When Bio Hong Trading Co.

(BHTC) acquired a parcel of

Quiz No 14 land from its prior owner, the same was already been
  subject to an easement of right of way in favor of the
public. Subsequently, the buyer BHTC constructed steel

A owns two estates. He sold the first (having access to gates across the alley (to which the encumbrance was

the highway) to B. Later, he sold the second (without imposed) thereby precluding unhampered use thereof.

access) to C. So that C can gain access, he must pass Because of such closure, Solid Manila Corp. (SMC) filed

through B's land. Does C have to pay indemnity to B? * an injunction case against BHTC claiming that ever
since, it had (as well as other residents of neighboring
estates) made use of the above private alley and
0/2
maintained and contributed to its upkeep. When the case

Yes reached the Court of Appeals, the appellate court held

that since the buyer BHTC acquired title to the property
No and the alley, there was merger which resulted in the
extinguishment of the easement. SMC, however, claimed
 
that the sale in favor of BHTC excluded the alley. Is SMC

It depends correct? *

None of the above

0/4

Correct answer
Yes
Yes
 
Feedback
No

Paras, p. 712
It depends
 
None of the above

A and B are adjoining owners. In 2002, A made an

Correct answer
opening in his own wall. In 2007, A makes a formal
notarial demand on B, prohibiting him to obstruct the No

view. In 2013, may B still set up an obstruction? *

Feedback

2/2
Answer: Rabuya, p. 610; Inherence or Intransmissibility;
Solid Manila Corp. v. Bio Hong Trading Co., 195 SCRA
Yes 748 (1991)

Yes. There is therefore no question as to ownership. The

  question is whether or not an easement exists on the
property, and as we indicated, we are convinced that an
easement exists.
No
It is true that the sale did include the alley. On this score,
the Court rejects the petitioner's contention that the deed
It depends of sale "excluded" it, because as a mere right-of-way, it
1 cannot be separated from the tenement and maintain an
independent existence. Thus:
None of the above
Art. 617. Easements are inseparable from the estate to
  which they actively or passively belong.

Servitudes are merely accessories to the tenements of

which they form part. Although they are possessed of a
separate juridical existence, as mere accessories, they
cannot, however, be alienated from the tenement, or
mortgaged separately.
The fact, however, that the alley in question, as an
easement, is inseparable from the main lot is no argument
to defeat the petitioner's claims, because as an easement
precisely, it operates as a limitation on the title of the
owner of the servient estate, specifically, his right to use
(jus utendi).
As the petitioner indeed hastens to point out, the deed
itself stipulated that "a portion thereof [of the tenement]
measuring NINE HUNDRED FOURTEEN SQUARE
METERS, more or less, had been converted into a private
alley for the benefit of the neighboring estates. . ." and
precisely, the former owner, in conveying the property,
gave the private owner a discount on account of the
easement, thus:
As a personal servitude, the right-of-way in question was
established by the will of the owner.
In the interesting case of North Negros Sugar Co., Inc. v.
Hidalgo, this Court, speaking through Justice Claro Recto,
declared that a personal servitude (also a right of way in
that case) is established by the mere "act" of the
landowner, and is not "contractual in the nature," and a
third party (as the petitioner herein is a third party) has the
personality to claim its benefits. In his separate opinion,
however, Justice Jose Laurel maintained that a personal
or voluntary servitude does require a contract and that
"[t]he act of the plaintiff in opening the private way here
involved did not constitute an offer . . . " and "[t]here being
no offer, there could be no acceptance; hence no
contract."
 

WHEREAS, to compensate for the foregoing, the parties Don was the owner of an agricultural land with no access
hereto agreed to adjust the purchase price from THREE
MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY THOUSAND to a public road. He had been passing through the land
FOUR HUNDRED FORTY PESOS (P3,790,440.) to of Ernie with the latter’s acquiescence for over 20 years.
THREE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THREE THOUSAND
TWO HUNDRED FORTY PESOS (P3,503,240.00)14 Subsequently, Don subdivided his property into 20
residential lots and sold them to different persons. Ernie
Hence, and so we reiterate, albeit the private respondent
did acquire ownership over the property –– including the blocked the pathway and refused to let the buyers pass
disputed alley –– as a result of the conveyance, it did not
acquire the right to close that alley or otherwise put up through his land. Did Don acquire an easement of right of
obstructions thereon and thus prevent the public from way? *
using it, because as a servitude, the alley is supposed to
be open to the public.

