CIVIL LAW

trafficking. Being in pari delicto, the parties 1983) and reiterated in Heirs of Ayuste v.
shall be left where they are and Gigolo Malabonga (G.R No, 118784, September 2, 1999),
cannot demand the return of what he paid. the sale executed by the husband without the
consent of the wife is voidable. The husband has
EMANCIPATION (1993 Bar) already acquired a vested right on the voidable
nature of dispositions made without the consent
of the wife. Hence, Article 124 of the Family
Q: Julio and Lea, both 18 years old, were Code which makes the sale void does not apply.
sweethearts. At a party at the house of a
mutual friend, Lea met Jake, also 18 years
old, who showed interest in her. Lea seemed PART III – PROPERTY
to entertain Jake because she danced with
him many times. In a fit of jealousy, Julio shot
Jake with his father’s 38 calibre revolver
CLASSIFICATION (1995, 1997, 2007, 2019
which, before going to the party he was able
Bar)
to get from the unlocked drawer inside his

father’s bedroom. Jake died as a result of the
Q: Salvador, a timber concessionaire, built on
lone gunshot wound he sustained. His
his lot a warehouse where he processes and
parents sued Julio’s parents for damages
stores his timber for shipment. Adjoining the
arising from quasi-delict. At the time of the
warehouse is a furniture factory owned by
incident, Julio was 18 years old living with
NARRAMIX of which Salvador is a majority
his parents. Julio’s parents moved to dismiss
stockholder. NARRAMIX leased space in the
the complaint against them claiming that
warehouse where it placed its furniture-
since Julio was already of majority age, they
making machinery. (1995 Bar)
were no longer liable for his acts.


1. How would you classify the furniture-
1. Should the motion to dismiss be granted? making machinery as property under
Why? the Civil Code? Explain.
2. What is the liability of Julio’s parents to 2. Suppose the lease contract between
jake’s parents? Explain you answer Salvador and NARRAMIX stipulates
(1993 Bar) that at the end of the lease the
machinery shall become the property
A: of the lessor, will your answer be the
1. No, the Motion to Dismiss should not be same? Explain.
granted. Article 236 of the Family Code as
amended by RA 6809, provides in the third A:
paragraph that “nothing in this Code shall be 1. The furniture-making machinery is
construed to derogate from the duty or movable property because it was not
responsibility of parents and guardians for installed by the owner of the tenement. To
children and wards below twenty-one years become immovable under Art. 415 (5) of
of age mentioned in the second and third the NCC, the machinery must be installed
paragraphs of Article 2180 of the Civil by the owner of the tenement.
Code.” 2. It is immovable property. When there is a
2. The liability of Julio’s parents to Jake’s provision in the lease contract making the
parents arises from quasi-delict and shall lessor, at the end of the lease owner of the
cover specifically the following: machinery installed by the lessee, the said
a. P50,000.00 for the death of the son; machinery is considered to have been
b. Such amount as would correspond installed by the lessor through the lessee
to lost earning capacity; and
who acted merely as his agent. Having been
c. Moral damages. installed by the owner of the tenement, the
machinery became immovable under Art.
RETROACTIVITY OF THE FAMILY CODE
415 of the NCC. (Davao Sawmill v. Castillo,
(ART. 256) (2000 Bar) 61 Phil 709)
Q: On April 15, 1980, Rene and Angelina were
married to each other without a marriage Q: Pedro is the registered owner of a parcel
settlement. In 1985, they acquired a parcel of of land situated in Malolos, Bulacan. In 1973,
land in Quezon City. On June 1, 1990, when he mortgaged the land to the Philippine
Angelina was away in Baguio, Rene sold the National Bank (PNB) to secure a loan of
said lot to Marcelo. Is the sale void or P100,000.00. For Pedro’s failure to pay the loan,
voidable? (2000 Bar) the PNB foreclosed on the mortgage in 1980,
and the land was sold at public auction to
A: The sale is voidable. The provisions of the PNB for being the highest bidder. PNB
Family Code may apply retroactively but only if secured the title thereto in 1987.
such application will not impair vested rights.
When Rene and Angelina got married in 1980, In the meanwhile, Pedro, who was still in
the law that governed their property relations possession of the land, constructed a
was the New Civil Code. Under the NCC, as warehouse on the property. In 1988, the PNB
interpreted by the Supreme Court in Heirs of sold the land to Pablo. The Deed of Sale was
Felipe v. Aldon (G.R. No. L-60174, February 16, amended in 1989 to include the warehouse.

U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S U S T
2 0 2 1 A C A D E M I C S C O M M I T T E E 50 B A R O P E R A T I O N S

 QUAMTO (1987-2019)
Pedro, claiming ownership of the warehouse, because such equipment are "machinery,
files a complaint to annul the amended Deed receptacles, instruments or implements
of Sale before the Regional Trial Court of intended by the owner of the tenement for
Quezon City, where he resides, against both an industry or works which may be carried
the PNB and Pablo. The PNB filed a motion to on in a building or on a piece of land and
dismiss the complaint for improper venue which tend directly to meet the needs of the
contending that the warehouse is real industry or works." It is logically assumed
property under Art. 415(1) of the Civil Code that the petroleum industry may be carried
and therefore the action should have instead on in a building or on a piece of land and the
been filed in Malolos, Bulacan. Pedro claims platform is analogous to a building.
otherwise. The question arose as to whether c) The trees, plants and flowers planted in the
the warehouse should be considered as real garden area of the platform are immovable
or personal property. property under Art. 415 (2) NCC which
classifies as an immovable property "trees,
If consulted, what would your legal advice plants and growing fruits, while they are
be? (1997 Bar) attached to the land or form an integral part
of an immovable, the petroleum operation
A: The warehouse which is a construction
facility.
adhered to the soil is an immovable by nature

under Art. 415(1), and the proper venue of any
OWNERSHIP (1995, 1997, 2000, 2008,
case to recover ownership of the same which is 2010, 2013, 2016, 2017 BAR)
what the purpose of the complaint to annul the
amended Deed of Sale amounts to, should be the Q: Joven and Juliana are the owners of a 30-
place where the property is located, or the RTC hectare plantation in Cotabato, covered by a
of Bulacan. title. One day, a group of armed men forcibly
entered their house and, at gun point, forced
Q: Manila Petroleum Co. owned and operated them to sign a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor
a petroleum operation facility off the coast of of Romeo. Romeo got the title from them and
Manila. The facility was located on a floating they were ejected from the house and
platform made of wood and metal, upon threatened not to come back or else they will
which was permanently attached the heavy be killed. The spouses went to Manila and
equipment for the petroleum operations and resided there for more than 35 years. They
living quarters of the crew. The floating never went back to Cotabato for fear of their
platform likewise contained a garden area, lives. Word came to them that peace and
where trees, plants and flowers were order have been restored in their former
planted. The platform was tethered to a ship, place of residence and they decided to
the MV 101, which was anchored to the reclaim their land for the benefit of their
seabed. grandchildren. Joven and Juliana filed a suit
for reconveyance of their property. This was
a) Is the platform movable or immovable opposed by the grandson of Romeo to whom
property? the title was eventually transferred, on the
b) Are the equipment and living quarters ground of laches and prescription. Decide the
movable or immovable property? case and rule on the defenses of laches and
c) Are the trees, plants and flowers prescription. Explain your answer. (2016
immovable or movable property? (2007 Bar) Bar)

A: A: The right of the registered owners, Joven and
Juliana, to file suit to recover their property, is
a) The platform is an immovable property not barred by prescription. Under Section 47 of
under Art. 415 (9) NCC, which provides that P.D. No. 1529, no title to registered land in
"docks and structures which, though derogation of the title of the registered owner
floating, are intended by their nature and shall be acquired by prescription or adverse
object to remain at a fixed place on a river, possession.
lake or coast." Since the floating platform is a
petroleum operation facility, it is intended Proof of possession by the owner in an action for
to remain permanently where it is situated, recoveyance is immaterial and inconsequential.
even if it is tethered to a ship which is The right to recover possession is equally
anchored to the seabed. imprescriptible since possession is a mere
b) The equipment and living quarters of the consequence of ownership (Republic v. Mendoza,
crew are immovable property. Art. 415 (3) 627 SCRA 443 [2010]). The right of Joven and
of the NCC classifies as an immovable Juliana to recover is not barred by laches, either.
"everything attached to an immovable in a Laches deals with unreasonable delay in filing
fixed manner, in such a way that it cannot be the action. The owner’s delay, if any, cannot be
separated therefrom without breaking the construed as deliberate and intentional. They
material or deterioration of the object." Both were simply coerced out of Cotabato and
the equipment and the living quarters are threatened with death if they returned, and,
permanently attached to the platform thus, could not have filed them.
which is also an immovable. The
equipment can also be classified as an Q: Anselmo is the registered owner of a land
immovable property under Art. 415 (5) NCC and a house that his friend Boboy occupied

51
 CIVIL LAW
for a nominal rental and on the condition relentless search and finally found the treasure
that Boboy would vacate the property on buried in a new riverbed formerly part of a
demand. With Anselmo's knowledge, Boboy parcel of land owned by spouses Tirso and
introduced renovations consisting of an Tessie. The old river which used to cut through
additional bedroom, a covered veranda, and the land of Spouses Ursula and Urbito changed
a concrete block fence, at his own expense. its course through natural causes. To whom
Subsequently, Anselmo needed the property shall the treasure belong? Explain (1995 Bar)
as his residence and thus asked Boboy to
vacate and turn it over to him. Boboy, despite A: The treasure was found in a property of
an extension, failed to vacate the property, public dominion, the new riverbed. Since Tim did
forcing Anselmo to send him a written not have authority from the government and,
demand to vacate. In his own written reply, therefore, was a trespasser, he is not entitled to
Boboy signified that he was ready to leave the one-half share allotted to a finder of hidden
but Anselmo must first reimburse him the treasure. All of it will go to the State. In addition,
value of the improvements he introduced on under Art. 438 of the NCC in order that the
the property as he is a builder in good faith. finder be entitled to the 1/2 share, the treasure
Anselmo refused, insisting that Boboy cannot must be found by chance, that is by sheer luck. In
ask for reimbursement as he is a mere lessee. this case, since Tim found the treasure not by
Boboy responded by removing the chance but because he relentlessly searched for
improvements and leaving the building in its it, he is not entitled to any share in the hidden
original state. treasure.

1. Resolve Boboy's claim that as a builder in Q: Marcelino, a treasure hunter as just a
good faith, he should be reimbursed the hobby, has found a map which appears to
value of the improvements he indicate the location of hidden treasure. He
introduced. has an idea of the land where the treasure
2. Can Boboy be held liable for damages for might possibly be found. Upon inquiry,
removing the improvements over Marcelino learns that the owner of the land,
Anselmo's objection? (1990, 2013 Bar) Leopoldo, is a permanent resident of Canada.
Nobody, however, could give him Leopoldo's
A: exact address. Ultimately, anyway, he enters
1. Boboy’s claim that he is a builder in good the land and conducts a search. He succeeds.
faith has no legal basis. A builder in good Leopoldo learning of Marcelino's "find",
faith is someone who occupies the property seeks to recover the treasure from Marcelino
in the concept of an owner. The provisions but the latter is not willing to part with it.
on builder-planter-sower under the Civil Failing to reach an agreement, Leopoldo sues
Code cover cases in which the builder, Marcelino for the recovery of the property.
planter and sower believe themselves to be Marcelino contests the action. How would you
owners of the land, or at least, to have a decide the case? (1997 Bar)
claim of title thereto. As Boboy is a lessee of
the property, even if he was paying nominal A: I would decide in favor of Marcelino since he is
rental, Article 1678 Civil Code, is applicable. considered a finder by chance of the hidden
Under this provision, if the lessee makes, in treasure, hence, he is entitled to one-half (1/2) of
good faith, useful improvements which are the hidden treasure. While Marcelino may have
suitable to the use for which the lease is had the intention to look for the hidden treasure,
intended without altering the form or still he is a finder by chance since it is enough that
substance of the property leased, the lessor he tried to look for it. By chance in the law does
upon the termination of the lease shall pay not mean sheer luck such that the finder should
the lessee one-half of the value of the have no intention at all to look for the treasure.
improvements at that time. Should the lessor By chance means good luck, implying that one
refuse to reimburse said amount, the lessee who intentionally looks for the treasure is
may remove the improvements even though embraced in the provision. The reason is that it
the principal thing may suffer damage is extremely difficult to find hidden treasure
thereby. without looking for it deliberately.
2. No. Boboy cannot be held liable for
damages. The lessor, Anselmo, refused to Marcelino is not a trespasser since there is no
reimburse one-half of the value of the prohibition for him to enter the premises, hence,
improvements, so the lessee, Boboy, may he is entitled to half of the treasure.
remove the same, even though the principal
thing may suffer damage thereby. If in Q: Adam, a building contractor, was engaged
removing the useful improvements Boboy by Blas to construct a house on a lot which he
caused more impairment on the property (Blas) owns. While digging on the lot in order
leased than what is necessary, he will be to lay down the foundation of the house,
liable for damages. (Art. 1678) Adam hit a very hard object. It turned out to
be the vault of the old Banco de las Islas
Q: Tim came into possession of an old map Filipinas. Using a detonation device, Adam
showing where a purported cache of gold was able to open the vault containing old
bullion was hidden. Without any authority notes and coins which were in circulation
from the government Tim conducted a during the Spanish era. While the notes and
coins are no longer legal tender, they were

