1.WHAT IS A USUFRUCT? What “jus” pertains to the usufructuary and what “jus” pertains to the naked owner?
Usufruct is defined under Article 562 of the Civil Code in the following wise:
ART. 562. Usufruct gives a right to enjoy the property of another with the obligation of preserving its form and substance, unless the title constituting it or the law otherwise provides.
Usufruct, in essence, is nothing else but simply allowing one to enjoy another’s property. It is also defined as the right to enjoy the property of another temporarily, including both the jus utendi and the jus fruendi, with the owner retaining the jus disponendi or the power to alienate the same.
2. HOW IS A USUFRUCT EXTINGUISHED? Give and an example of a resolutory condition which extinguishes a usufruct?
ART. 603. Usufruct is extinguished:
(1) By the death of the usufructuary, unless a contrary intention clearly appears;
(2) By expiration of the period for which it was constituted, or by the fulfillment of any resolutory condition provided in the title creating the usufruct;
(3) By merger of the usufruct and ownership in the same person;
(4) By renunciation of the usufructuary;
(5) By the total loss of the thing in usufruct;
(6) By the termination of the right of the person constituting the usufruct;
(7) By prescription. (Emphasis supplied.)
3. Can a usufruct be granted to a corporation for a period of 30 years?
ART. 605. Usufruct cannot be constituted in favor of a town, corporation, or association for more than fifty years. If it has been constituted, and before the expiration of such period the town is abandoned, or the corporation or association is dissolved, the usufruct shall be extinguished by reason thereof. (Emphasis added)
The law clearly limits any usufruct constituted in favor of a corporation or association to 50 years. A usufruct is meant only as a lifetime grant. Unlike a natural person, a corporation or association’s lifetime may be extended indefinitely.
A contract to sell is one wherein ownership shall be transferred only after the full payment of the installments of the purchase price or the fulfillment of the condition and the execution of a definite or absolute deed of sale. (Joseph & Sons Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 227 Phil. 625 [1986].)
5. Is an action for partition prescriptible? Can it be barred by laches? Is there an exception to this?
An action for partition by its very nature is imprescriptible and cannot be barred by laches x x x. The only exception to the rule on the imprescriptibility of an action for partition is provided in a case where the co-ownership of the properties sought to be partitioned had been properly repudiated by a co-owner at which instance the remedy available to the aggrieved heirs lies not in action for partition but for reconveyance which is subject to the rules on extinctive prescription
6. When is an action considered “incapable of pecuniary estimation”? Cite at least three examples of these actions?
[I]n determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance (now Regional Trial Courts).
Examples of actions incapable of pecuniary estimation are those for specific performance, support, or foreclosure of mortgage or annulment of judgment; also actions questioning the validity of a mortgage, annulling a deed of sale or conveyance and to recover the price paid and for rescission, which is a counterpart of specific performance.
3. Define the following degrees of possession and give an example:
(a) grammatical degree
(b) juridical possession
© real possessory right
(d) dominium
ANSWER: P. 342 PARAS
4. The real property of A, a debtor was sold at a sheriff’s sale to B. A, under the law, has one year within which to redeem said property.But within said period, B, by force, took possession over the property, planted coconut trees, and made some extensive improvements. Before the time for redemption expired, A was able to redeem the property. Is B entitled to reimbursement for the coconut trees he had planted as well as for the other improvements? Why?
ANSWER: paras p. 407
7.Ramona and Sotera Banzon executed a donation propter nuptias in favor of Roque Banzon covering a real property. IT did not, however, comply with the formalities required by law. The donation was executed in 1926 and Roque has been in continuous and open possession of the property, although the donation propter nuptias was void. State the effect of said donation and the possession of the land.
(Answer,p. 312, Albano, refer to Maningding v. CA, (1997)
8. When may a person acquire title over the use of a parcel of land or title over an easement of right of way? State these two instances and the required proofs thereto.
(Answer. P. 288 Albano, Bogo-Medellin v. Ca (2003))
9. (a)X owns a diamond ring which was stolen by her maid who sold it to Y, a friend of X. X saw the ring in Y’s possession. Can he recover it? Why? (b) If the owner of the diamond ring can recover it, within what period should he file the action to recover it? (c) Suppose Y acquired it from a public sale or a merchant’s store, can X recover it? Explain.
Answer: p. 264 albano
10. Gloria Ferrer filed a complaint to quiet title to real property against Mariano Balanag and Magdalena Domondon. She based her action on the fact that she is the owner of a parcel of land by virtue of accretion she being the owner of Lot 20, covered by TCT no. 3280. On the other hand, Balanag and Domondon claimed to be the owners of account of long occupation and by virtue of a Certificate of Title No. P-168 pursuant to a Free Patent. The case was dismissed on the ground that the action was a collateral attack on the Free Patent and the OCT under the name of the defendants. Before the Supreme Court, the following issues were raised:
(A) who is the owner of the accretion, considering that a Patent was issued by the Director of Lands over the same in favor of the defendants? Why?
(B) May the Director of Lands grant a Free Patent to one who has possessed the accretion even if he is not the owner of the alluvial property? Why?
(C) Has the title become incontrovertible since one (1) year has already lapsed since its issuance? Why?
(d) it was contended that the action for reconveyance has already prescribed considering that the action was brought after ten years from the issuance of the title? Is the contention correct? Why?
(e) Cannot Domondon and Balanag contend that they have acquired the land by prescription? Why?
Answer: p. Albano Read Ferrer v. Bautista 231 scra 257)
No comments:
Post a Comment