MIDTERMS

Question 1 9 / 10 pts

1-3. Municipal Circuit Trial Court rendered a Decision in Civil Case No. MC-
xxx for Recovery of Possession, the dispositive portion of which reads as
follows: “Wherefore after weighing the evidence presented and the laws
applicable in the present case and by preponderance of evidence, judgment
is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff: (1) DECLARING plaintiff to be the
TRUE OWNER of the parcel of land; and (2) ORDERING defendants to
VACATE the house and SURRENDER the possession of the portion they
occupy to plaintiff.  In support of the judgment, the lower court opined that
even when the document executed between Tiu and Go was designated as
a Deed of Absolute Sale its nature can be ascertained from the intention of
the parties, which must control the classification of the property in
marriage. Taking the Deed of Absolute Sale with the testimony of Go’s
sister, Co, it can be reckoned that the intention behind the execution of the
document is to partition and separate the subject property from the other
properties of Go’s parents based on the oral partition among his siblings for
purposes of transfer. Thus, the subject property being the share of Go in the
properties of his parents is his inheritance. And as such, it can be properly
classified as his separate and capital property brought to the marriage as his
own, which Article 148 of the Civil Code declared as an exclusive property
of each spouse not included in the Conjugal Partnership of Gains of a
married couple. Consequently, neither MM nor her children in her first
marriage has any interest on the subject property, which rightfully belongs
to the heirs of Go or to any party to whom it was transferred by him in his
lifetime.
On appeal, defendants-appellants argued that the property subject of this
case should have been declared a conjugal property of the late Sps. MM and
Go and not otherwise. Their marriage was celebrated on October 11, 1983,
hence, the conjugal partnership of gains under the New Civil Code governs
their property relations. Also, it was never disputed that said spouses
purchased the property during their marriage or on June 30, 1987 from Tiu.
The lower court erred in construing the sale between the aforementioned
parties as partition. FM even acknowledged that the land was sold to Sps.
MM and Go. The testimony of Co, which is in the nature of parol evidence,
cannot be made to alter the intentions of the deceased parties embodied in
the instrument of sale. When the terms of an agreement have been reduced
to writing it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there
can be, between the parties and their successors-in-interest, no evidence of
such terms other than the contents of the written agreement. As Tiu
transferred the property via sale, the sale made by Go after the death of
MM of the whole property to her daughter FM deprived MM’s children of
their right to inherit.
 

Background Facts:
 

Tiu, deceased father of Go, executed a deed of sale to Go who was married
to MM, second wife. Go’s former children on his first marriage sought to
eject MM and her children from the property subject of the sale, contending
that the sale was actually a partition of Tiu’s children, including Go. Hence,
it remained an exclusive property of Go and not part of the conjugal
partnership.
 

Questions:
 

1.) Distinguish accion publiciana  from unlawful detainer.

Your Answer:
According to the New Civil Code, Accion Publiciana is the recovery of the better right to
possess and a plenary action in an ordinary civil proceeding. While, Unlawful
Detainer happens when the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld
from the owner or lessor after the expiration of the contract or the termination of the
vendee’s right to hold possession.
 
The distinction between these two remedies lies in the period within which the action
can be instituted and in the court which exercises jurisdiction over the matter. The first
distinction is; Actions for UNLAWFUL DETAINER must be filed within one year from the
date possession is lost while, an ACCION PUBLICIANA may be filed only after the
expiration of that period but within the period prescribed in the statute of limitations. The
second distinction involves jurisdiction.
 
Question 2
3 / 10 pts
2.) Does the lower court have jurisdiction to determine the issue of
ownership in ejectment cases? Cite the exception, if any.
Your Answer:
Yes. The lower court has the jurisdiction to determine the issue of ownership in
ejectment cases.
According to Section 33 (2) of B.P 129 states that, Exclusive original jurisdiction over
cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the
defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of
possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of
ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession.
 
 
Question 3
2 / 10 pts
3.) In the case at bar, the issue of ownership revolves around the Deed of
Absolue Sale of Unregistered Land between Tiu  and Go (married to MM)
dated June 30, 1987. From the facts presented, rule whether the subject
property, known as Lot xxx, in this deed belongs to the conjugal partnership
or to the husband exclusively.  
Your Answer:
The subject property belong to the husband exclusively.
According to the Family Code, An inheritance is considered a non-marital asset. A
spouse should not be entitled to any portion of another spouse's inheritance. 
 
Here, the subject property cannot belong to the conjugal partenrship because the
subject property is inherited by Tiu to Go.
 