The Court is furthermore of the opinion, contrary to that of 2/2

the Court of Appeals, that no genuine merger took place
as a consequence of the sale in favor of the private
Yes
respondent corporation.

According to the Civil Code, a merger exists when No

ownership of the dominant and servient estates is
consolidated in the same person. Merger then, as can be
seen, requires full ownership of both estates.  

One thing ought to be noted here, however. The servitude It depends

in question is a personal servitude, that is to say, one
constituted not in favor of a particular tenement (a real
servitude) but rather, for the benefit of the general public. None of the above
Personal servitudes are referred to in the following article
of the Civil Code:  
Art. 614. Servitudes may also be established for the
benefit of a community, or of one or more persons to
whom the encumbered estate does not belong. A constructed a building on a residential lot belonging to
him one meter distant from the boundary line with B’s lot.
In a personal servitude, there is therefore no "owner of a
dominant tenement" to speak of, and the easement On the wall directly facing B’s lot, A opened non-
pertains to persons without a dominant estate, in this
regulation windows to admit light into his building with the
case, the public at large.
Merger, as we said, presupposes the existence of a prior knowledge of B. Fifteen (15) years after, B constructed a
servient-dominant owner relationship, and the termination
of that relation leaves the easement of no use. Unless the high wall one meter distant from the boundary with A’s
owner conveys the property in favor of the public –– if that lot, thus, obstructing the light entering into A’s building. A
is possible –– no genuine merger can take place that
would terminate a personal easement. sued for the demolition of B’s wall asserting a servitude

2 not to build beyond a certain height (altius non tollendi) in

In the case at bar, the defense of merger is, clearly, not a
valid defense, indeed, a sham one, because as we said, his favor acquired by prescription by reason of which B
merger is not possible, and secondly, the sale cannot build the wall. Will A’s action proper? *
unequivocally preserved the existing easement. In other
words, the answer does not, in reality, tender any genuine
issue on a material fact and cannot militate against the
petitioner's clear cause of action. 2/2
 Yes
2/2

No
Yes
 
No
It depends
 
None of the above
It depends
 
None of the above

Macario bought a titled lot from Ramon, got the title and  
took possession of the lot. Since Macario did not have
the money to pay the taxes, fees and registration A noise emanated from a blower of the air-conditioning
expenses, he was not able to register the Deed of unit if a building. Is it a nuisance as to be resolved only
Absolute Sale. Upon advice, he merely executed an by the courts in the due proceedings or a nuisance per
Affidavit of Adverse Claim and had it annotated at the se? *
back of the title. A few years after, he received a Notice
of Levy on Attachment and Writ of Execution in favor of
0/2
Alex. The notice, writ and certificate of sale were
annotated at the back of the title still in Ramon’s name.
a nuisance as to be resolved only by the courts in the
Alex contends that since the Affidavit of Adverse Claim is due proceedings
effective only for 30 days from the date of its registration,
a nuisance per se
then its validity has expired. Macario posits that the
annotation of his adverse claim is notice to the whole  
world of his purchase of the lot in question. Who has the
superior right over the disputed property – Macario or Correct answer
Alex? * a nuisance as to be resolved only by the courts in the
due proceedings

2/2 Feedback

Macario
AC Enterprises, Inc. v. Frabelle Properties Corp. Paras, p.
749.
 
 
Alex

A, the dominant owner, sold a retro his estate to B, the

 
servient owner. Is the easement extinguished? *

Ramcar operates and maintains an auto repair and body

2/2
building shop at Ermita, Manila since 1938 to 1962.
Seven people reside around the shop and they brought
Yes
an action to abate the said establishment as a nuisance
because all its tools gives so much noise during all hours No
3
of the day up to nighttime and sometimes they even work
on Sundays and holidays. The trial court dismissed the  