U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S U S T
2 0 2 1 A C A D E M I C S C O M M I T T E E 52 B A R O P E R A T I O N S

 QUAMTO (1987-2019)
valued at P100 million because of their to his name. Juan also bought a lot in the
historical value and the coins silver nickel same place, which is described as Cadastral
content. The following filed legal claims over Lot No. 124. Pedro hired a geodetic engineer
the notes and coins: to determine the actual location of Lot No.
123 but for some reason, the engineer
i. Adam, as finder; pointed to Lot No. 124 by mistake. Pedro
ii. Blas, as owner of the property where hired a contractor to construct his house and
they were found; the latter put up a sign stating the name of
iii. Bank of the Philippine Islands, as the owner of the project and the construction
successor-in-interest of the owner of the permit number. It took more than a year
vault; and before the house was constructed. When
iv. The Philippine Government because of Pedro was already residing in his house, Juan
their historical value. told him to remove his house because it was
built on his (Juan's) lot.
Who owns the notes and coins? (2008 Bar)
Juan filed a Complaint for Recovery of
A: Hidden treasure is a money jewelry or other Possession and prayed that the house be
precious objects the ownership of which does removed because Pedro is a builder in bad
not appear. (Art. 439, CC) The vault of the Banco faith. Pedro filed his Answer with
de las Islas Filipinas has been buried for about a Counterclaim that he is entitled to the
century and the Bank of the Philippine Islands payment of the value of the house plus
cannot succeed by inheritance to the property of damages because he is a builder in good faith
Banco de las Islas Filipinas. The ownership of the and that Juan is guilty of estoppel and laches.
vault, together with the notes and coins can now
legally be considered as hidden treasure because 1. If Pedro is a builder in good faith, what
its ownership is no longer apparent. The are the rights given to Juan under the
contractor, Adam, is not a trespasser and law? Explain.
therefore entitled to one-half of the hidden 2. If Pedro is a builder in bad faith, what
treasure and Blas as owner of the property, is are the rights given to Juan under the
entitled to the other half. (Art. 438, CC) Since the law? Explain. (2016 Bar)
notes and coins have historical value, the
government may acquire them at their just price A:
which in turn will be divided equally between 1. If Pedro is a builder in good faith and Juan is
Adam and Blas. (Art. 438, par. 3, CC) an owner in good faith, Juan has the right to
appropriate as his own the house after
Q: O, owner of Lot A, learning that Japanese payment of indemnity provided for in
soldiers may have buried gold and other Articles 546 and 548 of the Civil Code,
treasures at the adjoining vacant Lot B which are the necessary and useful
belonging to spouses X & Y, excavated in Lot expenses. As to useful expenses, Juan has
B where she succeeded in unearthing gold the option to either refund the amount of
and precious stones. How will the treasures the expenses, or pay the increase in value
found by O be divided? which the land may have acquired by
reason thereof. Alternatively, under Article
1. 100% to O as finder; 448 of the Civil Code, Juan has the right to
2. 50% to O and 50% to the spouses X and oblige Pedro to pay the price of the land.
Y; However, Pedro cannot be obliged to buy
3. 50% to O and 50% to the state; the land if its value is considerably more
4. None of the above (2010 BAR) than that of the house. In such case, he shall
pay reasonable rend, if Juan does not choose
A: None of the above. The general rule us that to appropriate the house after proper
the treasure shall belong to the spouses X and Y, indemnity. It is the owner of the land who
the owners of Lot B. Under Article 438 (NCC), the is authorized to exercise the options under
exception is that when the discovery of a hidden Article 448 because his right is older and by
treasure is made on the property of another and principle of accession, he is entitled to the
by chance, one-half thereof shall belong to the ownership of the accessory thing.
owner of the land and the other one-half is
allowed to the finer. In the problem, the finding of If Pedro is a builder in good faith and Juan is
the treasure was not by chance because O knew an owner in bad faith because Juan knew
that the treasure was in Lot B. While a trespasser that Pedro was building on his lot and did
is also not entitled to any share, and there is no not oppose it (Art. 453 par. 2), and Art. 454
indication in the problem whether or not O was a in relation to Art. 447 of the Civil Code
trespasser, O is not entitled to a share because applies. Juan shall pay the value of the
the finding was not “by chance.” house and is also liable for reparation of
damage; however, Pedro also has the right
ACCESSION (1992, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, to remove or demolish the house and ask
2003, 2008, 2009, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, for damages.
2019 BAR)
2. If Pedro is a builder in bad faith and Juan is
Q: Pedro bought a parcel of land described as an owner in good faith, Juan has three
Cadastral Lot No. 123 and the title was issued options. He may appropriate the

53
 CIVIL LAW
improvements without indemnity under
Art. 449 of the Civil Code or demand the A: Based on the facts as stated, the spouses Dela
demolition of the house in order to replace Cruz as builders and the spouses Rodriguez as
things to their former condition at Pedro’s landowners, are both in good faith. The spouses
expense under Art. 450 or compel Pedro to Dela Cruz are builders in good faith because
pay the price of the land. In addition to before constructing the house they exercised
these options, Juan is also entitled to due diligence by asking the agent of CRC the
damages from Pedro. location of Lot A. and they relied on the
information given by the agent who is presumed
If Pedro is a builder in bad faith and Juan is to know the identity of the lot purchased by the
an owner in bad faith, it shall be as if both Dela Cruz spouses. (Pleasantville v. CA, G.R. No.
of them were in good faith. (Art. 453, New 79688, February 1, 1996) On the other hand,
Civil Code) there is no showing that the landowners,
spouses Rodriguez, acted in bad faith. The facts
Q: Benjamin is the owner of a titled lot which do not show that the building was done with
is bounded on the north by the Maragondon their knowledge and without opposition on their
River. An alluvial deposit of two (2) hectares part (Art. 453). Good faith is always presumed
was added to the registered area. Daniel took (Art. 527). The owner of the land on which
possession of the portion formed by anything has been built, sown or planted in good
accretion and claims that he has been in faith shall have the right:
open, continuous and undisturbed
possession of said portion since 1923 as 1. to appropriate as his own the works after
shown by a tax declaration. In 1958, payment of the indemnity provided for in
Benjamin filed a Complaint for Quieting of Articles 546 and 548, or
Title and contends that the alluvium belongs
to him as the riparian owner and that since 2. to oblige the one who built to pay the price of
the alluvium is, by law, part and parcel of the the land.
registered property, the same may be
considered as registered property. Decide However, the builder cannot be obliged to buy
the case and explain. (2016, 2017 Bar) the land if its value is considerably more than
that of the building. In such case, he shall pay
A: I will decide in favor of Daniel and dismiss the reasonable rent if the owner of the land does
action to quite title filed by Benjamin. Under Art. not choose to appropriate the building or trees
457 of the Civil Code, the owner of lands after proper indemnity. (Art. 448, CC)
adjoining the banks of rivers belong the
accretion which they gradually receive from the The house constructed by the spouses Dela Cruz
effects of the current of the waters. The is considered as a useful expense, since it
accretion, however, does not automatically increased the value of the lot. As such, should the
become registered land. It must be brought spouses Rodriguez decide to appropriate the
under the Torrens system of registration by house, the spouses Dela Cruz are entitled to the
Benjamin, the riparian owner. Since he did not, right of retention pending reimbursement of the
then the increment, not being registered land, expenses they incurred or the increase in value
was open to acquisition through prescription by which the thing may have acquired by reason of
third persons, like Daniel. (Grande v. Court of the improvement (Art. 546). Thus, the spouses
Appeals, 5 SCRA 524 [1962]; Cureg v. Dela Cruz may demand P1,000,000 as payment of
Intermediate Appellate Court, 177 SCRA 313 the expenses in building the house or increase in
[1989]) value of the land because of the house as a useful
improvement, as may be determined by the
Q: Ciriaco Realty Corporation (CRC) sold to court front the evidence presented during the
the spouses Del a Cruz a 500-square meter trial. (Depra Dumlao, G.R. No. L 57348, May 16,
land (Lot A) in Paranaque. The land now has 1985; Technogas Phils. v. CA,G.R. No. 108894,
a fair market value of P1, 200,000. CRC February 10, 1997)
likewise sold to the spouses Rodriguez, a

700-square meter land (Lot B) which is
Q: A delayed accession is: (2014 BAR)
adjacent to Lot A. Lot B has a present fair

market value of P1,500,000. The spouses
A. Formation of an island
Dela Cruz constructed a house on Lot B,
B. Avulsion
relying on there presentation of the CRC
C. Alluvium
sales agent that it is the property they
D. Change in the course of the riverbed
purchased. Only upon the completion of their
house did the spouses Dela Cruz discover
A: B (Art. 459, CC)
that they had built on Lot B owned by the
spouses Rodriguez, not on Lot A that they
Q: Mr. and Mrs. X migrated to the US with all
purchased. They spent P , 000,000 for the
their children. As they had no intention of
house. As their lawyer, advise the spouses
coming back, they offered their house and lot
Dela Cruz on their rights and obligations
for sale to their neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. A
under the given circumstances, and the
(the buyers) who agreed to buy the property
recourses and options open to them to
for 128 Million. Because Mr. and Mrs. A
protect their interests. (1992, 2001, 2013
needed to obtain a loan from a bank first, and
Bar)

U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S U S T
2 0 2 1 A C A D E M I C S C O M M I T T E E 54 B A R O P E R A T I O N S

 QUAMTO (1987-2019)
since the sellers were in a hurry to migrate, Article 548 of the Civil Code provides that
the latter told the buyers that they could useful expenses shall be refunded to the
already occupy the house, renovate it as it possessor in good faith with the right of
was already in a state of disrepair, and pay retention, the person who has defeated him
only when their loan is approved and in the possession having the option of
released. While waiting for the loan refunding the amount of the expenses or of
approval, the buyers spent P1 Million in paying the increase in value which the thing
repairing the house. A month later, a person may have acquired by reason thereof. The
carrying an authenticated special power of increase in value amounts to P50,000.00.
attorney from the sellers demanded that the c) Yes, A may require B to buy the land. Article
buyers either immediately pay for the 448 of the Civil Code provides that the
property in full now or vacate it and pay owner of the land on which anything has
damages for having made improvements on been built in good faith shall have the right
the property without a sale having been to oblige the one who built to pay the price of
perfected. What are the buyers' options or the land if its value is not considerably more
legal rights with respect to the expenses they
than that of the building.
incurred in improving the property under
d) If B agrees to buy land but fails to pay, A can
circumstances? (2015 Bar)
have the house removed. (Depra v. Dumlao,

136 SCRA 475)
A: The buyers here may be deemed possessors
e) Art. 448 of the Civil Code provides that the
or builders in good faith because they were
builder cannot be obliged to buy the land if its
made to believe that they were allowed to make
value is considerably more than that of the
repairs or renovation by the sellers themselves.
building. In such case, he shall pay
As builders in good faith, they have the right to
reasonable rent, if the owner of the land
seek reimbursement for the value of the
does not choose to appropriate the building
improvements in case the owner decides to
after proper indemnity. The parties shall
appropriate them. They cannot be asked to
agree upon the terms of the lease and in
remove the improvements because that is not
case of disagreement, the court fix the terms
one of the options given by law to the landowner
thereof.
in case the builder is in good faith.