Question 4
4 / 10 pts
4.) X, Y, and Z are co-owners with equal shares, pro-indiviso, of a 9,000
square meter residential lot in Palo, Leyte.  X needs money badly and sold a
specified 3,000 square meter portion of the lot, describing in the deed the
metes and bounds of the parts sold. When the buyer demanded the portion
sold to him, Y and Z argued that under no circumstances whatsoever may
any part of the lot be sold without consent of the two other co-owners. Is
their contention correct? Explain. (10%)
Your Answer:
No.
According to Art. 493 of the New Civil Code, Each co-owner shall have the full
ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may
therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its
enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or
the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may
be alloted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership.
Here, X can validly sell his shared portion as long as the sale will not prejudice Y and Z’s
rights and shared portion.
 
Question 5
2 / 10 pts
5-6. On November 6, 2000, AA executed in favour of LS a chattel mortgage
over his machineries used in an industry on a lot not then owned by him.
The deed was duly registered on December 6, 2000. On October 18, 2010,
AA became the registered owner of both machineries and lot. On October
24, 2010, he executed a real estate mortgage over the machineries and lot
in favour of AC and the same was annotated in the title. On December 26,
2010, because of  non-payment of AA’s debt to LS, the sheriff sold AA’s
machineries to LS. On October 29, 2011, AC filed suit to foreclose the real
estate mortgage. She obtained judgment in her favour and the mortgaged
properties were sold to her at the execution sale. 
5.) Who has a better right to the machineries – LS or AC? Explain. 
Your Answer:
AC has a better right to the machineries because it is attached to the lot used in an
industry.
In the case of B.H. BERKENKOTTER vs. CU UNJIENG E HIJOS the court states that “If
the installation of the machinery and equipment in question in the central of the
Mabalacat Sugar Co., Inc., in lieu of the other of less capacity existing therein, for its
sugar industry, converted them into real property by reason of their purpose, it cannot
be said that their incorporation therewith was not permanent in character because, as
essential and principal elements of a sugar central, without them the sugar central would
be unable to function or carry on the industrial purpose for which it was established.
Inasmuch as the central is permanent in character, the necessary machinery and
equipment installed for carrying on the sugar industry for which it has been established
must necessary be permanent.”
Here, the machineries and lot were executed to AC and the contract of AA and LS is
already extinguished because as stated in the facts that after almost 10 years, AA is the
registered owner of the machineries and lot before he executed a real estate mortgage
to AC
 
Question 6
2 / 10 pts
6.) Would your answer be the same if the chattel mortgage was over a
house rather than the machineries?
Your Answer:
Yes, AC is still has a better right.
According to Article 415 (1) of the NCC, Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all
kinds adhered to the soil are immovable property
Here, AC has a better right to the house because the lot which the house was situated is
included in the mortgage
 
Question 7
3 / 10 pts
7. EP died without a will, leaving only an undeveloped and untitled land. He
is survived by his wife and 4 children. His wife told the children that she is
waiving her share in the property and allowed LF, eldest son, to construct a
house on ¼ of the lot, without obtaining consent of his siblings. After
partition, it was discovered that LF’s house was constructed on the portion
allocated to his sister, LS. LS asked to demolish the house and vacate the
portion allotted to her. In lieu of demolition, LF offered to purchase the
portion on which his house was constructed. Can LF insist on purchasing
the land? Was he a builder in good faith or bad faith. 
Your Answer:
Yes, he is a builder in good faith
According to Article 448 of the NCC, the owner of the land on which anything has been
built, sown or planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the
works, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for in Articles 546
and 548, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the
one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to
buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the building or trees. In such
case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to
appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the
terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof
Here, LF is a builder in good faith because at the time when he build his house he has no
knowledge that the house was allotted on a portion of LS’s land, and he has no intention
to prejudice his sister
 
Question 8
5 / 10 pts
8. In 1995, JB-S and her sister, PB inherited a parcel of land from their
parents. PB was gainfully employed in Manila, so she left JB-S alone to
possess and cultivate the land. JB-S never shared the harvest with PB and
even sold her share in 2014, claiming to be the sole heir of her parents. In
2020, PB returned to the province and upon learning of the transaction,
demanded that the remaining half of the land be given to her. JB-S opposes,
claiming ownership by prescription, and that laches had already set in.
Decide. 
Your Answer:
JB-S contention is not tenable.
According to the SC, even if a co-owner sells the whole property as his, the sale will
affect only his own share but not those of the other co-owners who did not consent to
the sale.
Here, a sale of the entire property by JB-S without the consent of PB is not null and
void. o However, only the rights of the JB-S are transferred, thereby making the buyer a
co-owner of the property.
 