action but the Court of Appeals reversed it. Is the

It depends
reversal of the CA correct? *
None of the above
 
Gabriel's house acquire the easement of light and
view? *
About 15 years ago, Adelaida constructed a house on
her lot at Quezon City adjoining a lot owned by Bernie.
0/2
She provided it with several windows overlooking
Bernie’s lot half a meter away from the boundary line. A Yes
month ago, Bernie brought an action against Adelaida for
the closure of the windows alleging that they violate the No
law on distances. Has Adelaida acquired an easement of
 
light and view by prescription? *

It depends
0/2
None of the above

Yes
Correct answer
No Yes

It depends Feedback

 
Amor v. Florentino, Paras, p. 677
None of the above  

Correct answer
The characteristics of easements are: *
No

Feedback 0/2

It is inseparable from the estate to which it is actively

Adelaida has not acquired an easement of light and view or passively belongs.
by prescription after ten years. There are two reasons for
this. In the first place, there was no formal prohibition as
required by law. This should have been done by means of  
an instrument acknowledged before a notary public where
she should have prohibited Bernie from obstructing his
light and view. She did not. In the second place, she did It is continuous.
not observe the legal requirement that there should be a
distance of at least two meters between the windows and
Bernie’s lot, since the view is direct. Non-observance of  
this distance does not give rise to the prescription.

  It is divisible.

It is a real right.
Maria Florentino, owner of a house and a warehouse
gave in her will the house (and its lot) to Gabriel
 
Florentino, and the warehouse and (its lot) to
Encarnacion Florentino. The house had four windows,
Correct answer
receiving light from the land on which the warehouse was
It is inseparable from the estate to which it is actively
situated. When Maria died, nothing was done about the or passively belongs.
4
windows, and Encarnacion did not make any objection.
In 1911, Encarnacion sold her warehouse and lot to It is a real right.

Severino Amor, who then destroyed the warehouse, and

Feedback
built a two-storey house. Since the construction
obstructed the view, Gabriel Florentino objected. Did
Jurado, p. 458
 
Ronquillo and a few others alleged that they had been in
the continuous use of a passage way traversing the land
of Roco in going to a street and the market place of Naga
City from their residential land and back for more than 20
years. In 1953, however, Roco started constructing a
Chapel in the middle of said passageway. Moreover,
Roco also fenced the way with barbed wire, thus closing
which “when an estate is acquired by purchase,
exchange, or partition is enclosed by other estates of the
vendor, exchanger, or co-owner, the latter shall be obliged
to grant a right of way without indemnity, in the absence of
an agreement to the contrary” and the word “prescription”
used in the said decision was used not in the sense of
adverse possession for 10 or 30 years, but in the sense of
“immemorial usage” that under the law anterior to the
Code of 1889 was one of the ways in which the servitude
of right of way could be acquired.
On his wall, one meter away from the boundary line, A

it. Could the easement be acquired by prescription? * opened regular windows with direct views. May A be
ordered to close them at any time? *

0/2
0/2
Yes
Yes
 
 
No
No
It depends
It depends
None of the above
None of the above
Correct answer
Correct answer
No
It depends
Feedback
Feedback

Answer: Paras, p. 670-671; Ronquillo, et. al. vs. Roco, et.

al., L-10619, February 28, 1958 A may be ordered to close them provided that the
adjoining owner makes the demand for the closure within
No, because the use of the easement is discontinuous, the period of ten years from the opening of the window,
since the passageway could be used only at intervals. It is otherwise, his right of closure will be deemed prescribed.
a discontinuous nature of easement. The essence of the Paras, p. 727
servidumbre de paso lies in the power of the dominant
owner to cross the servient tenement without being  
prevented or disturbed by its owner. As a servitude, it is a
limitation on the servient owner’s rights of ownership
because it restricts his right to exclude others from the Easement of the right of way for the passage of livestock
property. But such limitation exists only when the
dominant owner actually crosses or passes over the known as animal trail which shall not exceed in any case
servient estate because when he does not, the servient
the width of *
owner’s right of exclusion is perfect and undisturbed.
Since the dominant owner cannot be continually and
uninterruptedly crossing the servient estate, but can do so
only at intervals, the easement is necessarily of a 0/2
discontinuous nature. Because possession of a right
consists in the enjoyment of that right (Art. 423), and to
enjoy a right is to exercise it, it follows that the possession 20 meters
(enjoyment or exercise) of a right of way is intermittent
and discontinuous, and it cannot be acquired5by  
acquisitive prescription because prescription requires that
the possession be continuous or uninterrupted. The case
of Municipality of Dumagas vs. Bishop of Jaro, 34 Phil. 5 meters
541, does not constitute authority to hold that the
easement of right of way is acquirable by prescription
because the ratio decidendi in said case lies in the 75 meters
application of Art. 567 of the Code of 1889, pursuant to
 37.5 meters None of the above