Q: Bartolome constructed a chapel on the
Q: A owns a parcel of residential land worth
land of Eric. What are his right if he were:
P500,000.00. Unknown to A, a residential

house costing P100,000.00 is built on the
a. A possessor of the land in good faith?
entire parcel by B who claims ownership of
b. A possessor of the land in bad faith?
the land. Answer all the following questions
(1996 Bar)
based on the premise that B is a builder in

good faith and A is a landowner in good faith.
A:

1) A chapel is a useful improvement. Bartolome
a) May A acquire the house built by B? If so,
may remove the chapel if it can be removed
how?
b) If the land increased in value to without damage to the land, unless Eric
P500,000.00 by reason of the building of chooses to acquire the chapel. In the latter
the house thereon, what amount should case, Bartolome has the right to the
be paid by A in order to acquire the reimbursement of the value of the chapel
house from B? with right of retention until he is
c) Assuming that the cost of the house was reimbursed. (Art. 448 in relation to Art. 546
P900,000.00 and not P100,000.00, may A and 547, NCC)
require B to buy the land? 2) Bartolome, under Art. 449 of the NCC, loses
d) If B voluntarily buys the land as desired whatever he built, without any right to
by A, under what circumstances may A indemnity.
nevertheless be entitled to have the
house removed? Q:
e) In what situation may a “forced lease” a) Because of confusion as to the
arise between A and B, and what terms boundaries of the adjoining lots that
and conditions would govern the lease? they bought from the same subdivision
company, X constructed a house on the
Give reasons for your answers. (1992 Bar) adjoining lot of Y in the honest belief
that it is the land that he bought from
A: the subdivision company. What are the
respective rights of X and Y with respect
a) Yes, A may acquire the house built by B by to X's house?
paying indemnity to B. Article 448 of the b) Suppose X was in good faith but Y knew
Civil Code provides that the owner of the that X was constructing on his (Y's) land
land on which anyting has been built, sown or but simply kept quiet about it, thinking
planted in good faith, shallhave the right to perhaps that he could get X's house
appropriate as his own works, sowing or later. What are the respective rights of
planting, after payment of the indemnity the parties over X's house in this case?
provided for in Article 546 of the Civil Code. (1999 Bar)
b) A should pay B the sum of P50,000.00.

55
 CIVIL LAW
A: 2. Pablo is entitled to the rentals of the
a) The rights of Y, as owner of the lot, and of X, building. As the owner of the land, Pablo is
as builder of a house thereon, are governed also the owner of the building being an
by Art. 448 of the Civil Code which grants accession thereto. However, Pedro who is
to Y the right to choose between two entitled to retain the building is also entitled
remedies: (a) appropriate the house by to retain the rentals. He, however, shall
indemnifying X for its value plus whatever apply the rentals to the indemnity payable to
necessary expenses the latter may have him after deducting reasonable cost of repair
incurred for the preservation of the land, or and maintenance.
(b) compel X to buy the land if the price of
the land is not considerably more than the Q: Mike built a house on his lot in Pasay City.
value of the house. If it is, then X cannot be Two years later, a survey disclosed that a
obliged to buy the land, but he shall pay portion of the building actually stood on the
reasonable rent, and in case of neighboring land of Jose, to the extent of 40
disagreement, the court shall fix the terms of square meters. Jose claims that Mike is a
the lease. builder in bad faith because he should know
the boundaries of his lot, and demands that
the portion of the house which encroached
b) Since the lot owner Y is deemed to be in on his land should be destroyed or removed.
bad faith (Art. 453), X as the party in good Mike replies that he is a builder in good faith
faith may (a) remove the house and and offers to buy the land occupied by the
demand indemnification for damages building instead.
suffered by him, or (b) demand payment of
the value of the house plus reparation for 1) Is Mike a builder in good faith or bad
damages (Art. 447, in relation to Art 454). Y faith? Why?
continues as owner of the lot and becomes, 2) Whose preference should be followed?
under the second option, owner of the Why? (2001 Bar)
house as well, after he pays the sums
demanded. A:
1) Yes, Mike is a builder in good faith. There is
Q: In good faith, Pedro constructed a five- no showing that when he built his house, he
door commercial building on the land of knew that a portion thereof encroached on
Pablo who was also in good faith. When Pablo Jose's lot. Unless one is versed in the science
discovered the construction, he opted to of surveying, he cannot determine the
appropriate the building by paying Pedro precise boundaries or location of his
the cost thereof. However, Pedro insists that property by merely examining his title. In
he should be paid the current market value the absence of contrary proof, the law
of the building, which was much higher presumes that the encroachment was done in
because of inflation. (2000 Bar)
good faith. (Technogas Phils, v. CA, G.R. No.

108894, February 10, 1997)
1) Who is correct Pedro or Pablo?
2) None of the preferences shall be followed.
2) In the meantime, that Pedro is not yet paid,
The preference of Mike cannot prevail
who is entitled to the rentals of the
building, Pedro or Pablo? because under Article 448 of the Civil Code,
it is the owner of the land who has the
A: option or choice, not the builder. On the
1. Pablo is correct. Under Article 448 of the other hand, even though the option belongs
New Civil Code in relation to Article 546, the to Jose, he cannot demand that the portion of
builder in good faith is entitled to a refund of the house encroaching on his land be
the necessary and useful expenses incurred by destroyed or removed because this is not
him, or the increase in value which the land one of the options given by law to the owner
may have acquired by reason of the of the land. The owner may choose between
improvement, at the option of the landowner. the appropriation of what was built after
The builder is entitled to a refund of the payment of indemnity, or to compel the
expenses he incurred, and not to the market builder to pay for the land if the value of the
value of the improvement. The case of Pecson land is not considerably more than that of
v. CA (G.R. No. 115814, 26 May 1995), is not the building. Otherwise, the builder shall pay
applicable to the problem. In the Pecson case, rent for the portion of the land encroached.
the builder was the owner of the land who
later lost the property at a public sale due to Q: For many years, the Rio Grande river
non-payment of taxes. The Court ruled that deposited soil along its bank, beside the
titled land of Jose. In time, such deposit
Article 448 does not apply to the case where
reached an area of one thousand square
the owner of the land is the builder but who
meters. With the permission of Jose, Vicente
later lost the land; not being applicable, the
cultivated the said area. Ten years later, a big
indemnity that should be paid to the buyer
flood occurred in the river and transferred
must be the fair market value of the building
1000 square meters to the opposite bank,
and not just the cost of construction thereof. beside the land of Agustin. The land
The Court opined in that case that to do transferred is now contested by Jose and
otherwise would unjustly enrich the new Agustin as riparian owners , and by Vicente
owner of the land. who claims ownership by prescription. Who

U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S U S T
2 0 2 1 A C A D E M I C S C O M M I T T E E 56 B A R O P E R A T I O N S

 QUAMTO (1987-2019)
should prevail? Why? (2001 Bar) recedes, soil, rocks and other materials are
deposited on Jessica's and Jenny's properties.
A: Jose should prevail. The disputed area, which is This pattern of the river swelling, receding
an alluvion, belongs by right of accretion to Jose, and depositing soil and other materials being
the riparian owner. (Art. 457) When, as given in deposited on the neighbors’ properties have
the problem, the very same area was gone on for many years. Knowing this
"transferred" by flood waters to the opposite pattern, Jessica constructed a concrete
bank, it became an avulsion and ownership barrier about 2 meters from her property
thereof is retained by Jose who has two years to line and extending towards the river, so that
remove it. (Art. 459) Vicente's claim based on when the water recedes, soil and other
prescription is baseless since his possession was materials are trapped within this barrier.
by mere tolerance of Jose and, therefore, did not After several years, the area between
adversely affect Jose's possession and Jessica's property line to the concrete barrier
ownership. (Art. 537) Inasmuch as his was completely filled with soil, effectively
possession is merely that of a holder, he cannot increasing Jessica's property by 2 meters.
acquire the disputed area by prescription. Jenny's property, where no barrier was
constructed, also increased by one meter
Q: Andres is a riparian owner of a parcel of along the side of the river.
registered land. His land, however, has
gradually diminished in area due to the a) Can Jessica and Jenny legally claim
current of the river, while the registered land ownership over the additional 2 meters
of Mario on the opposite bank has gradually and one meter, respectively, of land
increased in area by 200-square meters. deposited along their properties?
b) If Jessica's and Jenny's properties are
a) Who has the better right over the 200- registered, will the benefit of such
square meter area that has been added registration extend to the increased
to Mario’s registered land, Mario or area of their properties?
Andres? c) Assume the two properties are on a cliff
b) May a third person acquire said 200- adjoining the shore of Laguna Lake.
square meter land by prescription? Jessica and Jenny had a hotel built on
(2003 Bar) the properties. They had the earth and
rocks excavated from the properties
A: dumped on the adjoining shore, giving
a. Mario has a better right over the 200 square rise to a new patch of dry land. Can they
meters increase in area by reason of validly lay claim to the patch of land?
accretion, applying Article 457 of the New (2008, 2017 Bar)
Civil Code, which provides that “to the
owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers A:
belong the accretion which they gradually a) Jenny can legally claim ownership of the
received from the effects of the current of the lands by right of accession (accretion)
waters.” Andres cannot claim that the under Art. 457 of the Civil Code. The lands
increase in Mario’s land is his own, because came into being over the years through the
such is an accretion and not a result of the gradual deposition of soil and silt by the
sudden detachment of a known portion of natural action of the waters of the river.
his land and its attachment to Mario’s land, a
process called “avulsion”. He can no longer Jessica cannot claim the two meter-wide
claim ownership of the portion of his strip of land added to her land. Jessica
registered land which was gradually and constructed the cement barrier two meters
naturally eroded due to the current of the in front of her property towards the river
river, because he had lost it by operation of not to protect her land from the destructive
law. That portion of the land has become forces of the water but to trap the alluvium.
part of the public domain. In order that the riparian owner may be
entitled to the alluvium the deposition
b. Yes, a third party may acquire by must occur naturally without the
prescription the 200 square meters, intervention of the riparian owner.
increase in area, because it is not included in (Republic v. CA 132 SCRA 514 [1984])
the Torrens Title of the riparian owner.
Hence, this does not involve the b) No, the registration of Jessica’s and Jenny’s
imprescriptibility conferred by Section 47, adjoining property does not automatically
P.D. No. 1529. The fact that the riparian land extend to the accretions. They have to bring
is registered does not automatically make their lands under the operation of the
the accretion thereto a registered land. Torrens system of land registration
(Grande v. CA, G.R. No. L- 17652, June 30, following the procedure prescribed in P.D.
1962; Jagualing v. CA, G.R. No. 94283, March
No. 1529.
4, 1991)


c) Jessica and Jenny cannot validly lay claim to
Q: The properties of Jessica and Jenny, who
the price of dry land that resulted from the
are neighbors, lie along the banks of the
dumping of rocks and carth materials
Marikina River. At certain times of the year,
excavated from their properties because it
the river would swell and as the water
is a reclamation without authority. The

