PROPERTY MIDTERM EXAM NOVEMBER 16, 2022

1. A, B, and C are the co-owners in equal shares of a residential house

and lot. During their co-ownership, the following acts were
respectively done by the co-owners:

1. A undertook the repair of the foundation of the house, which

was then tilting to one side, to prevent the house from
collapsing.
2. B and C mortgaged the house and lot to secure a loan.
3. B engaged a contractor to build a concrete fence all around the
lot.
4. C built a beautiful grotto in the garden.
5. A and C sold the land to X for a very good price.

a. Is A’s sole decision to repair the foundation of the house

binding on B and C? 3 pts.
b. What is the legal effect of the mortgage contract executed by
B and C? 3 pts.
c. Is B’s sole decision to build the fence binding upon A and C?
3 pts.
d. Is C’s sole decision to build the grotto binding upon A and B?
3 pts.
e. What are the legal effects of the contract of sale executed by
A, C, and X? 3 pts.

2. A lot containing an area of 2,000 square meters located in Makati

City is owned in common by six persons. One of the co-owners
asked for a physical segregation of his 1/6 share. The five co-
owners objected on the ground that the lot being commercial, its
value would be greatly impaired should there be a physical
partition. Decide. 5 pts.

3. John, Paul, and George are co-owners with equal shares, pro-
indiviso, of a 9,000 square meter residential lot in Cebu City. John
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 part sold. When the buyer demanded the portion sold to him,
Paul and George argued that under no circumstances whatsoever
may any part of the lot be sold without the consent of the other co-
owners. Is their contention correct? 5 pts.

1
4. a. What are abnormal usufructs? 3 pts.
b. May the right of usufruct be alienated? 3 pts.
c. What is meant by caucion juratoria? 3 pts.

5. Crispin died testate and was survived by Alex and Josine, his
children from his first wife; Rene and Ruby, his children from his
second wife; and Allan, Bea, and Cheska, his children from his
third wife.

One important provision in his will reads as follows:

"Ang lupa at bahay sa Lungsod ng Maynila ay ililipat at ilalagay

sa pangalan nila Alex at Rene hindi bilang pamana ko sa kanila
kundi upang pamahalaan at pangalagaan lamang nila at nang
ang sinuman sa aking mga anak, sampu ng aking mga apo at
kaapuapuhan ko sa habang panahon, ay may tutuluyan kung
magnanais na mag-aral sa Maynila o sa kalapit na mga
lungsod."

Is the provision valid? 5 pts.

6. In his will, Peter made Steve the administrator of his estate, but
gave to Micah the usufruct of a particular house. Roy was
occupying the house as tenant. For violation of the lease contract,
Roy was being ejected by Micah. Roy said that Micah was merely
the usufructuary, and was entitled only to collect rent but had no
right to select and oust tenants, this being the right of Steve, the
general administrator of Peter’s estate. Is the contention of Roy
correct? 5 pts.

7. Jan donated his usufructuary right over certain properties. Later,

he bought an action to get his right back on the ground that he did
not own the properties. Will the action prosper? 5 pts.

8. Petitioners Leonor B. Cruz, Luz Cruz and Norma Maligaya are the
co-owners of a parcel of land covering an area of 1,435 square
meters located in Taal, Batangas. With the consent of Norma
Maligaya, respondent Teofila M. Catapang built a house on a lot
adjacent to the abovementioned parcel of land sometime in 1992.
The house intruded, however, on a portion of the co-owned
property.

2
 Petitioner Leonor B. Cruz visited the property and was surprised to
see a part of respondent’s house intruding unto a portion of the co-
owned property. She then made several demands upon respondent
to demolish the intruding structure and to vacate the portion
encroaching on their property. The respondent, however, refused
and disregarded her demands.

In 1996, the petitioner filed a complaint for forcible entry against

respondent before the MCTC of Taal, Batangas. The MCTC decided
in favor of petitioner, ruling that consent of only one of the co-
owners is not sufficient to justify defendant’s construction of the
house and possession of the portion of the lot in question.

On appeal, the RTC, affirmed the MCTC’s ruling. Respondent filed

a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which reversed the
RTC’s decision.

Before the Supreme Court is the issue of whether a consent given

by a co-owner of a parcel of land to a person to construct a house
on the co-owned property warrants the dismissal of a forcible entry
case filed by another co-owner against that person. Decide with
reasons. 5 pts.

9. Article 487 provides that any one of the co-owners may bring an
action in ejectment. Is this article applicable to a case where a co-
owner files an action for ejectment against another co-owner?
Explain. 5 pts.

10. How can a co-owner become the exclusive owner of a co-owned

property by acquisitive prescription? Discuss. 5 pts.

11. Article 559 of the Civil Code provides, in part, that one who has lost
any movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof, may recover
it from the person in possession of the same. When does a person
deemed to have been “unlawfully deprived” of movable property in
the hands of another? 5 pts.

12. Can money be the object of a usufruct? Explain. 5 pts.

-end-