Correct answer  

37.5 meters
Plaintiff has a fishpond, which derives its water source
Feedback from a river. But in view of another fishpond set up
between the first and the river, the source of the water
Art. 657, NCC has been cut. Plaintiff incidentally has the necessary
  permit to make use of the water from the river, but the
owner of the intervening fishpond refuses to grant a

Is a squatter's hut a public or private nuisance? * convenient passageway. Is plaintiff entitled to construct
the necessary canal across the intervening fishpond, so
that water may be obtained from the river? *
0/2

public nuisance 2/2

  Yes

private nuisance  

Both public and private nuisance No

Either a public nuisance or private nuisance It depends

Correct answer None of the above

Either a public nuisance or private nuisance

 

Feedback
Easement of the right of way for the passage of livestock

A squatter's hut. If constructed on public streets or known as animal path which shall not exceed in any case
riverbeds, it is a public nuisance because it obstructs the the width of *
free use by the public of said places. (City of Manila v.
Garcia, G.R. No. L-26053, February 21,1967). If
constructed on private land, it is a private nuisance
because it hinders or impairs the use of the property by 0/2
the owner.

  20 meters

5 meters
A and B own a party wall. A, without B's consent, made
an opening in the party wall on December 9, 2002. In  
2003, may B close the opening? *
75 meters

2/2 37.5 meters

Yes Correct answer

6 75 meters
 

Feedback
No

It depends Art. 657, NCC

 
Franz was the owner of Lot E which was surrounded by
four (4) lots one of which – Lot C – he also owned. He
promised Ava that if she bought Lot E, he would give her
a right of way in Lot C. Convinced, Ava bought Lot E
and, as promised, Franz gave her a right of way in Lot C.
Ava cultivated Lot E and used the right of way granted by
Franz. Ava later found gainful employment abroad. On
her return after more than 10 years, the right of way was
no longer available to her because Franz had in the
meantime sold Lot C to Julia who had it fenced. Does
document. (San Miguel Properties, Inc. vs. BF Homes,
Inc., 765 SCRA 131).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes. Ava has the right to demand from Julia the activation
of the right of way. A voluntary easement of right of way,
like any other contract, could be extinguished only by
mutual agreement or by renunciation of the owner of the
dominant estate. Also, like any other contract, an
easement is generally effective between parties, their
heirs and assignees, except in case where the rights and
obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible
by their nature, or by stipulations or by provision of law
(Unisource Commercial v. Chung, 593 SCRA 530 [2009]).
Emma bought a parcel of land from Equitable-PCI Bank,

Ava have a right to demand from Julia the activation of which acquired the same from Felisa, the original owner.

her right of way? * Thereafter, Emma discovered that Felisa had granted a
right of way over the land in favor of the land of
Georgina, which had no outlet to a public highway, but
0/2
the easement was not annotated when the servient

Yes estate was registered under the Torrens System. Emma

then filed a complaint for cancellation of the right of way,
No on the ground that it had been extinguished by such
failure to annotate. Will the complaint of Emma
 
prosper? *

It depends
2/2
None of the above

Yes
Correct answer

Yes No

Feedback  

It depends
Answer: Bar Question (2010) – Ulep, p. 395
Yes. Ava has the right to demand from Julia the activation
of the right of way, for the following reasons: None of the above
(1) The easement of the right of way is a real right which
attaches to, and is inseparable from, the estate to which it  
belongs.
(2) The sale of the property includes the easement or
servitude, even if the deed of sale is silent on the matter.
(3) The vendee of the property in which a servitude or An easement is extinguished through any of the following
easement exists cannot close or put obstructions thereon modes: *
to prevent the dominant estate from using it.
(4) Ava’s working abroad for more than ten (10) years
should not be construed as non-user, because it cannot
be implied from the fact that she or those she left behind 2/2
to cultivate the lot no longer use the right of way.
Note: Since a right of way is a discontinuous easement,
merger
the period of ten years of non-user, shall be computed
from the day it ceased to be used under Act 6341 (2) CC.
(5) Renunciation or waiver of an easement must 7 be
 