57
 CIVIL LAW
land is part of the lakeshore, if not the adverse.
lakebed, which is inalienable land of the
public domain. b) Although Ulpiano is a possessor in bad faith,
because he knew he does not own the land,
Q: Marciano is the owner of a parcel of land he will lose the three huts he built in bad faith
through which a river runs out into the sea. and make an accounting of the fruits he has
The land had been brought under the gathered, he has the right to deduct from the
Torrens System, and is cultivated by Ulpiano value of the fruits the expenses for
and his family as farmworkers therein. Over production, gathering and preservation of
the years, the river has brought silt and the fruits. (Art. 443)
sediment from its sources up in the
mountains and forests so that gradually the He may also ask for reimbursement of the
land owned by Marciano increased in area by taxes he has paid, as these are charges on
three hectares. Ulpiano built three huts on the land owned by Marciano. This
this additional area, where he and his two obligation is based on a quasi-contract.
married children live. On this same area,
(Art. 2175)
Ulpiano and his family planted peanuts,

monggo beans and vegetables. Ulpiano also
Q: Believing that he owned a certain parcel of
regularly paid taxes on the land, as shown by
land and completely unaware of any defect in
tax declarations, for over thirty years. When
his title thereto, Mr. A started to build a
Marciano learned of the increase in the size
of the land, he ordered Ulpiano to demolish house thereon. When Mr. P, the real owner of
the huts, and demanded that he be paid his the land learned of Mr. A's actions, Mr. P
share in the proceeds of the harvest. immediately demanded Mr. A to leave the
Marciano claims that under the Civil Code, premises. However, Mr. A refused to leave,
the alluvium belongs to him as a registered and instead, asserted that as a builder in
riparian owner to whose land the accretion good faith, Mr. P is obliged to sell the land to
attaches, and that his right is enforceable him.
against the whole world.
a. Is the claim of Mr. A correct? Explain.
a) Is Marciano correct? Explain. b. Assuming that Mr. P all the while,
b) What rights, if any, does Ulpiano have knew but did not object to Mr. A's
against Marciano? Explain. (2009 Bar) construction of the house on his property,
may Mr. A compel Mr. P to purchase the said
A: improvement due to Mr. P's bad faith?
a) Marciano’s contention is correct. Since that Explain. (2019 Bar)
accretion was deposited on his land by the
action of the waters of the river and he did A:
not construct any structure to increase the a. No, Mr. A is not correct. Mr. A who was
deposition of soil and silt, Marciano completely unaware of any defect in his title,
automatically owns the accretion. His real is a builder in good faith. Mr. P who
right of ownership is enforceable against the prompted Mr. A’s possession also acted in
whole world including Ulpiano and his two good faith. Article 448 applies in this case,
married children. Although Marciano’s land is which provides that only the owner of the
registered, the three (3) hectares land land on which anything has been built, sown
deposited through accretion was not or planted in good faith, has the right to
automatically registered. As an unregistered appropriate as his own the works, sowing or
land, it is subject to acquisitive prescription planting, after payment of the indemnity for
by third persons. necessary expenses and useful expenses
where applicable, OR to oblige the one who
Although Ulpiano and his children live in the built or planted to pay the price of the land,
three (3) hectare unregistered land owned and the one who sowed, the proper rent;
by Marciano, they are farm workers; however, the builder or planter cannot be
therefore, they are possessors not in the obliged to buy the land if its value is
concept of owners but in the concept of considerably more than that of the building
mere holders. Even if they possess the land or trees. The law grants said rights to the
for more than 30 years, they cannot become owner of the land. The builder in good faith,
the owners thereof through extraordinary Mr. A in this case, cannot compel Mr. P, the
acquisitive prescription, because the law owner of the land, to choose which right to
requires possession in the concept of the exercise, for the option belongs to the owner
owner. Payment of taxes and tax declaration alone.
are not enough to make their possession one b. Yes, Mr. A may compel Mr. P to purchase the
in the concept of owner. They must improvements, Under Art. 454 of the Civil
repudiate the possession in the concept of Code it provides that when the landowner
holder by executing unequivocal acts of acted in bad faith and the builder, planter or
repudiation amounting to ouster of sower proceeded in good faith, the
Marciano, known to Marciano and must be provisions under Art. 447 shall apply. Art.
proven by clear and convincing evidence. 453 of the same Code provides that it is
Only then would his possession become understood that there is bad faith on the

U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S U S T
2 0 2 1 A C A D E M I C S C O M M I T T E E 58 B A R O P E R A T I O N S

 QUAMTO (1987-2019)
part of the landowner whenever the act was B. Within what period should A, B, and C
done with his knowledge and without tile the complaint for quieting of title?
opposition on his part. Art. 447 provides Explain.
that the owner of the land who makes C. Assuming that Band Care residing
thereon, personally or through another, abroad, may A, without the knowledge
plantings, constructions or works with the of B and C, file the complaint for
materials of another, shall pay their value; quieting of title on behalf of all the
and, if the landowner acted in bad faith, the heirs? Explain. (2019 Bar)
owner of the materials may remove them in
any event, with a right to be indemnified for A:
damages. The landowner, having known and a. For an action to quiet title to prosper, it
without opposing the construction made by has the following requisites: (1) the
Mr. A is deemed to have acted in bad faith: plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an
Art. 447, therefore, applies and Mr. P shall equitable title to or interest in the real
pay the value of the improvement; i.e., the property subject of the action; and (2) the
value of the materials, plus damages. instrument, record, claim, encumbrance
or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud
QUIETING OF TITLE (2005, 2017, 2019 on his title must be shown to be in fact
BAR) invalid or inoperative despite its prima
facie appearance of validity or legal
Q: In an ejectment case filed by Don against efficacy.
Cesar, can the latter ask for the cancellation
of Don's title considering that he (Cesar) is the The requisites for an action to quiet the
rightful owner of the lot? Explain. (2005 Bar) title obtain in this case, since A, B, and
Care the registered owners of the parcel of
A: Cesar cannot ask for the cancellation of Don's land, having inherited the same from their
title in the ejectment case filed by Don against father Mr. R, and the Deed of Absolute
him. Under Section 48 of PD 1529, the Property Sale, which cast a cloud on their title may
Registration Decree, a Torrents title shall not be be shown to be invalid or inoperative.
subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered,
modified or cancelled except in a direct b. The action for quieting of title does not
proceeding in accordance with law. The prescribe, because the plaintiff are in
ejectment proceeding does not provide the possession of the land.
proper forum for the cancellation of Don’s title.
While Cesar’s counterclaim for cancellation of c. Yes, A may file the complaint, provided
Don’s title may be considered a direct attack, the that he files the same for the co-
same should nevertheless be denied on ownership. Anyone of the co-owners may
procedural grounds because a Municipal or bring such an action in ejectment, even
Metropolitan Trial Court is without jurisdiction without joining all the other co-owners as
to cancel a Torrens title. co-plaintiffs, because the suit is deemed to
be instituted for the benefit of all,
Q: Mr. R is the registered owner of a parcel of assuming A wins the case. Parenthetically,
land located in Cebu City covered by Transfer if A loses in the action to quiet title, it will
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 1234 issued in if not affect B and C, because the Court did
1955. Since his acquisition of the lot, Mr. R not acquire jurisdiction over their
and his family had been in continuous, open, persons. The Court further held that if the
and peaceful possession thereof. Mr. R died action is for the benefit of the plaintiff
in 1980, resulting in the land being alone, such that he claims the possession
transferred in the names of his heirs, i.e., A, B, for himself and not for the co-ownership,
and C, who became registered owners the action will not prosper.
thereof as per TCT No. 5678. During the
entire time, said land had never been CO-OWNERSHIP (1993, 1998, 2000, 2002,
encumbered or disposed, and that its 2006, 2008, 2009, 2015 BAR)
possession always remained with them.
Q: A, B and C are the co-owners in equal
Sometime in 1999, A, B, and C wanted to shares of a residential house and lot. During
build a concrete fence around the parcel of their co-ownership, the following acts were
land, but they were opposed by Mrs. X, who respectively done by the co- owners:
started claiming ownership over the same
property on the strength of a Deed of 1. A undertook the repair of the
Absolute Sale purportedly entered into by foundation of the house, then
her with Mr. R during the time that he was tilting to one side, to prevent the
still alive. Aggrieved, A, B, and C intend to file house from collapsing.
a complaint for quieting of title against Mrs. 2. B and C mortgaged the house and
X. lot to secure a loan.
3. B engaged a contractor to build a
A. What are the substantive requisites for concrete fence all around the lot.
the action to prosper? Do they obtain in 4. C built a beautiful grotto in the
this case? Explain. garden.

59
 CIVIL LAW
5. A and C sold the land to X for a very contending that her brother had forfeited his
good price. share thereof by wrongfully disposing of her
undivided share in the first lot, will the suit
a) Is A’s sole decision to repair the prosper? (1998 Bar)
foundation of the house binding on B and
C? May A require B and C to contribute A: Juana’s suit to have herself declared as sole
their 2/3 share of the expense? Reasons. owner of the entire remaining area will not
b) What is the legal effect f the mortgage prosper because while Juan’s act in selling the
contract executed by B and C? Reasons. other lot was wrongful, it did not have the legal
c) Is B’s sole decision to build the fence effect of forfeiting his share in the remaining lot.
binding upon A and C? May B require A However, Juana can file an action against Juan for
and C to contribute their 2/3 share of the partition or termination of the co-ownership
expense? Reasons. with a prayer that the lot sold be adjudicated to
d) Is C’s sole decision to build the grotto Juan, and the remaining lot be adjudicated and
binding upon A and B? May C require A reconveyed to her.
and B to contribute their 2/3 share of the
expense? Reasons. Q: In 1955, Ramon and his sister Rosario
e) What are the legal effects of the contract inherited a parcel of land in Albay from their
of sale executed by A, C and X? Reasons. parents. Since Rosario was gainfully
employed in Manila, she left Ramon alone to
A: process and cultivate the land. However,
a) Yes. A’s sole decision to repair the Ramon never shared the harvest with
foundation is binding upon B and C. B and C Rosario and was even able to sell one- half of
must contribute 2/3 of the expense. Each the land in 1985 by claiming to be the sole
co-owner has the right to compel the other heir of his parents. Having reached
co-owners to contribute to the expense of retirement age in 1990, Rosario returned to
preservation of the thing (the house) the province and upon learning what had
owned in common in proportion to their transpired, demanded that the remaining
respective interests. (Arts. 485 and 488, half of the land be giver to her as her share.
Civil Code) Ramon opposed, asserting that he has
b) The mortgage shall not bind the 1/3 right already acquired ownership of the land by
and interest of A and shall be deemed to prescription, and that Rosario is barred by
cover only the rights and interests of B and laches from demanding partition and
C in the house and lot. The mortgage shall reconveyance. Decide the conflicting claims.
be limited to the portion (2/3) which may (2000 Bar)
be allotted to B and C in the partition. (Art.
493, Civil Code) A: Ramon is wrong on both counts: prescription
c) B’s sole decision to build the concrete fence and laches. His possession as co- owner did not
is not binding upon A and C. Expenses to give rise to acquisitive prescription. Possession
improve the thing owned in common must by a co-owner is deemed not adverse to the
be decided upon by a majority of the co- other co-owners but is, on the contrary, deemed
owners who represent the controlling beneficial to them. (Pangan v. CA 166 SCRA 375)
interest. (Arts. 489 and 492, Civil Code) Ramon’s possession will become adverse only
d) C’s sole decision to build the grotto is not when he has repudiated the co-ownership and
binding upon A and B who cannot be such repudiation was made known to Rosario.
required to contribute to the expenses for Assuming that the sale in 1985 where Ramon
the embellishment of the thing owned in claimed he was the sole heir of his parents
common if not decided upon by the majority amounted to repudiation of the co-ownership;
of the co-owners who represent the the prescriptive period began to run only from
controlling interest. (Arts. 489 and 492, Civil that time. Not more than 30 years having lapsed
Code) since then, the claim of Rosario has not yet
e) The sale to X shall not bidn the 1/3 share of prescribed. The claim of laches is not also
B and shall be deemed to cover only the meritorious. Until the repudiation of the co-
2/3 share of A and C in the land (Art. 493, ownership was made known to the other co-
Civil Code). B shall have the right to redeem owners, no right has been violated for the said
the 2/3 share sold to X by A and C since X is co-owners, no right has been violated for the
a third person. (Art. 1620, Civil Code) said co-owners to vindicate. Mere delay in
vindicating the right, standing alone, does not
Q: Juan and his sister Juana inherited from
constitute laches.
their mother two parcels of farmland with

exactly the same areas. For convenience, the
Q: Senen and Peter are brothers. Senen
Torrens certificates of title covering both lots
migrated to Canada early while still a
were placed in Juan’s name alone. In 1996, Juan
teenager. Peter stayed in Bulacan to take
sold to an innocent purchaser one parcel in
care of their widowed mother and continued
its entirety without the knowledge and
to work on the Family farm even after her
consent of Juana, and wrongfully kept for
death. Returning to the country some thirty
himself the entire price paid. Since the two
years after he had left, Senen seeks a partition
lots have the same area, suppose Juana files a
of the farm to get his share as the only co-heir
complaint to have herself declared sole
of Peter. Peter interposes his opposition,
owner of the entire remaining second lot,
contending that acquisitive prescription has

U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S U S T
2 0 2 1 A C A D E M I C S C O M M I T T E E 60 B A R O P E R A T I O N S

