary in order for Manuel to register the title of
the land in his name are:

a. testimony of disinterested and knowledgeable eyewitnesses;

b. Overt acts of possession may consist in introducing valuable
improvements like fencing the land, constructing a residential house
thereon, cultivating the land and planting fruit bearing trees, declaring the
land for taxation purposes and paying realty taxes, all of which are
corroborative proof of possession;
c. Tracing cloth plan or a duly certified blueprint or whiteprint copy thereof;
d. a CENRO or PENRO certification; and
e. a certified true copy of the original classification approved by the DENR
Secretary

FINAL EXAMINATION
Property Law
Page 5 of 5