specific, clear, express and made in a public instrument in
accordance of Art 1358 of the New Civil Code. (Answered
by UP Law Center) renunciation
Note: Article 1358(1) of the Civil Code requires that “acts
and contracts which have for their object the creation,
transmission, modification or extinguishment of real rights  
over immovable property” must appear in a public
 redemption None of the above

   

expiration of term Is uncollected garbage a public or private nuisance? *

 
0/2

 
public nuisance

Francisco Sanz was the former owner of a parcel of land, private nuisance
with the buildings and improvements thereon. He
subdivided the lot into three and then sold each portion  

to different persons. One portion was purchased by

Guillermo Tengtio who subsequently sold it to Vicente Uy
Veza. Another portion, with the house of strong materials
thereon, was sold to Tan Yanon (respondent). This
house has on its northern side, doors and windows over-
Both public and private nuisance
Either public or private nuisance
Correct answer

looking the third portion, which together with the camarin public nuisance
and small building thereon, after passing through several
Feedback
hands, was finally acquired by Juan Gargantos
(petitioner). Subsequently, Gargantos applied for a
permit to construct a combined residential house and Uncollected garbage. It will become a nuisance if it
substantially impairs the comfort and enjoyment of the
warehouse on his lot. Tan Yanon opposed the approval adjacent occupants. The annoyance and the smell must
of this application on the ground that the construction of be substantial as to interfere sensibly with the use and
enjoyment by persons of ordinary sensibilities. It is a
the building would prevent him from receiving light and public nuisance because of its injury to the public.
enjoying the view through the window of his house.  
Gargantos argued that Tan Yanon never acquired any
easement either by title or by prescription since there is
A sold to B a parcel of land surrounded by other estates
no deed establishing an easement. He further argued
owned by A (Estate 1, Estate 2, Estate 3). A gave B an
that neither he nor his predecessors-in-interest have ever
outlet through Estate 1 without indemnity since the
executed any deed whereby they recognized the
purchase price presumably already included the right to
existence of the easement. In addition, Gargantos
the easement. (Art. 652). Later, the outlet through Estate
claimed that Tan Yanon did not acquire easement by
1 became useless because the highway to which it led
prescription because the latter never formally forbidden
was closed. If B demands another outlet, is he allowed to
the former from performing any act which would be lawful
get one? If so, must he pay indemnity? *
without the easement. Did Tan Yanon acquired the right
of easement? *
2/2

4/4 Yes and he must pay indemnity.

Yes  

  8 Yes, but he no longer need to pay indemnity

No No, he cannot demand another outlet.

It depends None of the above


Virgilio owned a bare and simple swimming pool in his
garden. MB, a 7-year old child, surreptitiously entered
the garden and merrily romped around the ledges of the
pool. He accidentally tripped, fell into the pool, and
drowned. MB’s parents sued Virgilio for damages arising
from their child’s death, premised on the principle of
"attractive nuisance". Is Virgilio liable for the death of
MB? *
0/2
No, the child was 7 years old and knew the dangers
that the pool offered.
Yes, being an attractive nuisance, Virgilio had the duty
to prevent children from coming near it.
No, since the pool was bare and had no enticing or
alluring gadgets, floats, or devices in it that would
attract a 7-year old child
Yes, since Virgilio did not cover the swimming pool
while not in use to prevent children from falling into it.
Correct answer
No, since the pool was bare and had no enticing or
alluring gadgets, floats, or devices in it that would
attract a 7-year old child
Feedback
No. 45. 2011 Bar Exam MCQ
Is a house of prostitution a public or a private
nuisance? *
2/2
public nuisance
9
private nuisance
Both public and private nuisance
Either public or private nuisance
About 15 years ago, Adelaida constructed a house on
her lot at Quezon City adjoining a lot owned by Bernie.
She provided it with several windows overlooking
Bernie’s lot half a meter away from the boundary line. A
month ago, Bernie brought an action against Adelaida for
the closure of the windows alleging that they violate the
law on distances. Will the action of Bernie prosper? *
2/2
Yes
No
It depends
None of the above
 