Question 9
9 / 10 pts
9. Bato entered into a real estate mortgage constituted on a building he
erected on the land belonging to Lenny. Was the contract valid? Explain.
Your Answer:
Yes, the contract is valid
The Court ruled in the case of Prudential Bank vs Panis that building in itself may be
mortgaged by itself apart from the land on which it is built.  Such a mortgage would still
be considered as a REM for the building would still be considered as immovable property
even if dealt with separately and apart from the land.
Here, Bato can enter a real estate mortgage on the Land belonging to Lenny.
 
 
Question 10
8 / 10 pts
10. Mr. and Mrs. X migrated to the US with all their children. As they had no
intention of coming back, they offered their house and lot for sale to their
neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. A, who agreed to buy the property for ₱8 Million.
Because Mr. and Mrs. A needed to obtain a loan from a bank first, and since
the sellers were in a hurry to migrate, the latter told the buyers that they
could already occupy the house, renovate it as it was already in a state of
disrepair, and pay only when their loan is approved and released. While
waiting for the loan approval, the buyers spent ₱1 Million in repairing the
house. A month later, a person carrying an authenticated special power of
attorney from the sellers demanded that the buyers either immediately pay
for the property in full now or vacate it and pay damages for having made
improvements on the property without a sale having been perfected. As the
lawyer of A, what is your legal advice to the couple with respect to their
rights on the property: to pay, retain possession and or refund the
expenses?
Your Answer:
As the lawyer of A, my legal advice to the couple with respect on their rights on the
property is that they are entitle for the refund of the expenses which they spend for the
improvements on the house of Mr. and Mrs. X, because they are builder in good faith.
According to Article 447 of the New Civil Code it states that, "The owner of the land who
makes thereon, personally or through another, plantings, constructions or works with the
materials of another, shall pay their value; and, if he acted in bad faith, he shall also be obliged
to the reparation of damages. The owner of the materials shall have the right to remove them
only in case he can do so without injury to the work constructed, or without the plantings,
constructions or works being destroyed. However, if the landowner acted in bad faith, the owner
of the materials may remove them in any event, with a right to be indemnified for damages." This
provision is applicable when the owner acted in bad faith and the builder proceeded in good
faith.
Mr and Mrs. A is a builder in good faith because they have no intention to prejudice the seller
and Mr and Mrs X were the one who told them that they can renovate and occupy the house. 
FINALS
Question 1
2 / 10 pts
1-2. The complaint for accion reivindicatoria  (recovery of possession and
ownership with damages) is filed before the Municipal Trial Court based on
the ground that the unnotarized Deed of Absolute Sale is forged and
falsified. Plaintiffs attack the validity of the subject deed of sale and sought
to nullify the same. During trial, no expert witness was presented in the
case. Plaintiffs based their charge of forgery on their observation that the
surnames used on the documents were different. Defendant presented a
witness who was present during the execution of the subject Deed of
Absolute Sale and testified on its validity.

1. Defense argued that the complaint is dismissible on the ground of

lack of jurisdiction. Is the contention tenable?

Your Answer:
The argument is untenable.
According to the case decided by the SC, An accion reivindicatoria, the cause of action
of the plaintiff is to recover possession by virtue of his ownership of the land subject of
the dispute. This follows that universe of rights conferred to the owner of property, or
more commonly known as the attributes of ownership.
In order to gain possession of the land occupied by the plaintiff, the proper remedy
adopted by the petitioners was the plenary action of recovery of possession before the
then Court of First Instance.
Therefore, there is jurisdiction over the case and should not have dismissed it on the
ground of lack thereof.
 
 
 
 
Question 2
2 / 10 pts
2. Is the complaint meritorious? Explain.
Your Answer:
No, the complaint is not meritorious
Jurisprudence provide that validity of unnotarized deed of sale is not affected by its lack
of notarization.
Here, the defendant presented a witness who was present during the execution of the
subject Deed of Absolute Sale and testified on its validity during trial there was no
expert was presented.
Therefore, the case will not prosper.
 
