1) Mr. X is an owner of a land fronting the Sulu Sea. By the action of the waves of the sea, sand and silt were deposited, increasing his land area to about 2,000 square meters. Mr. X then planted coconut trees on said land, and applied for registration of said land before the DENR. Questions: (1) What law shall govern this accretion caused by the action of the sea? (2) Per jurisprudence, what kind of “owner” is Mr. X with respect to the alluvial deposit? (3) Shall you consider X as the owner ipso facto of the accretion? (4) In essence, who owns the accretion? (5) Is there a possibility for X to own the accretion? Explain.
2) Mr. Y owns a land bounded by Laguna de Bay. By the gradual action of the waves, his land area increased to three hectares. He planted some fruit trees therein, and built a house for his son. His occupation or possession has already lasted for more than thirty years.
Questions: (1) Is Y considered the owner of the accretion? (2) What law shall govern regarding this matter? (3) Can he own the land by prescription? (4) If Y’s registered land was bounded by the Manila Bay, will your answer be the same? Explain.
3) (a) Is accretion a mode of acquiring property? (b) What are the requisites of accretion? (c) Distinguish accretion from alluvium (d) Can an alluvium be automatically registered in the name of the riparian owner?
4.Mr. B owns a property adjacent to the river. He is engaged in the sawmill business. He dumped some of his unused wood and saw dust in the river. Gradually, the area of his land increased. To further improve the land, he planted bakawan trees, for which after 10 years, the accretion increased to six hectares.
Questions: (1) Who owns the accretion of six hectares? (2) Can this accretion be registered in his own name considering that he is a riparian owner? Explain.
5. What is a foreshore land? Is it capable of private ownership or registration?
6. By reason of the typhoon which caused the overflowing of the Cagayan River, a portion of the land of Jose Santos was separated from his estate. The river changed course and divided his land into two parts. The other part seemingly formed part of the estate of Mrs. Luisa Cruz, at the other side of the bank.
Question: Who owns the other half of the land which was created by the current of the river? Explain.
7. It is a legal principle that accretions belong to the riparian owners upon whose land the alluvial deposits were made. What is the reason for this principle?
8. Mr. X is an agent of Real Estate Development Corporation. Jose Tayag bought Lot 9 with an area of 800 sq.m.. He was accompanied by Mr. X who, with his engineer, pointed to Mr. Tayag, the location of Lot 9 who then built his house (worth 800t) on said lot. He resided on said lot for more than 10 years already.
Mr. D also bought Lot 10 which has an area of 600 sq. m.
When another relocation survey was made, it turned out that Lot 10 is actually the lot occupied by Mr. Tayag.
Mr. D now demands, upon discovery of the error, that Mr. Tayag should vacate and remove his house thereon.
Questions: (a) Is Mr. Tayag a builder in good faith? (b) If you were the judge, how would you settle the rights of the parties?
9. A, B and C are co-owners of a lot which has an area of 6,000 square meters. A used to work in America and comes back to his hometown to build a house on a lot co-owned with B and C. They executed a Deed of Partition giving each an equal share of 2,000 square meters. A and B became adjacent owners. After the survey, it was found out that the kitchen of B encroached upon the share of A, to an extent of 65 square meters.
A wants B to remove the encroaching kitchen as it will destroy the view of his new house.
Questions: (1) Is B considered a builder in good faith? (2) Before partition what law shall be applied? (3) After partition, what law shall be applied in that particular situation? (4) State the rights of A and B.
10. Pedro P. Pecson owned a commercial lot located at 27 Kamias Road, Quezon City, on which he built a four-door two-storey apartment building. For failure to pay realty taxes, the lot was sold at public auction by the City Treasurer of Quezon City to Mamerto Nepomuceno, who in turn sold it for P103,000 to the spouses Juan and Erlinda Nuguid.
Pecson challenged the validity of the auction sale before the RTC of Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-41470. In its Decision, dated February 8, 1989, the RTC upheld the spouses’ title but declared that the four-door two-storey apartment building was not included in the auction sale. This was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals and thereafter by this Court, in its Decision dated May 25, 1993, in G.R. No. 105360 entitled Pecson v. Court of Appeals.On June 23, 1993, by virtue of the Entry of Judgment of the aforesaid decision in G.R. No. 105360, the Nuguids became the uncontested owners of the 256-square meter commercial lot.
As a result, the Nuguid spouses moved for delivery of possession of the lot and the apartment building.