In 2005, Andres built a residential house on a lot whose
only access to the national highway was a pathway
crossing Brando's property. Andres and others have
been using this pathway (pathway A) since 1980. In
2006, Brando fenced off his property, thereby blocking
Andres' access to the national highway. Andres
demanded that part of the fence be removed to maintain
his old access route to the highway (pathway A), but
Brando refused, claiming that there was another
available pathway (pathway B) for ingress and egress to
the highway. Andres countered that pathway B has
defects, is circuitous, and is extremely inconvenient to
use. To settle their dispute, Andres and Brando hired
Damian, a geodetic and civil engineer, to survey and
examine the two pathways and the surrounding areas,
and to determine the shortest and the least prejudicial
way through the servient estates. After the survey, the
engineer concluded that pathway B is the longer route
and will need improvements and repairs, but will not
significantly affect the use of Brando's property. On the
other hand, pathway A that had long been in place, is the
shorter route but would significantly affect the use of
Brando's property. In light of the engineer's findings and
the circumstances of the case, resolve the parties' right
of way dispute. *

4/4
Andres is entitled to the easement of right of way for
Pathway A.
Andres is not entitled to the easement of right of way
for Pathway A.
 
Andres is entitled subject to exceptions.
None of the above
 
Is a noisy or dangerous factory in a private land affecting
the health and comfort of ordinary people a public
nuisance or private nuisance? *
0/2
public nuisance
private nuisance
Both public and private nuisance
Either public or private nuisance
Correct answer
public nuisance
Feedback
A noisy or dangerous factory in a private land. If the noise
injuriously affects the health and comfort of ordinary
people in the vicinity to an unreasonable extent, it is a
nuisance. It is a public nuisance because there is a
tendency to annoy the public. (Velasco v. Manila Electric
Co., G.R. No. L-18390, August 6, 1971)
With respect to tall trees, in the absence of ordinance or
customs of the place, they must be how many meters
from boundary line to center of the tree? * 10
0/2
5 meters
3 meters
2 meters
4 meters
Correct answer
2 meters
In a civil case between the plaintiffs and defendant
Antonio Legaspi, a compromise agreement was entered
whereby said defendant granted the plaintiffs and their
family, friends, drivers, servants and jeeps a right of way.
Subsequently, however, the plaintiffs, unable to continue
with their repair shop, transferred to another place
whereupon the defendant reconstructed his fence and its
footing, closing thereby the opening previously made by
the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the plaintiff’s lot was foreclosed
by the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP)
which, later still, conveyed it under a conditional sale to
Mrs. Luz Arcilla. Upon her acquisition of the lot, she
demanded of the defendant the re-opening of the fence
in question as it was her plan to construct her house in
the said lot. When the defendant refused, the DBP filed
with the court a petition to hold the said defendant in
contempt. To this petition, Arcilla later intervened and
was so allowed by the court. The DBP and Arcilla
contended that the refusal of the defendant to cause or
allow the making of an opening in his fence was a
defiance of the said court’s decision approving the
compromise agreement. Pursuant to DBP’s petition, the
court declared the defendant in contempt. Is the court
correct in holding the defendant in contempt? *
4/4
Yes
No
 
It depends
None of the above
   

None of the above

In an extrajudicial partition of land, a legal easement of
right of way was annotated in the deed of partition (the
Correct answer
lot in whose favor the easement was granted had no
No
convenient access to the highway). It was alleged that
two signatures on the deed were forged, and that several Feedback
signatures (of the other co-owners) had not been
obtained. Can the annotation be ordered cancelled? * Answer: Sitchon, et. al. vs. Aquino, 98 Phil. 459 [1956],
Ulep, p. 443-444

0/2 No. It is true that Articles 700 and 702 of the Civil Code
empower the district health officer to determine whether
abatement without judicial proceedings is the best remedy
Yes against public nuisance. However, under the charter of
Manila, it specifically places the City Engineer such duty
to remove at the owner’s expenses, unauthorized
  obstructions whenever the owner or person responsible
therefore, shall refuse or neglect to remove the same.
No
 