Question 3
3 / 10 pts
3-4. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants, sometime on April 25, 2015, with the
consent of plaintiffs were allowed to construct a small store inside a property
facing Filomina Street with an agreement that the materials that should be
used therein shall be light or temporary in character, ready to be dismantled if
the plaintiffs will use said space/lot. However, defendants constructed the
store using solid and concrete materials in violation of the parties’ verbal
agreement. Upon discovery on May 7, 2015, plaintiffs immediately demanded
for the destruction and removal of said building and asked them to vacate said
lot. 
At the Preliminary Conference, parties stipulated that defendant CHRISTIAN
CARBERO’S father, GREGORIO, JR. is the brother of EVA CARBERO-
ESTOJERO, one of the plaintiffs in this case, thus, CHRISTIAN CARBERO is a
nephew of EVA CARBERO-ESTOJERO. Pablo Cabalhin, the declared owner of
the subject lot is the great grandfather of defendant Christian Carbero.
3.  Is the action for Unlawful Detainer proper in this case?
Your Answer:
Yes, the action for Unlawful Detainer is proper in this case.
Jurisprudence provide that a co-owner may file an ejectment against the co-owner, but
only if there is a showing that the co-owner takes exclusive possession and asserts
exclusive ownership of a common property.
Here, the plaintiffs has an exclusive ownership of the property where the defendants
constructed the store using solid and concrete materials.
Therefore, the action for Unlawful Detainer is proper.
 
Question 4
3 / 10 pts
4.   Do the defendants have a formidable defense based on law?
Your Answer:
Yes, the defense may prosper.
Jurisprudence provide that a co-owner has a right to enjoy the property, as long as his
right will not cause prejudice to other co-owner.
Here, the defense of the defendant may prosper, as long as his right will not prejudice
the other co-owner.
 
Question 5
2 / 10 pts
5-6. Teodora (vendor-parent) and Gabriel (vendee-son) executed a Deed of
Absolute Sale. Both are deceased. Gabriel’s sister, Rosa Carbo, in support of
plaintiff’s complaint, testified that the intention behind the execution of the
document is to partition and separate the subject property from the other
properties of Gabriel’s parents based on the oral partition among his siblings
for purposes of transfer. Thus, the subject property being the share of Gabriel
in the properties of his parents is his inheritance. Plaintiff seeks to recover the
property subject of the sale which is now in the possession of the defendants.
Defendants argued that the property subject of this case should be declared a
conjugal property of the late Sps. Marcela and Gabriel and not otherwise. Their
marriage was celebrated on October 11, 1983, hence, the conjugal partnership
of gains under the New Civil Code governs their property relations. Also, it was
never disputed that said spouses purchased the property during their marriage
or on June 30, 1987 from Teodora.
5.   The lower court ruled construing the sale between the aforementioned
parties as partition. Was the court correct? 
Your Answer:
NO, the court is not correct.
Jurisprudence provides that products, fruits and income from separate properties if the
spouses and those acquired by either or both spouses through their efforts or chance
shall belong to the partnership.
Here, it was never disputed that the said spouses purchased the property during their
marriage from Teodora.
Therefore, the sale of the subject property cannot be as partition.
 
Question 6
2 / 10 pts
6.  Is Accion publiciana the proper remedy?
Your Answer:
No, accion publiciana is not the proper remedy.
Under the New Civil Code, Accion publiciana is the plenary action to recover the right of
possession which should be brought in the proper RTC when the dispossession has
lasted for more than one year.
Here, there was no dispossession existed in this case. The defendants have the right to
possess of the subject property
 
Question 7
2 / 10 pts
7. Tyler owns a lot that is enclosed by the lots of Riley to the North and East,
of Dylan to the South, and of Reece to the West. The current route to the
public highway is a kilometer’s walk through the northern lot of Riley, but the
route is a rough road that gets muddy during the rainy season, and is
inconvenient because it is only 2.5 meters wide. Tyler’s nearest access to the
public highway would be through the southern lot of Dylan. May Dylan be
legally required to afford to Tyler a right of way through his property?
Your Answer:
No, Dylan may not be legally required to afford to Tyler a right of way through his
property.
Jurisprudence provide that Right of ways for the dominant estate does not exist when
there is an adequate outlet to the public highway, even if it may be inconvenient.
Here, Tyler already has an adequate outlet through Riley’s lot.
Therefore, Dylan is not legally required to afford Tyler a right of way through his
property.
 