Questions: (1) Do the Nuguid spouses have such right? (2) Can the Nuguid spouses demand that the rentals of the apartment be now given to them? Explain.
11. Depra and Dumlao are neighbors. Dumlao who has lots of money after winning the Lotto, built big mansion worth 20 million complete with a swimming pool and a garage. Depra also won the lotto and would like to build his 30 million mansion. He caused a relocation survey of his land. It was discovered that the garage of Dumlao encroached upon Depra’s property to an extent of 100 sq.m.Written demands were made for Dumlao to remove his garage, yet Dumlao did not take heed. Hence, a case for unlawful detainer was filed, inter alia praying that Dumlao should remove his encroachment.
Question: If you were the judge handling the case, what shall you determine to fully adjudicate the rights of the parties?
12. What is a “forced lease”? Of what relevance is this under Art. 448 of the civil code? How is the fairness of Art. 448 explained by Manresa?
13. Teofilo C. Villarico, is the owner of a lot in La Huerta, Parañaque City, Metro Manila with an area of sixty-six (66) square meters and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (T.C.T.) No. 95453 issued by the Registry of Deeds, same city.
His lot is separated from the Ninoy Aquino Avenue (highway) by a strip of land belonging to the government. As this highway was elevated by four (4) meters and therefore higher than the adjoining areas, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) constructed stairways at several portions of this strip of public land to enable the people to have access to the highway.
Sometime in 1991, Vivencio Sarmiento, his daughter Bessie Sarmiento and her husband Beth Del Mundo, had a building constructed on a portion of said government land. In November that same year, a part thereof was occupied by Andok’s Litson Corporation and Marites’ Carinderia, also impleaded as respondents. Eventually, the Sarmiento’s have caused the registration of said land in their names.
In 1993, by means of a Deed of Exchange of Real Property, petitioner acquired a 74.30 square meter portion of the same area owned by the government. The property was registered in his name as T.C.T. No. 74430 in the Registry of Deeds of Parañaque City.
Because of the buildings constructed thereon, Teofilo’s right of way was blocked. It his only access toward the Highway. He now demands that the right of way be maintained.
Question: (1) Is Teofilo correct on this matter? (2) On the part of the Sarmiento’s will you consider them as owners of the land by reason of their registration titles? (3) Granting that the Sarmiento’s had already resided on said land for 40 years, can they be considered as owners thereto? Explain.
14. Morandarte filed an application for free patent, dated December 5, 1972, before the Bureau of Lands, Dipolog City District Land Office (BOL for brevity), covering a parcel of land located at Sta. Filomena, Dipolog City with an area of 4.5499 hectares and described as a portion of Lot 1038 of Dipolog Cadastre No. 85.
On July 27, 1976, the District Land Officer of the BOL approved the free patent application of Morandarte and directed the issuance of a free patent in his favor. Accordingly, Free Patent No. (IX-8) 785 for Lot No. 7, Csd-09-05-00078-D was issued in the name of Morandarte. On September 20, 1976, the Register of Deeds of Zamboanga del Norte issued the corresponding Original Certificate of Title No. (P-21972) 5954.
Subsequently, Morandarte caused a subdivision survey of the lot, dividing the same into Lot No. 6781-A, with an area of 13,939 square meters, and Lot No. 6781-B, with an area of 32,819 square meters. As a result of the subdivision survey, Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-1835 and T-1836 covering Lots 6781-A and 6781-B, respectively, were issued in favor of Morandarte on May 12, 1980 by the Registry of Deeds of Dipolog City.
On May 22, 1981, Morandarte and his wife, Marina Febrera, executed a real estate mortgage over Lot 6781-B, subject of TCT No. 1836, in favor of the Development Bank of the Philippines, Dipolog City branch (DBP for brevity), in consideration of a loan in the amount of P52,160.00.
More than ten years after the issuance of the OCT in Morandarte’s name, or on March 19, 1987, respondent Republic of the Philippines (Republic for brevity), represented by the Director of Lands, filed before the RTC a Complaint for Annulment of Title and Reversion against the Morandarte spouses, the Register of Deeds of Zamboanga del Norte, the Register of Deeds of Dipolog City, and DBP, docketed as Civil Case No. 3890.
The Republic alleged that the BOL found that the subject land includes a portion of the Miputak River which cannot be validly awarded as it is outside the commerce of man and beyond the authority of the BOL to dispose of. It claimed that the Morandarte spouses deliberately and intentionally concealed such fact in the application to ensure approval thereof. Considering that the Morandarte spouses are guilty of fraud and misrepresentation in the procurement of their title, the Republic stressed that their title is void.