 QUAMTO (1987-2019)
already set in and that estoppel lies to bar service of summons (Art. 554). After
the action for partition, citing his continuous Anthony was served with summons, he
possession of the property for at least 10 became a possessor in bad faith and a
years, for almost 30 years in fact. It is builder, planter, sower in bad faith. He can
undisputed that Peter has never openly also be made toaccount for the fruits but he
claimed sole ownership of the property. If he may deduct expenses or production
ever had the intention to do so, Senen was gathering and preservation of the fruits
completely ignorant of it. Will Senen’s action (Art. 443).
prosper? Explain. (2000, 2002 Bar)
c. The value of the standing crops must be
A: Senen’s action will prosper. Article 494 of the prorated depending upon the period of
New Civil Code provides that “no prescription possession and the period of growing and
shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against producing the fruits. Anthony is entitled to a
his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he expressly part of the net harvest and a part of
or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership nor expenses of cultivation in proportion to his
notified Senen of his having repudiated the period of possession. Carlo may
same.” appropriate the respective parts subject to
prorating the respective periods of
Q: Anthony bought a piece of untitled possession. However, Carlos may allow
agricultural land from Bert. Bert, in turn, Anthony to gather these growing fruits as
acquired the property by forging Carlo's an indemnity for the expenses of
signature in a deed of sale over the property. cultivation. If Anthony refuses to accept the
Carlo had been in possession of the property concession, he shall lose the right to
for 8 years, declared it for tax purposes, and indemnity under Art. 443 (Art. 545 par. 3).
religiously paid all taxes due on the property.
Anthony is not aware of the defect in Bert's Q: The renunciation by a co-owner of his
title, but has been in actual physical undivided share in the co-owned property in
possession of the property from the time he lieu of the performance of his obligation to
bought it from Bert, who had never been in contribute to taxes and expenses for the
possession of the property for one year. preservation of the property constitutes
dacion en pago. (2009 Bar)
a. Can Anthony acquire ownership of the
property by acquisitive prescription? A: TRUE. Under the Civil Code, a co-owner may
How many more years does he have to renounce his share in the co-owned property in
possess it to acquire ownership? lieu of paying for his share in the taxes and
b. If Carlo is able to legally recover his expenses for the preservation of the co-owned
property, can he require Anthony to property. In effect, there is dacion en pago
account for all the fruits he has because the co-owner is discharging his
harvested from the property while in monetary obligation by paying it with his non-
possession? monetary interest in the co-owned property. The
c. If there are standing crops on the fact that he is giving up his entire interest simply
property when Carlo recovers means that he is accepting the value of his
possession, can Carlo appropriate them? interest as equivalent to his share in the taxes
(2008 Bar) and expenses of preservation.

A:
Q: Ambrosio died, leaving his three
a. Yes, Anthony can acquire ownership of the daughters, Belen, Rosario and Sylvia a
property by ordinary prescription which hacienda which was mortgaged to the
requires just title and good faith (Art. Philippine National Bank due to the failure of
1117). There was just title because a deed the daughters to pay the bank, the latter
of sale was issued in his favor even though foreclosed the mortgage and the hacienda
it was forged, which in fact he was not was sold to it as the highest bidder. Six
aware of. He needs to possess the land in months later, Sylvia won the grand prize at
good faith and in the concept of an owner the lotto and used part of it to redeem the
for a total of ten years in order to acquire hacienda from the bank. Thereafter, she took
ownership. Since Anthony possessed the possession of the hacienda and refused to
land for only one year, he has not share its fruits with her sisters, contending
completed the ten-year period. Even if that it was owned exclusively by her, having
Anthony tacks the 8-year period of bought it from the bank with her own money.
possession by Carlo who in the deed of sale Is she correct or not? (1993, 2000 Bar)
is supposed to be his grantor or
predecessor in interest (Art. 1138 (1)), the A: Sylvia is not correct. The 3 daughters are the
period is still short of ten years. co-owners of the hacienda being the only heirs of
Ambrosio. When the property was foreclosed,
b. Anthony is a possessor in good faith. the right of redemption belongs also to the 3
Anthony cannot be made to account for the daughters. When Sylvia redeemed the entire
fruits he gathered before he was served property before the lapse of the redemption
with summons. A possessor in good faith is period, she also exercised the right of redemption
entitled to the fruits received before the of her co-owners on their behalf. As such, she is
possession was legally interrupted by the holding the shares of her two sisters in the

61
 CIVIL LAW
property and all the fruits corresponding occupation as these terms are commonly
thereto, in trust for them. Redemption by one co- used in Book II and Book III of the Civil Code.
owner inures to the benefit of all. (Adille v. CA, (1997, 2007 Bar)
G.R. No. L-44546, January 29, 1988) Sylvia,
however, is entitled to be reimbursed the shares A: Possession is a real right, while occupation is
of her two sisters in the redemption price. one of the original modes of acquiring
ownership and other real rights. Possession, the
Q: Antonio, Bart, and Carlos are brothers. holding of a thing or the exercise of a right does
They purchased from their parents specific not in itself constitute ownership. There can be
portions of a parcel of land as evidenced by possession without ownership.
three separate deeds of sale, each deed
referring to a particular lot in metes and Q: Alberto and Janine migrated to the United
bounds. When the deeds were presented States of America, leaving behind their 4
for registration, the Register of Deeds children, one of whom is Manny. They own a
could not issue separate certificates of title duplex apartment and allowed Manny to live
due to the absence of a subdivision plan. in one of the units. While in the United
The new title had to be issued, therefore, in States, Alberto died. His widow and all his
the names of the brothers as co-owners of children executed an Extrajudicial
the entire property. The situation has not Settlement of Alberto's estate wherein the 2-
change up to now, but each of the brothers door apartment was assigned by all the
has been receiving rentals exclusively from children to their mother, Janine.
the lot actually purchased by him. Antonio Subsequently, she sold the property to
sells his lot to a third person, with notice to George. The latter required Manny to sign a
his brothers. To enable the buyer to secure prepared Lease Contract so that he and his
a new title in his name, the deed of sale family could continue occupying the unit.
was made to refer to an undivided interest Manny refused to sign the contract alleging
in the property of the seller (Antonio), with that his parents allowed him and his family to
the metes and bound for the lot sold being continue occupying the premises. If you were
stated. Bart and Carlos reacted by George's counsel, what legal steps will you
signifying their exercise of their right take? Explain. (2006 Bar)

redemption as co-owners. Antonio, in his
behalf and in behalf of his buyer, contend A: As George’s counsel, I will give Manny a written
that they are no longer co-owners, demand to vacate within a definite period, say 15
although the title covering the property days. After the lapse of 15-day period, I will file an
has remained in their names assuch. Mary action for unlawful detainer to recover the
Bart and Carlos still redeem the lot sold by possession of the apartment from Manny. Manny’s
Antonio? Explain. (2002 Bar) occupation of the premises was by mere tolerance
of his parents. When all the co-heirs/co-owners
A: No, they may not redeem because there was assigned the 2-door apartment to Janine in the
no co-ownership among Antonio, Bart, and extrajudicial partition, Janine became the sole
Carlos to start with. Their parents already owner of the same. He continued to occupy it
partitioned the land in selling separate portions to under the same familial arrangement. Upon the
them. (Si v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122047, sale of the property to George, Manny’s lawful
October 12, 2000) occupation of the property was terminated and
Manny’s refusal to sign the lease contract and to
Q: X, Y, Z are siblings who inherited a 10- vacate the premises after the period to vacate
storey building from their parents. They
lapsed made his occupation unlawful, hence,
agreed in writing to maintain it as a co-
entitling George to the remedy of unlawful detainer.
owned property for leasing out and to divide

the net profits among themselves equally for
Q: Felix cultivated a parcel of land and planted
a period of 20 years. On the 8th year, X
it with sugar cane, believing it to be his own.
wanted to get out of the co- ownership so he
When the crop was eight months old and
could get his 1/3 share in the property. Y and
harvestable after two more months, a
Z refused, saying X is bound by their
resurvey of the land showed that it really
agreement to keep the co- ownership for 20
belonged to Fred. What are the options
years. Are Y and Z correct? Explain. (2015
Bar) available to Fred? (2000 Bar)

A: Y and Z are partly correct. The law provides A: As to the pending crops planted by Felix in
that none of the co-owners shall be obliged to good faith, Fred has the option of allowing Felix to
remain in the co-ownership and it is the right of continue the cultivation and to harvest the
a co-owner to ask for partition of the co- crops, or to continue the cultivation and harvest
ownership anytime. One exception to the rule is the crops himself. In the latter option, however,
if the co-owners agree to keep the thing Felix shall have the right to a part of the
expenses of cultivation and to a part of the net
undivided which period shall not exceed ten
years. In this case, the agreement to keep the harvest, both in proportion to the time of
thing undivided shall be valid at the most for ten possession. (Art. 545 NCC)
years. (Art. 494) POSSESSION (1990, 1991, 1997, 2000,
2006, 2007 BAR)
Q: Distinguish between possession and

U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S U S T
2 0 2 1 A C A D E M I C S C O M M I T T E E 62 B A R O P E R A T I O N S

 QUAMTO (1987-2019)
Q: Pablo sold his car to Alfonso who issued a forcible entry, but an accion publiciana [Canlas v.
postdated check in full payment therefor. Tubil, G.R. No. 184285 (2009); Valdez v. CA, G.R.
Before the maturity of the check, Alfonso sold No. 132424 (2006)].
the car to Gregorio who later sold it to
Gabriel. When presented for payment, the Alternative answer:
check issued by Alfonso was dishonored by
the drawee bank for the reason that he, Jacob can file an action for unlawful detainer
Alfonso, had already closed his account even against Liz to regain possession of the property.
before he issued his check. Pablo sued to An action for unlawful detainer is proper when
recover the car from Gabriel alleging that he the defendant’s initial right to possession of the
property has terminated but he unlawfully
(Pablo) had been unlawfully deprived of it by
withholds possession thereof. It has to be filed
reason of Alfonso's deception. Will the suit
within one year from the termination of his right
prosper? (1990, 1991 Bar)
to possession. Although Liz surreptitiously

entered in 2012, her possession became lawful
A: No. The suit will not prosper because Pablo
when Jacob discovered it and allowed her to
was not unlawfully deprived of the car although continue possession by tolerance in 2014. Liz’
he was unlawfully deprived of the price. The right to possession terminated in December
perfection of the sale and the delivery of the car 2016 when Jacob demanded her to vacate the
was enough to allow Alfonso to have a right of property. Since today is November 2017, it is
ownership over the car, which can be lawfully still within one year from the termination of Liz’
transferred to Gregorio. Art. 559 applies only to right to possession. Therefore, Jacob can file an
a person who is in possession in good faith of the action for unlawful detainer.
property, and not to the owner thereof. Alfonso,
in the problem, was the owner, and, hence, USUFRUCT (1995, 1996, 1997, 2018 BAR)
Gabriel acquired the title to the car. Non- payment Q: What is easement? Distinguish easement
of the price in a contract of sale does not render from usufruct. (1995 Bar)
ineffective the obligation to deliver. The
obligation to deliver a thing is different from the A: An easement or servitude is an encumbrance
obligation to pay its price. (EDCA Publishing Co. v. imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of
Spouses Santos G.R. No. 80298, April 26, 1990) another immovable belonging to a different owner
(Art. 613, NCC).
Q: Jacob has owned a farmland in Ramos, Usufruct gives a right to enjoy the property of
Tarlac. In 2012, Liz surreptitiously entered another with the obligation of preserving its form
and cultivated the property. In 2014, Jacob and substance, unless the title constituting it or the
discovered Liz’s presence in and cultivation of the law otherwise provides (Art. 562 NCC). An
property. Due to his being busy attending to easement or servitude is an encumbrance imposed
his business in Cebu, he tolerated Liz’s upon an immovable for the benefit of another
cultivation of the property. Subsequently, in immovable belonging to a different owner (Art.
December 2016, Jacob wanted to regain 613, NCC).
possession of the property; hence, he sent a
letter to Liz demanding that she vacate the Q: Can there be:
property. Liz did not vacate despite demand.
Jacob comes to enlist your legal assistance to a) An easement over a usufruct?
bring an action against Liz to recover the b) A usufruct over an easement?
possession of the property. c) An easement over another easement?
What remedies are available to Jacob to
recover possession of his property under the Explain. (1995 Bar)
circumstances? Explain your answer. (2006,
2012, 2017 Bar) A:

A: The remedy available to Jacob is accion a) There can be no easement over a usufruct.
publiciana, or an action for the recovery of the Since an easement may be constituted only on
better right of possession or possession as a real a corporeal immovable property, no easement
right. It also refers to an ejectment suit filed after may be constituted on a usufruct which is not
the expiration of one year from accrual of the a corporeal right.
cause of action or from the unlawful withholding b) There can be no usufruct over an easement.
of possession of the realty. While a usufruct may be created over a right,
such right must have an existence of its own
Since the entry made by Liz is through stealth, independent of the property. A servitude
Jacob could have filed an action for forcible cannot be the object of a usufruct because it
entry. Ordinarily, the one-year period within has no existence independent of the property
which to bring an action for forcible entry is to which it attaches.
generally counted from the date of actual entry on c) There can be no easement over another
the land, except that when the entry is through easement for the same reason as in (a). An
stealth, the one-year period is counted from the easement, although it is a real right over an
time the plaintiff learned thereof. Here, since immovable, is not a corporeal right. There is a
more than year had elapsed since Jacob learned
Roman maxim which says that: There can be
of the entry made by Liz through stealth, the
no servitude over another servitude.
action that may be filed by Jacob is no longer

63
 CIVIL LAW
Q: Distinguish usufruct from commodatum that the consideration for the usufruct is the
and state whether these may be constituted existence of Petronila's son. Thus, the general
over consumable goods. rule and not the exception should apply in this
case.
A: Usufruct is a right given to a person
(usufructuary) to enjoy the property of another Q: Sofronio was a married father of two when
with the obligation of preserving its form and he had a brief fling with Sabrina, resulting in
substance. (Art. 562, Civil Code) her pregnancy and the birth of their son
Sinforoso. Though his wife knew nothing of
On the other hand, commodatum is a contract by the affair, Sofronio regretted it but secretly
which one of the parties (bailor) delivers to provided child support for Sinforoso.
another (bailee) something not consumable so that Unfortunately, when Sinforoso was 10 years
the latter may use it for a certain time and return old, Sofronio died. Only Sofronio's father,
it. Salumbides, knew of Sabrina and Sinforoso.
For the purpose of providing support to
In usufruct, the usufructuary gets the right to the Sinforoso, Salumbides gave Sabrina
use and to the fruits of the same, while in usufructuary rights over one of his
commodatum, the bailee only acquires the use of the properties - a house and lot - to last until
thing loaned but not its fruits.
Sinforoso reaches the age of majority.
Sabrina was given possession of the property
on the basis of caucion juratoria. Two (2)
Usufruct may be constituted on the whole or a part years after the creation of the usufruct, the
of the fruits of the thing (Art. 564, Civil Code). It house accidentally burned down, and three
may even be constituted over consumables like (3) years thereafter, Sinforoso died before he
money (Alunan v. Veloso, 52 Phil. 545). On the could reach the age of 18.
other hand, in commodatum, consumable goods
may be subject thereof only when the purpose of
Will the usufruct continue after the house
the contract is not the consumption of the object,
has burned down? If yes, will it continue after
as when it is merely for exhibition (Art. 1936, Civil
Sinforoso's death? (2018 Bar)
Code).

Q: Bartolome constructed a chapel on the A: Yes, the usufruct will continue after the house
was burned. If the usufruct is constituted on
land of Eric. What are Batolome’s rights of he
immovable property of which a building forms
were a usufructuary of the land? (1996 Bar)
part, and the latter should be destroyed in any

manner whatsoever, the usufructuary shall have
A: Bartolome has the right to remove the
a right to make use of the land and the materials.
improvement if it is possible to do so without
(Article 607, Civil Code) The usufruct over the
causing damage to the property (Art. 579, NCC). He
land and the materials continues. The thing was
may also set off the improvement against any
lost only in part, the right continues on the
damages which the property held in usufruct
remaining parts. (Article 604, Civil Code)
suffered because of his act or the acts of his
assignee (Art. 580, NCC).
No, it will be extinguished after Sinforoso’s
Q: On 1 January 1980, Minerva, the owner of death. A usufruct granted for the time that may
a building, granted Petronila a usufruct over elapse before a third person attains a certain
the property until 01 June 1998 when age, shall subsist for the number of years
Manuel, a son of Petronila, would have specified, even if the third person should die
reached his 30th birthday. Manuel, however, before the period expires, unless such usufruct
died on 1 June 1990 when he was only 26 has been expressly granted only in consideration
years old. Minerva notified Petronila that the of the existence of such person or contrary
usufruct had been extinguished by the death intention clearly appears. (Article 603, 606, Civil
of Manuel and demanded that the latter vacate Code) The circumstances given show that the
the premises and deliver the same to the usufruct was established by Salumbides in
former. Petronila refused to vacate the place consideration of the existence of Sinfroso. It was
on the ground that the usufruct in her favor meant for his support; hence, his death
would expire only on 1 June 1998 when extinguished the usufruct even though he died
Manuel would have reached his 30th before reaching the age of majority.
birthday and that the death of Manuel before
his 30th birthday did not extinguish the Q: An easement that can be acquired by
usufruct. Whose contention should be prescription:
accepted? (1997 Bar)
A. Right of way
A: Petronila's contention is correct. Under B. Watering of an animal
Article 606 of the Civil Code, a usufruct granted C. Lateral and subjacent support
for the time that may elapse before a third D. Light and view (2014 Bar)
person reaches a certain age shall subsist for the
number of years specified even if the third
person should die unless there is an express A: D – only continuous and apparent easements
stipulation in the contract that states otherwise. maybe acquired by prescription.
In the case at bar, there is no express stipulation
Q: In 2005, Andres built a residential house

U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S U S T
2 0 2 1 A C A D E M I C S C O M M I T T E E 64 B A R O P E R A T I O N S

 QUAMTO (1987-2019)
on a lot whose only access to the national 2. Apparent easements are those which are
highway was a pathway crossing Brando's made known and are continually kept in
property. Andres and others have been using view by external signs that reveal the use
this pathway (pathway A) since 1980. In and enjoyment of the same, while non-
2006, Brando fenced off his property, apparent easements are those which show
thereby blocking Andres' access to the no external indication of their existence. (Art.
national highway. Andres demanded that 615, Civil Code)
part of the fence be removed to maintain his 3. Positive easements are those which impose
old access route to the highway (pathway A), upon the owner of the servient estate the
but Brando refused, claiming that there was obligation of allowing something to be done
another available pathway (pathway B) for or of doing it himself, while negative
ingress and egress to the highway. Andres easements are those which prohibit the
countered that pathway B has defects, is owner of the servient estate from doing
circuitous, and is extremely inconvenient to something which he could lawfully do if the
use. To settle their dispute, Andres and easement did not exist. (Art. 615, Civil Code)
Brando hired Damian, a geodetic and civil

engineer, to survey and examine the two
Q: Emma bought a parcel of land from
pathways and the surrounding areas, and to
Equitable-PCI Bank, which acquired the same
determine the shortest and the least
from Felisa, the original owner. Thereafter,
prejudicial way through the servient estates.
Emma discovered that Felisa had granted a
After the survey, the engineer concluded that
right of way over the land in favor of the
pathway B is the longer route and will need
land of Georgina, which had no outlet to a
improvements and repairs, but will not
public highway, but the easement was not
significantly affect the use of Brando's
annotated when the servient estate was
property. On the other hand, pathway A that
registered under the Torrens system. Emma
had long been in place, is the shorter route
then filed a complaint for cancellation of the
but would significantly affect the use of
right of way, on the ground that it had been
Brando's property. In light of the engineer's
extinguished by such failure to annotate.
findings and the circumstances of the case,
How would you decide the controversy? (2001
resolve the parties' right of way dispute.
Bar)
(1996, 2013 Bar)
A: The complaint for cancellation of easement of
A: I will rule in favor of Brando. The easement of right of way must fail. The failure to annotate the
right of way should be established at a point easement upon the title of the servient estate is
least prejudicial to the servient estate where the not among the grounds for extinguishing an
distance from the dominant estate to the public easement under Article 631 of the NCC. Under
highway may be the shortest. (Art. 650) Article 617, easements are inseparable from the
estate to which they actively or passively belong.
If these two conditions do not concur in one Once it attaches, it can only be extinguished
estate, the criterion of least prejudice prevails under Article 631, and they exist even if they
over shortest distance. (Anastacia Quimen vs. CA are not stated or annotated as an encumbrance
and Yolanda Oliveros May 29, 1996) on the Torrens title of the servient estate. (II
Tolentino 326, 1987 ed.)
In this case, to establish the easement on the
property of Brando would significantly affect his Q: Franz was the owner of Lot E which was
use of his property whereas while Pathway B surrounded by four (4) lots one of which –
may prove to be the longer route, it will cause Lot C – he also owned. He promised Ava that if
least prejudice to Brando. Andres’ argument that she bought Lot E, he would give her a right of
Pathway B is circuitous and inconvenient to use way in Lot C. Convinced, Ava bought Lot E
should not be given weight because the true test and, as promised, Franz gave her a right of
of the establishment of an easement is adequacy. way in Lot C. Ava cultivated Lot E and used
Convenience of the dominant estate has never the right of way granted by Franz. Ava later
been the gauge for the establishment of the found gainful employment abroad. On her
easement. (Costabella Corporation v. CA 193 return after more than 10 years, the right of
SCRA 333; Cristobal vs. Ledesma 291 SCRA 122) way was no longer available to her because
Franz had in the meantime sold Lot C to Julia
Q: Distinguish between: who had it fenced.
1. Continuous and discontinuous
easements; A. Does Ava have a right to demand from
2. Apparent and non-apparent easements; Julia the activation of her right of way?
and Explain.
3. Positive and negative easements (1998 B. Assuming Ava opts to demand a right of
Bar) way from any of the owners of Lots A, B,
and D, can she do that? Explain. (2010
A: Bar)
1. Continuous easements are those the use of
which is or may be incessant, without the A:
intervention of any act of man, while
discontinuous easements are those which A. Yes. Ava has the right to demand from Julia
are used at intervals and depend upon the the activation of the right of way, for the
acts of man. (Art. 615, Civil Code)

65
 CIVIL LAW
following reasons: the dominant estate; and (d) the right of
1. The easement of the right of way is a way claimed is at a point least prejudicial
real right which attaches to, and is to the servient estate and, insofar as is
inseparable from, the estate to which consistent with this rule, where the
it belongs. distance to the street or highway is
2. The sale of the property includes the shortest. (Art. 650, NCC)
easement or servitude, even if the
deed of sale is silent on the matter. 2) No, David is not entitled to the right of way
3. The vendee of the property in which being claimed. The isolation of his
a servitude or easement exists subdivision was due to his own act or
cannot close or put obstructions omission because he did not develop into an
access road the rice field which he was
thereon to prevent the dominant
supposed to purchase according to his
estate from using it.
own representation when he applied for a
4. Ava’s working abroad for more than
license to establish the subdivision. (Floro
ten (10) years should not be v. Llenado, 244 SCRA 713)
construed as non-user, because it
cannot be implied from the fact that Q: Don was the owner of an agricultural land
she or those she left behind to with no access to a public road. He had been
cultivate the lot no longer use the passing through the land of Ernie with the
right of way. latter's acquiescence for over 20 years.
5. Renunciation or waiver of an Subsequently, Don subdivided his property
easement must be specific, clear, into 20 residential lots and sold them to
express and made in a public different persons. Ernie blocked the
instrument in accordance of Art. pathway and refused to let the buyers
1358 of the NCC. pass through his land.

a) Did Don acquire an easement of right of
B. Yes. Ava has the option to demand a right
way? Explain.
of way on any of the remaining lots of Franz
b) What are the rights of the lot buyers,
more so after Franz sold lot C to Julia. The
if any? Explain. (2005 Bar)
essential elements of a legal right of way under
Art. 649 and 650 of the NCC are complied with. A:
a) Don did not acquire an easement of right of
Q: David is the owner of the subdivision in way. His passage through Ernie’s land was
Sta. Rosa, Laguna, without an access to the by mere acquiescence or tolerance. He
highway. When he applied for a license to
cannot claim to have acquired the easement
establish the subdivision, David represented
of right of way by prescription, because this
that he will purchase a rice field located
easement is discontinuous although
between his land and the highway, and
apparent. Only continuous and apparent
develop it into an access road. But when the
easements can be acquired by prescription
license was already granted, he did not
bother to buy the rice field, which remains of 10 years of uninterrupted use and
unutilized until the present. Instead, he enjoyment.
chose to connect his subdivision with the b) Prior to the grant of an easement, the
neighboring subdivision of Nestor, which has buyers of the dominant estate have no
access to the highway. Nestor allowed him to other right than to compel grant of
do this, pending negotiations on the easement of right of way. Since the
compensation to be paid. When they failed to properties of the buyers are surrounded
arrive at an agreement, Nestor built a wall by other immovable and has no adequate
across the road connecting with David's outlet to a public highway and the isolation
subdivision. David filed a complaint in court, is not due to their acts, buyers may
for the establishment of an easement of right demand an easement of a right of way
of way through the subdivision of Nestor provided proper indemnity is paid and the
which he claims to be the most adequate right of way demanded is the shortest and
and practical outlet to the highway. least prejudicial to Ernie.

