PROPERTY

MID-TERM EXAMINATION

1. The residential house in this case is a movable property. According to jurisprudence, a house belonging
to a person stands on a rented land belonging to another person, it may be mortgaged as a personal
property.

2. Yes, the chattel mortgage over the residential house is valid. The parties to the contract treated the
house in question as personal or movable property. Furthermore, as per jurisprudence, it has been a
constant criterion nevertheless that, with respect to third persons, who are not parties to the contract, and
specially in execution proceedings, the house is considered as an immovable property.

II.

1. The movable dryer and rice milling machine are real or immovable property. The Civil Code
mentions that machines, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement
for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend
directly to meet the need of the said industry or works are immovable property.

These machines are essential elements of the business of rice-milling. Although each of them was
movable or personal property on its own, all of them have become "immobilized by destination because
they are essential and principal elements in the industry."

2. No. In this case, if the equipment and machineries were placed on a land leased by X, the machineries
will be considered personal or movable property. Jurisprudence says that as a general rule, machineries
that are not placed on the land by the owner of said land shall be considered movable or personal
property. This is because immobilization by destination or purpose cannot generally be made by a person
whose possession of the property is only temporary.

III
1. No, the decision of the court granting the application of X is incorrect. The facts state that the land and
its surrounding areas were already devoted to and being used for commercial and residential purposes
way back in the year 1970. This means that the subject land is considered as public dominion, intended
for some public service or for the development of the national wealth.

Furthermore, even if the land and those surrounding it was reclassified into agricultural land and declared
as alienable and disposable land, it doesn’t necessarily mean that X’s application will be immediately
granted. The law provides that public lands suitable for agricultural purposes can only be disposed for
homestead settlement, sale, lease, and confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles. The circumstances
of the case do not meet any of this criteria. X has only been occupying a parcel of land since 1955, and it
does not meet the requirements of the law that a Filipino citizen may only apply for issuance of a
certificate of title on the subject land when they have been in possession of the land since 1945.

2. No, the contract of lease is not valid. The Civil Code provides that properties of public domain
devoted to public use and made available to the public in general are outside the commerce of man and
cannot be disposed or leased by the local government unit to private persons. The closure of the road
should be for the sole purpose of withdrawing the road or other public property from public use when
circumstances show that such property is no longer intended or necessary for public use or public service.
When it is already withdrawn from public use, the property becomes patrimonial property of the local
government unit concerned. It is only then that the respondent municipality can use or convey them for
any purpose for which other real property belonging to the local unit concerned might lawfully be used or
conveyed.

Roads and streets which are available to the public in general and ordinarily used for vehicular traffic are
still considered public property devoted to public use. In such cases, the local government has no power to
use it for another purpose or to dispose of or lease it to private persons.

IV.

1. Yes, the doctrine of self-help is applicable in this case. The doctrine of self-help in the Civil Code
basically means that the owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the
enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary
to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property. In this
case, Y was unlawfully invading the property of X, to which he has every right to eject Y and his family
on the subject parcel of land.

2. X was correct to legally remove Y and his family through the doctrine of self-help. What he may have
done instead of getting the assistance of security guards was to resort to the courts of justice on how to go
about the demolition of the shanty.

V.

VI

X is the owner of a parcel of land through which a river runs covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
T-11567. The land is being cultivated by Y and his family as farm workers therein. Over the years, the
river has brought silt and sediment from its sources up in the mountains and forests so that gradually the
land owned by X increased in area by two hectares. Y occupied this additional area, cultivated and
planted vegetables thereat.

1. In this case, X is the owner of the additional two hectares of land that was acquired due to the
accretion of silt and sediment, or what is called alluvium. Alluvium is the soil deposited or added to
(accretion) the lands adjoining the banks of rivers, and gradually received as an effect of the current of the
waters. According to the Civil Code, the rightful owner of the land acquired through accretion will be the
owner of the land as the registered rightful owner of the same.

2. Yes because through acquisitive prescription, Y has acquired the subject alluvial property. In
order to prove this, Y may bring this matter in court and determine the facts that will support the
acquisition, such as physical possession of the land, and the duration of the years that he has gained
possession of the property.

VII.

1. Yes. According to the Civil Code, the dried up river shall belong to X because riverbeds which
are abandoned through the natural change in the course of the waters ipso facto belong to the owners
whose lands are occupied by the new course in proportion to the area lost. However, the owners of the
lands adjoining the old bed shall have the right to acquire the same by paying the value thereof, which
value shall not exceed the value of the area occupied by the new bed.

2. Yes. An exception to the law is that the State become the owner of the dried up river because the
land or the dried up river is not acquired through accretion, as it should meet the following requisites: (a)
gradual and imperceptible; (b) made through the effects of the current of the water; and (c) taking place
on land adjacent to the banks of rivers.

Because of this, neither X nor Y will be the owner of the dried up river. The land will be considered
public domain, and it will belong to the State.

VIII.
1. The quieting of title means that whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest
therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid
or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be
prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title.

An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real property or any
interest therein. Furthermore, the plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real
property which is the subject matter of the action. He need not be in possession of said property.

2. Yes. The action for quieting the title is imprescriptible. Even though the Civil Code does not include an
action to quiet title as one of those actions which are imprescriptible, jurisprudence holds that some
actions may be imprescriptible in accordance to Article 480 of the Civil Code.

IX.
1. ​Yes, the sale is valid. However, the validity will only be limited to the share of X. This will be
determined when they are to definitely divide the inherited property pursuant to the Civil Code, which
states that each co-owner may use the thing owned in common, provided he does so in accordance with
the purpose for which it is intended and in such a way as not to injure the interest of the co-ownership or
prevent the other co-owners from using it according to their rights. The purpose of the co-ownership may
be changed by agreement, express or implied.

2. ​Yes. The sale will become invalid when the TCT, which originally covers the co-owned property of the
three co-owners, will be registered to one person only. This should also be followed by the facts that the
said property was inherited from their deceased parents as provided by the law of mana.

1. A. No, the contention of X is not correct because Y is a co-owner of the property. He cannot trespass
the place as he is not a third person.

B.