Questions: (1) Is Morandarte here guilty of fraud? (2) If he is guilty of fraud, does the State have the right to have the whole lot reverted as part of public domain? (3) Can Morandarte say that his title cannot be anymore cancelled it being that after ten years the same has become indefeasible? Explain.
15. Miss Y worked in the U.S. for 20 years. She is very generous to her relatives in Davao City. She bought a city property worth 5 million with an area of 6,000 sq. m., and accommodated her cousin Mr. X to build his house thereon.
Mr. X built a house worth 300t. Before the house was built, Miss Y, had them agree in writing that any relative can use the land for free, build whatever structure they can afford and that they must maintain a good relationship, otherwise, they shall all be evicted from the land.
When Miss Y retired, she returned to the Philippines and lived in the house of Mr. X. Soon, disagreements arose, to an extent that their relationship turned sour and irreconciliable.
Miss Y then demanded that Mr. X vacate her land. Mr. X refused and will vacate only if he is reimbursed the present market value of his house which had already been assessed at 500t.
Questions: (1) In essence, what law governs their relationship? (2) Will you consider Mr. X as a builder in good faith? (3) Is Miss Y correct in evicting Mr. X from her land? (4) Is Mr. X correct in demanding that he will not vacate unless he is reimbursed the value of his house? Explain.
16. Can a usufruct of a certain real property be constituted by the government in favor of a corporation? If in the affirmative, for how many years will it last? How can it be extinguished?
17. It is a legal principle that a usufruct is not simply about rights and privileges. In other words, what are also the duties/ or obligations of the usufructuary?
18. Tuatis bougth a 300 square meter land from Visminda for P10,000 on installment basis. She paid only P4,000. The condition of the sale is that she will pay a down payment of P3,000 and the balance shall be paid on monthly installment until the whole consideration is paid.
Meanwhile, Tuatis built a P500,000 worth of house on said strip.
As Tuatis did not pay the whole amount, Visminda the owner of the lot, demanded that Tuatis should vacate the land, and remove her concrete house thereon.
Tuatis on the other hand, demanded that she will pay the balance price of P6,000 but Visminda refused to receive the amount, as another buyer is willing to buy the land at P300,000.
Accordingly, Vizminda has two options. What are these two options under the law? Discuss each option.
19. Florentino and Elisera Chiong were married sometime in January 1960 but have been separated in fact since 1975. During their marriage, they acquired Lot No. 997-D-1 situated at Poblacion, Dipolog City and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. (T-19393)-2325, issued by the Registry of Deeds of Zamboanga del Norte. Sometime in 1985, Florentino sold the one-half western portion of the lot to petitioners for P8,000, payable in installments. Thereafter, Florentino allowed petitioners to occupy the lot and build a store, a shop, and a house thereon. Shortly after their last installment payment on December 13, 1986, petitioners demanded from respondents the execution of a deed of sale in their favor. Elisera, however, refused to sign a deed of sale.
On May 13, 1992, Florentino executed the questioned Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of petitioners.
Questions: (1) Is the subject lot an exclusive property of Florentino or a conjugal property of respondents? (2) Was its sale by Florentino without Elisera’s consent valid?
20. In their Complaint, [respondents] claim that they are the owners of the various parcels of real property that form part of Lot No. 666, (plan II-5121 Amd.2) situated in Mandaue City, Cebu, which lot allegedly belonged originally to Claudio Ermac. Upon the latter’s death, the said Lot No. 666 was inherited and partitioned by his children, namely, Esteban, Pedro and Balbina. Siblings Pedro and Balbina requested their brother Esteban to have their title over the property registered. Esteban, however, was unable to do so, and the task of registration fell to his son, Clemente. Clemente applied for registration of the title, but did so in his own name, and did not include his father’s brother and sister, nor his cousins. Despite having registered the lot in his name, Clemente did not disturb or claim ownership over those portions occupied by his uncle, aunt and cousins even up to the time of his death.
Questions: (1) Is the registration of the lot in Clemente’s name make him the sole owner of the property? (2) Clemente posit that pursuant to Section 32 of PD 1529 (the Property Registration Decree), the certificate of title issued in his favor, became incontrovertible after the lapse of one year from its issuance, hence, it can no longer be challenged.Is he correct? (3) He further asserts that the ownership claimed by his cousins is barred by prescription and laches, because it took the latter 57 years to bring the present action. Is he correct ?
No comments:
Post a Comment