1) What are the requisites for the Q: Tyler owns a lot that is enclosed by the
establishment of a compulsory lots of Riley to the North and East, of Dylan to
easement of a right of way? the South, and of Reece to the West. The
2) Is David entitled to a right of way in this current route to the public highway is a
case? Why or why not? (1996 Bar) kilometer’s walk through the northern lot of
Riley, but the route is a rough road that gets
A: muddy during the rainy season, and is
1) The requisites for a compulsory easement inconvenient because it is only 2.5 meters
of right of way are: (a) the dominant wide. Tyler’s nearest access to the public
estate is surrounded by other immovables highway would be through the southern lot
and is without an adequate outlet to a of Dylan. May Dylan be legally required to
public street or highway; (b) proper afford to Tyler a right of way through his
indemnity must be paid; (c) the isolation property? Explain your answer. (2017 Bar)
must not be due to the acts of the owner of

U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S U S T
2 0 2 1 A C A D E M I C S C O M M I T T E E 66 B A R O P E R A T I O N S

 QUAMTO (1987-2019)
A: Dylan may not be legally required to afford c. A house of prostitution is a public nuisance
Tyler a right of way through his property, because it shocks or disregards the decency
because Tyler already has an adequate outlet to or morality of the community. (Art. 694 par.
the public highway through his Riley’s lot. One of 3, Civil Code)
the requisites for a compulsory grant of right of d. A noisy or dangerous factory even if built in
way is that the estate of the claimant of a right of a private land may be considered a nuisance
way must be isolated and without adequate if it offends the sense of the owners of the
outlet to a public highway. The true standard for adjacent property or poses a danger to their
the grant of compulsory right of way is safety. (Art. 694, par. 1, Civil Code) This kind
“adequacy” of outlet going to a public highway of nuisance may be classified as a public
and not the convenience of the dominant estate. nuisance if it affects and annoys those who
In the case at bar, there is already an existing come within its sphere.
adequate outlet from the dominant estate to a e. Uncollected garbage can be injurious to
public highway. Even if said outlet be heath and even the environment. It is thus,
inconvenient, the need to open up another legal considered a public nuisance.
easement or servitude is entirely unjustified Q: A drug lord and his family reside in a small
[Article 649, NCC; Dichoso Jr. v. Marcos, G.R. No. bungalow where they sell shabu and other
180282 (2011); Costabella Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. prohibited drugs. When the police found the
80511 (1991)]. illegal trade, they immediately demolished
the house because according to them, it was
NUISANCE (2005, 2006, 2017 BAR) a nuisance per se that should be abated. Can
this demolition be sustained? Explain. (2006
Q: State with reason whether each of the Bar)
following is a nuisance, and if so, give its
classification, whether public or private: A: No, the demolition cannot be sustained. The
house is not a nuisance per se or at law as it is
a) A squatter’s hut not an act, occupation, or structure which is a
b) A swimming pool nuisance at all times and under any
c) A house of prostitution circumstances, regardless of location or
d) A noisy or dangerous factory in a private surroundings. A nuisance per se is a nuisance in
land and of itself, without regard to circumstances.
e) Uncollected garbage (2005 Bar)
A: DONATIONS (1990, 1991, 1993, 1998, 2000,
According to Art. 694 of the Civil Code, a nuisance 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009 BAR)
is any act, omission, establishment, business
condition of property, or anything else which:
i. Injures or endangers the health or safety Q: Josefa executed a deed of donation
of others; or covering a one-hectare rice land in favor of
ii. Annoys or offends the sense; or her daughter, Jennifer. The deed specifically
iii. Shocks, defies, or disregards decency or provides that:
morality; or
iv. Obstructs or interferes with the free "For and in consideration of the love and
passage of any public highway or street, service Jennifer has shown and given to me, I
or any body of water; or hereby freely, voluntarily and irrevocably
v. Hinders or impairs the use of property. donate to her my one-hectare rice land
covered by TCT No. 11550, located in San
A nuisance may be whether public or private. Fernando, Pampanga. This donation shall
Under Art. 685, a public nuisance affects a take effect upon my death."
community or neighborhood or any considerable
number of persons, although the extent of the The deed also contained Jennifer's signed
annoyance, danger of damage upon individuals acceptance, and an attached notarized
may be unequal. A private nuisance, on the other declaration by Josefa and Jennifer that the
hand, is one that violates only private rights and land will remain in Josefa's possession and
produces damage to but one or a few persons. cannot be alienated, encumbered, sold or
disposed of while Josefa is still alive. Advise
a. A squatter’s hut being an illegal Jennifer on whether the deed is a donation
construction, constitutes a public nuisance inter vivos or mortis causa and explain the
per se, if it poses problems of health and reasons supporting your advice. (2013 Bar)
sanitation. (City of Manila v. Garcia, 19 SCRA
41, [1967]) If the squatter’s hut is built on a A: The donation is a donation inter vivos.
private land and hinders or impairs the
owner’s use of his or her own property, then When the donor intends that the donation shall
it would constitute a private nuisance. take effect during the lifetime of the donor,
b. A swimming pool is not a nuisance and is an though the property shall not be delivered till
exception to the attractive nuisance doctrine. after the donor’s death, this shall be a donation
(Hidalgo v. Guillermo, 91 Phil. 488 [1952]) It inter vivos. (Art. 729) The Civil Code prefers inter
generally does not cause an injury, harm or vivos transmissions. Moreover, mortis causa
prejudice to an individual or the public. (Art. donations should follow the formalities of a will.
694, par. 1) (Art. 728) Here there is no showing that such
formalities were followed. Thus, it is favorable to

67
 CIVIL LAW
Jennifer that the deed is a donation inter vivos. conditions in an onerous donation (2007
Bar)
Furthermore, what is most significant in A: Illegal and impossible conditions in a simple
determining the type of donation is the absence donation are considered as not written. Such
of stipulation that the donor could revoke the conditions shall, therefore, be disregarded but the
donation; on the contrary, the deeds expressly donation remains valid. (Article 727, NCC)
declare them to be “irrevocable,” a quality
absolutely incompatible with the idea of On the other hand, illegal and impossible
conveyances mortis causa where revocability is conditions imposed in an onerous donation shall
the essence of the act, to the extent that a annul the donation. (Art. 1183, NCC) This is so
testator cannot lawfully waive or restrict his because onerous donations are governed by the
right of revocation. The provisions of the deed of law on contracts. (Art. 733, NCC)
donation which state that the same will only take
effect upon the death of the donor and that there Q: B donated to M a parcel of land in 1980. B
is a prohibition to alienate, encumber, dispose, made the deed of donation, entitled “Donation
or sell the same should be harmonized with its Inter Vivos”, in a public instrument and M
express irrevocability. (Austria-Magat v. CA, G.R. accepted the donation in the land same
No. 106755, February 1, 2002) document. It was provided in the deed that
theland donated shall be immediately
Q: The Roman Catholic Church accepted a delivered to M and that M shall have the right
donation of a real property located in Lipa to enjoy the fruits fully. The deed also provided
City. A deed of donation was executed, signed that B was reserving the right to dispose of the
by the donor, Don Mariano, and the donee, land during his (B’s) lifetime, and that M shall not
the Church, as represented by Fr. Damian. register the deed of donation until after B’s
Before the deed could be notarized, Don death. Upon B’s death, W, B’s widow, and sole
Mariano died. Is the donation valid? (2014 heir, filed an action for the recovery of the
Bar) donated land, contending that the donation
made by B is a donation mortis causa and not a
A: The donation is void. The donation of an donation inter vivos. Will said action prosper?
immovable property must be in a public Explain your answer. (1990 Bar)
instrument in order for it to be valid. In this case,
the donor died even before the notarization of A: Yes the action will prosper. The donation is a
the deed of donation. Hence, it does not satisfy donation mortis causa because the reservation is to
the requirement of being in a public instrument dispose of all the property donated and, therefore,
for the donation to be valid. the donation is revocable at will. Accordingly, the
donation requires the execution of a valid will,
Q: Jose, single, donated a house and lot to his whether notarial or holographic. (Arts. 755, 728,
only niece, Maria, who was of legal age and Civil Code)
who accepted the donation. The donation
and Maria's acceptance thereof were Q: Ernesto donated in a public instrument a
evidenced by a Deed of Donation. Maria then parcel of land to Demetrio, who accepted it in
lived in the house and lot donated to her, the same document. It is there declared that
religiously paying real estate taxes thereon. the donation shall take effect immediately,
Twelve years later, when Jose had already with the donee having the right to take
passed away, a woman claiming to be an possession of the land and receive its fruits
illegitimate daughter of Jose filed a but not to dispose of the land while Ernesto is
complaint against Maria. Claiming rights as alive as well as for ten years following his
an heir, the woman prayed that Maria be death. Moreover, Ernesto also reserved in the
ordered to reconvey the house and lot to same deed his right to sell the property should
Jose's estate. In her complaint she alleged he decide to dispose of it at any time - a right
that the notary public who notarized the which he did not exercise at all. After his
Deed of Donation had an expired notarial death, Ernesto's heirs seasonably brought an
commission when the Deed of Donation was action to recover the property, alleging that
executed by Jose. Can Maria be made to the donation was void as it did not comply
reconvey the property? What can she put up with the formalities of a will. Will the suit
as a defense? (2015 Bar) prosper? (1990, 1998 Bar)

A: No. Maria cannot be compelled to reconvey A: Yes, the suit will prosper as the donation did
the property. The Deed of Donation was void not comply with the formalities of a will. In this
because it was not considered a public instance, the fact that the donor did not intend to
document. However, a void donation can trigger transfer ownership or possession of the donated
acquisitive prescription. (Solis v. CA, G.R. No. L- property to the donee until the donor's death,
46753-54, August 25, 1989; Doliendo v. Biarnesa, would result in a donation mortis causa and in
G.R. No. L-2765, December 27, 1906) The void this kind of disposition, the formalities of a will
donation has a quality of titulo colorado enough should be complied with, otherwise, the donation
for acquisitive prescription especially since 12 is void. In this Instance, donation mortis causa
years had lapsed from the deed of donation. embodied only in a public instrument without
the formalities of a will could not have
Q: Illegal and impossible conditions in a transferred ownership of disputed property to
simple donation v. Illegal and impossible another.