It depends
Acquisitive prescription of a negative easement runs
None of the above
from the time the owner of the dominant estate forbids, in
a notarized document, the owner of the servient estate
Correct answer
from executing an act which would be lawful without the
No
easement. *

Feedback
0/2

No, inasmuch as the easement is a legal or compulsory

one (there being no access to the highway), not a mere True
voluntary easement. Its existence does not depend on the
consent of the co-owners. Jartol v CA. Paras, pp. 705-706
False
 
 

There are 6 class suits against the City Engineer to

Sometimes true
enjoin him from carrying out his threat to demolish the
houses of petitioners since they constitute public Sometimes false
nuisances. The CFI of Manila sustained the act of the
City Engineer, so petitioners appealed saying that the Correct answer

power to remove public nuisances is lodged in the True

District Health Officer and not the City Engineer. Is this
Feedback
correct? *

2009 Bar Exam

0/2
 

Yes 11
Magdaleno purchased from Feliciana an unregistered
No
land in Medellin, Cebu. Prior to the sale, the land was
traversed by a railroad track owned by Bogo-Medellin
It depends
Milling Co. (Bomedco), used for hauling sugar cane.
  
Magdaleno died later and the land was inherited by his
six children. Unknown to them, Bogo-Medellin Milling Co.
It depends
was able to have the land occupied by the rail road
tracks as its own. The heirs therefore filed a complaint for None of the above
compensation and recovery of possession against Bogo-
 
Medellin Milling Co. After trial, the court decided that
Bogo-Medellin Milling Co. now owns the land due to
acquisitive prescription under Article 620 of the Civil Mr. Bong owns several properties in Pasig City. He

Code. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decided to build a condominium named Flores de Manila

decision of the trial court and held that the applicable law in one of his lots. To fund the project, he obtained a loan

is Art. 1137 (acquisitive prescription is 30 years). Since from the National Bank (NB) secured by a real estate

only 24 years from 1965 had elapsed when the heirs filed mortgage over the adjoining property which he also

a complaint against Bomedco in 1989, Bomedcos owned. During construction, he built three (3) pumps on

possession of the land had not yet ripened into the mortgaged property to supply water to the

ownership. Is this correct? * condominium. After one (1) year, the project was
completed and the condominium was turned over to the
buyers. However, Mr. Bong failed to pay his loan
4/4
obligation to NB. Thus, NB foreclosed the mortgaged
property where the pumps were installed. During the sale
Yes
on public auction of the mortgaged property, Mr. Simon
  won in the bidding. When Mr. Simon attempted to take
possession of the property, the condominium owners,
No
who in the meantime constituted themselves into Flores

It depends de Manila Inc. (FMI), claimed that they have earlier filed
a case for the declaration of the existence of an
None of the above easement before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig
City and prayed that the easement be annotated in the
 
title of the property foreclosed by NB. FMI further claimed
that when Mr. Bong installed the pumps in his adjoining
Lauro owns an agricultural land planted mostly with fruit
property, a voluntary easement was constituted in favor
trees. Hernando owns an adjacent land devoted to his
of FMI. Will the action prosper? *
piggery business which is two meters higher in elevation.
Although Hernando has constructed a waste disposal
4/4
lagoon for his piggery, it is inadequate to contain the
waste water containing pig manure and it often overflows
Yes
and inundates Lauro’s plantation, causing the trees to
wither and die. Lauro sues for damages caused to his No
plantation. Hernando invokes his right to the benefit of a
 
natural easement in favor of his higher estate, which
imposes upon lower estate of Lauro the obligation to
It depends
receive the waters descending from the higher estate. Is
Hernando correct? * None of the above