 
Question 8
2 / 10 pts
8. The plaintiff, George L. Parks, alleging that the conditions of the donation
had not been complied with and invoking the sale of this parcel of land made
by Concepcion Cirer and James Hill in his favor, brought this action against the
Province of Tarlac, the municipality of Tarlac, Concepcion Cirer and James Hill
and prayed that he be declared the absolute owner entitled to the possession
of this parcel, that the transfer of the same by the municipality of Tarlac to the
Province of Tarlac be annulled, and the transfer certificate issued to the
Province of Tarlac cancelled. Resolve.
Your Answer:
The plaintiff has no right of action. If he has any, it is only by virtue of the sale of this
parcel made by Concepcion Cirer and James Hill in his favor on January 15, 1921, but
that sale cannot have any effect. This parcel having been donated by Concepcion Cirer
and James Hill to the municipality of Tarlac, which donation was accepted by the latter,
the title to the property was transferred to the municipality of Tarlac. It is true that the
donation might have been revoked for the causes, if any, provided by the law, but the
fact is that it was not revoked when Concepcion Cirer and James Hill made the sale of
this parcel to the plaintiff. Even supposing that causes existed for the revocation of this
donation, still, it was necessary, in order to consider it revoked, either that the
revocation had been consented to by the donee, the municipality of Tarlac, or that it had
been judicially decreed. None of these circumstances existed when Concepcion Cirer
and James Hill sold this parcel to the plaintiff. Consequently, when the sale was made
Concepcion Cirer and James Hill were no longer the owners of this parcel and could not
have sold it to the plaintiff, nor could the latter have acquired it from them.
 
 
Question 9
2 / 10 pts
9. The appellants dwelling on the words of the fourth paragraph of the deed of
gift just quoted, "does not pass title during my lifetime; but when I die, she
shall be the true owner of the two aforementioned parcels," contend that the
gift in question is a donation mortis causa, and, the requisites and conditions
indispensable for a will, according to article 620 of the Civil Code, being lacking
is null and void. Resolve.
Your Answer:
No, appellants contention is untenable. The said gift is inter-vivos and irrevocable and
not mortis causa.
According to the case of Balaqui et al vs Dongso et al, The Supreme Court of Spain held
that "Considering that a donation mortis causa differs, from a donation inter vivos in that
it is made, as its name implies, in consideration of death or mortal peril, without the
donor's intention to lose the thing or its free disposal in case of survival, as in
testamentary dispositions, and that such is the definition contained in the laws of the
Instituta and the Digesto, and in law 11, title 4, Partida 5, cited in the first assignment of
error, as well as in article 620 of the Civil Code, in providing that the gifts to be governed
by the rules of testamentary succession are those taking effect upon the donor's death;
and that donations inter vivos are those made without such consideration, but out of the
donor's pure generosity and the recipient's deserts, although the subject matter is not
delivered at once, or the delivery is to be made post mortem, which is a simple matter of
form and does not change the nature of the act, and such gifts are irrevocable, especially
if without a price and onerous in character, according to the Laws proem 1, 4, and 6, of
the title and Partida cited.” For the foregoing considerations, and taking into account the
doctrine of the Supreme Court of Spain quoted above, we are of opinion and so hold,
that as the donor guaranteed the right which she conferred on the donee by virtue of
the deed of gift, wherein, in recompense of the latter's good services to the former, she
donates to her the two parcels of land with their improvements, said gift is inter vivos
and irrevocable, and not mortis causa, notwithstanding the fact that the donor stated in
said deed that she did not transfer the ownership of the two parcels of land donated,
save upon her death, for such a statement can mean nothing else than that she only
reserved to herself the possession and usufruct of said property, and because the donor
could not very well guarantee the aforesaid right after her death.
 
Question 10
2 / 10 pts
10.  The Information shows that the property involved is the destruction of
“the bamboo fence of private complainant worth P5,000.00.” In their motion
to suspend proceedings based on prejudicial question, accused contends that
the bamboo fence is a real property and that private complainant is not in the
actual possession of the land involved where the instant criminal offense was
allegedly committed. The issues raised in civil case CN-295 (Declaration of
nullity or annulment and/or cancellation of Transfer of Certificate of Title),
involving the same parties and property, pending in the same court, are
determinative of the innocence or guilt of the accused vis-a-vis the claim of
the private complainant. Resolve.
Your Answer:
In this case, the contention of the defendant is meritorious.
According to a case decided by the court, it held that, it is the issue in the civil action
that is prejudicial to the continuation of the criminal action, not the criminal action that is
prejudicial to the civil action.
In this case, the court has to resolve first the civil case for the nullity or annulment
and/or cancellation of Transfer Certificate of title in order to determine the innocence or
guilt of the accused and the claim of the private complainant.
Therefore, the defendants claim is meritorious.