U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S U S T
2 0 2 1 A C A D E M I C S C O M M I T T E E 68 B A R O P E R A T I O N S

 QUAMTO (1987-2019)
is perfected the moment the donor knows of
Q: On January 21, 1986, A executed a deed of the acceptance by the done. The death of Jose
donation inter vivos of a parcel of land to Dr. before Pedro could receive the acceptance
B who had earlier constructed thereon a indicates that the donation was never
building in which research on the dreaded perfected. Under Art. 746, acceptance must
disease AIDS were being conducted. The be made during the lifetime of both the donor
deed, acknowledged before a notary public, and the done.
was handed over by A to Dr. B who received it.
A few days after, A flew to Davao City. Q: Arturo borrowed P500,000.00 from his
Unfortunately, the airplane he was riding father. After he had paid P300,000.00, his
crashed on landing killing him. Two days after father died. When the administrator of his
the unfortunate accident. Dr. B, upon advice of father's estate requested payment of the
a lawyer, executed a deed acknowledged balance of P200,000.00. Arturo replied that
before a notary public accepting the the same had been condoned by his father as
donation. Is the donation effective? Explain evidenced by a notation at the back of his
your answer. (1993, 1998 Bar) check payment for the P300,000.00 reading:
"In full payment of the loan". Will this be a
A: No, the donation is not effective. The law valid defense in an action for collection? (2000
requires that the separate acceptance of the Bar)
donee of an immovable must be done in a public
document during the lifetime of the donor (Art. A: It depends. If the notation "in full payment of the
746 & 749, Civil Code). In this case, B executed loan" was written by Arturo's father, there was
the deed of acceptance before a notary public an implied condonation of the balance that
after the donor had already died. discharges the obligation. In such case, the
notation is an act of the father from which
Q: On July 27, 1997, Pedro mailed in Manila a condonation may be inferred. The condonation
letter to his brother Jose, a resident of Iloilo being implied, it need not comply with the
City, offering to donate a vintage sports car formalities of a donation to be effective. The
which the latter had long been wanting to buy defense of full payment will, therefore, be valid.
from the former. On August 5, 1997, Jose
called Pedro by cellular phone to thank him When, however, the notation was written by
for his generosity and to inform him that he Arturo himself. It merely proves his intention in
was sending by mail for his letter of making that payment but in no way does it bind
acceptance. Pedro never received that letter his father. (Yam v. CA, G.R No. 104726, February
because it was never mailed. On August 14, 11, 1999) In such case, the notation was not the
1997, Pedro received a telegram from Iloilo act of his father from which condonation may be
informing him that Jose had been killed in a inferred. There being no condonation at all, the
road accident the day before (August 13, defense of full payment will not be valid.
1997)


Q: In 1986, Jennifer and Brad were madly in
1. Is there a perfected donation?
love. In 1989, because a certain Picasso
2. Will your answer be the same if Jose did
painting reminded Brad of her, Jennifer
mail his acceptance letter but it was
acquired it and placed it in his bedroom. In
received by Pedro in Manila days after 1990, Brad and Jennifer broke up. While Brad
Jose’s death? (1998 Bar) was mending his broken heart, he met Angie
and fell in love. Because the Picasso painting
A: reminded Angie of him, Brad in his will

bequeathed the painting to Angie. Brad died in
1. None. There is no perfected donation. Under
1995. Saddened by Brad's death, Jennifer
Art. 748 of the Civil Code, the donation of a asked for the Picasso painting as a
movable may be made orally or in writing. If remembrance of him. Angie refused and
the value of the personal property donated claimed that Brad, in his will, bequeathed the
exceeds five thousand pesos, the donation painting to her. Is Angie correct? Why or why
and the acceptance shall be made in writing. not? (2007 Bar)

Assuming that the value of the thing donated,
a vintage sports car, exceeds P5,000.00, then A: No, Angie is not correct. The Picasso painting is
the donation and the acceptance must be in not given or donated by Jennifer to Brad. She
writing. In this instance, the acceptance of merely “placed it in his bedroom.” Hence, she is
Jose was not in writing, therefore, the still the owner of the painting. Not being the owner
donation is void. Upon the other hand, of the Picasso painting, Brad cannot validly
assuming that the sports car costs less than bequeath the same to Angie (Art. 930). Even
P5,000.00, the donation may be oral, but assuming that the painting was impliedly given or
still, the simultaneous delivery of the car is donated by Jennifer to Brad, the donation is
needed and there being none, the donation nevertheless void for not being in writing. The
was never perfected. Picasso painting must be worth more that 5,000
2. Yes, the answer is the same. If Jose’s mail pesos. Under Art. 748, the donation and
containing his acceptance of the donation acceptance of a movable worth more than 5,000
was received by Pedro after the former’s pesos must be in writing, otherwise the donation
death, then the donation is still void because is void, Jennifer remained the owner of the Picasso
under Art. 734 of the Civil Code, the donation painting and Brad could not have validly disposed

69
 CIVIL LAW
of said painting in favor of Angie in his will. boxing arena, the construction of which shall
commence within six (6) months from the
Q: Anastacia purchased a house and lot on date the parties ratify the donation. The
installments at a housing project in Quezon donee accepted the donation and the title to
City. Subsequently, she was employed in the property was transferred in its name.
California and a year later, she executed a Five years elapsed but the public park with
deed of donation, duly authenticated by the the boxing arena was never started.
Philippine Consulate in Los Angeles, Considering the failure of the donee to
California, donating the house and lot to her comply with the condition of the donation,
friend Amanda. The latter brought the deed of the donor-spouses sold the property to
donation to the owner of the project and Ferdinand who then sued to recover the land
discovered that Anastacia left unpaid from the government. Will the suit prosper?
installments and real estate taxes. Amanda (1991 Bar)
paid these so that the donation in her favor
can be registered in the project owner's A: Ferdinand has no right to recover the land. It is
office. Two months later, Anastacia died, true that the donation was revocable because of
leaving her mother Rosa as her sole heir. breach of the conditions. But until and unless the
Rosa filed an action to annul the donation on donation was revoked, it remained valid. Hence,
the ground that Amanda did not give her Spouses Michael and Linda had no right to sell the
consent in the deed of donation or in a land to Ferdinand. One cannot give what he does
separate public instrument. Amanda replied not have. What the donors should have done first
that the donation was an onerous one was to have the donation annulled or revoked.
because she had to pay unpaid installments And after that was done, they could validly have
and taxes; hence her acceptance may be disposed of the land in favor of Ferdinand.
implied. Who is correct? (2000 Bar)
Q: In 1950, Dr. Alba donated a parcel of land
A: Rosa is correct because the donation is void. to Central University on condition that the
The property donated was an immovable. For latter must establish a medical college on the
such donation to be valid, Article 749 of the New land to be named after him. In the year 2000,
Civil Code requires both the donation and the the heirs of Dr. Alba filed an action to annul
acceptance to be in a public instrument. There the donation and for the reconveyance of the
being no showing that Amanda's acceptance was property donated to them for the failure,
made in a public instrument, the donation is after 50 years, of the University to establish
void. The contention, that the donation is onerous on the property a medical school named after
and therefore, need not comply with Article 749 their father. The University opposed the
for validity is without merit. The donation is not action on the ground of prescription and also
onerous because it did not impose on Amanda because it had not used the property for
the obligation to pay the balance on the some purpose other than that stated in the
purchase price or the arrears in real estate taxes. donation. Should the opposition of the
Amanda took it upon herself to pay those University to the action of Dr. Alba’s heirs be
amounts voluntarily. For a donation to be sustained? Explain. (2003, 2006 Bar)
onerous, the burden must be imposed by the
donor on the donee. In the problem, there is no A: The donation may be revoked. The non-
such burden imposed by the donor on the donee. establishment of the medical college on the
The donation not being onerous, it must comply donated property was a resolutory condition
with the formalities of Article 749. imposed on the donation by the donor. Although
the Deed of Donation did not fix the time for the
Q: May a person donate something that does establishment of the medical college, the failure
not belong to him? Explain. (2003 BAR) of the donee to establish the medical college
after fifty (50) years from the making of the
A: As a general rule, a person cannot donate donation should be considered as occurrence of
something which he cannot dispose of at the the resolutory condition, and the donation may
time of the donation. (Art. 751) now be revoked. While the general rule is that in
case the period is not fixed in the agreement of
Q: True or False: the parties, the period must be fixed first by the
court before the obligation may be demanded,
A person can dispose of his corpse through an the period of fifty (50) years was
act inter vivos. (2009 Bar) more than enough time for the done to comply
with the condition. Hence, in this case, there is no
A: A person cannot dispose of his corpse through an more need for the court to fix the period because
act inter vivos, i.e., an act to take effect during his such procedure with the condition. (Central
lifetime. Before his death there is no corpse to Philippine University v. CA, G.R. No. 112127, July
dispose. But he is allowed to do so through an act 17, 1995)
mortis causa, i.e., an act to take effect upon his
death. Q: Spouses Alfredo and Racquel were active
members of a religious congregation. They
Q: Spouses Michael and Linda donated a 3- donated a parcel of land in favour of that
hectare residential land to the City of Baguio congregation in a duly notarized Deed of
on the condition that the city government Donation, subject to the condition that the
would build thereon a public park with a Minister shall construct thereon a place of
worship within 1 year from the acceptance of

U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S U S T
2 0 2 1 A C A D E M I C S C O M M I T T E E 70 B A R O P E R A T I O N S

 QUAMTO (1987-2019)
the donation. In an affidavit he executed on document is an express acknowledgment of a
behalf of the congregation, the Minister debt, and the promise to pay what he owes her
accepted the donation. The Deed of Donation when he feels like it is equivalent to a promise to
was not registered with the Registry of Deeds. pay when his means permits him to do so, and is
deemed to be one with an indefinite period under
However, instead of constructing a place of Art. 1180. Hence the amount is recoverable after
worship, the Minister constructed a bungalow Perla asks the court to set the period as provided
on the property he used as his residence. by Art. 1197, par. 2.
Disappointed with the Minister, the spouses
revoked the donation and demanded that he Q: Roland, a basketball star, was under
vacate the premises immediately. But the contract for one year to play-for-play
Minister refused to leave, claiming that aside exclusively for Lady Love, Inc. However, even
from using the bungalow as his residence, he is before the basketball season could open, he
also using it as a place for worship on special was offered a more attractive pay plus
occasions. fringes benefits by Sweet Taste, Inc. Roland
accepted the offer and transferred to Sweet
Under the circumstances, can Alfredo and Taste. Lady Love sues Roland and Sweet
Racquel evict the Minister and recover Taste for breach of contract. Defendants claim
possession of the property? If you were the that the restriction to play for Lady Love alone
couple's counsel, what action you take to is void, hence, unenforceable, as it
protect the interest of your clients? (2006 Bar) constitutes an undue interference with the
right of Roland to enter into contracts and
A: As counsel for the couple, I may file an action for the impairment of his freedom to play and
reconveyance of the property on the ground that enjoy basketball. Can Roland be bound by the
the donation was not perfected. It was not contract he entered into with Lady Love or
perfected because although it was made in a can he disregard the same? Is he liable at all?
public document, the donee failed to notify the How about Sweet Taste? Is it liable to Lady
donor of such acceptance in an authentic form Love? (1991 Bar)

before the donation was revoked under Art. 749 of
the Civil Code. Such notification was necessary for A: Yes, Roland is liable under the contract as far as
the donation to become valid and binding. Lady Love is concerned. He is liable for damages
under Article 1170 of the Civil Code since he
contravened the tenor of his obligation. Not being
PART IV – OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS a contracting party, Sweet Taste is not bound by
the contract, but it can be held liable under Art.
1314. The basis of its liability is not prescribed
SOURCES OF OBLIGATION (1991, 1997, 2002,
by contract but is founded on quasi-delict,
2008 BAR)
assuming that Sweet Taste knew of the contract.

Q: In two separate documents signed by him, Article 1314 of the Civil Code provides that any
Juan Valentino "obligated" himself each to third person who induces another to violate his
Maria and to Perla, thus -'To Maria, my true contract shall be liable for damages to the other
love, I obligate myself to give you my one and contracting party.
only horse when I feel like It."
Q: Printado is engaged in the printing
- and – business. Suplico supplies printing paper
to Printado pursuant to an order
'To Perla, my true sweetheart, I obligate agreement under which Suplico binds
myself to pay you the P500.00 I owe you himself to deliver the same volume of
when I feel like it." paper every month for a period of 18
months, with Printado in turn agreeing to
Months passed but Juan never bothered to pay within 60 days after each delivery.
make good his promises. Maria and Perla Suplico has been faithfully delivering
came to consult you on whether or not they under the order agreement for 10 months
could recover on the basis of the foregoing but thereafter stopped doing so, because
settings. What would your legal advice be? Printado has not made any payment at all.
(1997 Bar) Printado has also a standing contract with
publisher Publico for the printing of
A: I would advise Maria not to bother running 10,000 volumes of school textbooks.
after Juan for the latter to make good his Suplico was aware of said printing
promise. This is because a promise is not an contract. After printing 1,000 volumes,
Printado also fails to perform under its
actionable wrong that allows a party to recover
printing contract with Publico. Suplico
especially when she has not suffered damages
sues Printado for the value of the unpaid
resulting from such promise. A promise does not
deliveries under their order agreement. At
create an obligation on the part of Juan because
the same time Publico sues Printado for
it is not something which arises from a contract, damages for breach of contract with respect
law, quasi-contracts or quasi-delicts. (Art, 1157) to their own printing agreement. In the suit
Under Art. 1182, Juan's promise to Maria is void filed by Suplico, Printado counters that: (a)
because a conditional obligation depends upon the Suplico cannot demand payment for
sole will of the obligor. As regards Perla, the deliveries made under their order

71