12
 
2/2

The residents of a subdivision have been using an open

Yes
strip of land as passage to the highway for over 30 years.
No The owner of that land decided, however, to close it in

preparation for building his house on it. The residents
protested, claiming that they became owners of the land
through acquisitive prescription, having been in
possession of the same in the concept of owners,
publicly, peacefully, and continuously for more than 30
years. Is this claim correct? *
Answer. Bar Question (2001) – Ulep, p. 386
Romulo will prevail. Under Article 650 of the Civil Code,
the easement of right of way shall be established at the
point least prejudicial to the servient estate and where the
distance from the dominant estate to a public highway
maybe the shortest. In case of conflict, the criterion of
least prejudice prevails over the criterion of shortest
distance. Since the route chosen by Federico will
prejudice the housing project of Romulo, Romulo has the
right to demand that Federico pass another way even
though it will be longer. (Answer by UP Law Center)

0/2  

Yes Tyler owns a lot that is enclosed by the lots of Riley to

the North and East, of Dylan to the South, and of Reece
 
to the West. The current route to the public highway is a
No kilometer’s walk through the northern lot of Riley, but the
route is a rough road and gets muddy during the rainy
It depends
season, and is inconvenient because it is only 2.5 meters
wide. Tyler’s nearest access to the public highway would
None of the above
be through the southern lot of Dylan. May Dylan be

Correct answer legally required to afford to Tyler a right of way through

his property? *
No

Feedback
0/2

No. 82. 2011 Bar Exam MCQ Yes

 
 

The coconut farm of Federico is surrounded by the lands No

of Romulo. Federico seeks a right of way through a
It depends
portion of the land of Romulo to bring his coconut
products to the market. He has chosen a point where he None of the above
will pass through a housing project of Romulo. The latter
wants him to pass another way which is one kilometer Correct answer
longer. Who should prevail? * No

Feedback
0/2

Federico Answer: 2017 Bar Exam; Answered by UP Law Center

No. Dylan may not be legally required to afford Tyler a

  right of way through his property because Tyler already
has an adequate outlet to the public highway through
Romulo Riley’s lot.

One of the requisites for a compulsory grant of right of

Correct answer way is that the estate of the claimant of a right of way
13 must be isolated and without adequate outlet to a public
Romulo highway. The true standard for the grant of compulsory
right of way is “adequacy” of outlet going to a public
highway and not the convenience of the dominant estate.
Feedback
In the case at bar, there is already an existing adequate
outlet from the dominant estate to a public highway. Even
if said outlet is inconvenient, the need to open up another
legal easement or servitude is entirely unjustified. (Art.  
649, NCC; Dichoso Jr. vs. Marcos, G.R. No. 180282, April
11, 2011; Costabella Corp. vs. CA, G.R. No. 80511,
January 25, 1991). No

Alternative Answer: Jurado, p. 470 It depends

Dylan may not be legally required to grant Tyler a right of

way through his property. To justify the grant of a right of None of the above
way, Tyler’s dominant estate must be isolated and without
adequate outlet to a public highway. (Art. 649, NCC).  
There must be a real necessity and not mere
convenience. Hence, there being an existing adequate
outlet to the highway, the dominant estate cannot demand
a right of way, although not convenient. (Costabella Corp. A drug lord and his family reside in a small bungalow
vs. CA, G.R. No. 80511, January 25, 1991; Dichoso, Jr. where they sell shabu and other prohibited drugs. When
vs. Marcos, G.R. No. 180282, April 11, 2011).
the police found the illegal trade, they immediately
 
demolished the house because according to them, it was
a nuisance per se that should be abated. Can this
Mendoza and company are occupants of certain portions demolition be sustained? *
of the 109 hectare Tatalon Estate in Quezon City. In
1959, R.A. 2616 authorized the expropriation of 25
2/2
hectares of said land for subdivision into small lots.
Meanwhile, P.D. 1472 was issued authorizing the NHA to
Yes
summarily eject all squatters from government
resettlement projects and Mendoza was one of those No
who challenged the law. Is he correct? *
 

2/2 It depends

Yes None of the above

No This form was created inside of Mindanao State University

- Main Campus.

 
 Forms
It depends

None of the above

Plaintiffs had an easement of natural drainage over

defendant's land, but the defendants obstructed the
easement by constructing a dam in 1938. The action to
destroy the dam was filed in 1951, on the theory, among
other things, that the dam was a nuisance and therefore
could never be legalized (Art. 698), and that the action
could not prescribe. (Art. 1143[2]). Has the action
prescribed? * 14

2/2

Yes