problems in civil law

1. A Chinese citizen, who is domiciled in Argentina, is on his way to Manila. The boat where he is riding, is docking for five days in Japan. In Japan can he make a will? IF so, what country’s formalities should he observe? 

2. Tony made a will making Antonia his heir. Tony later learned that Antonia was dead, so he revokes his first will and made another one instituting Berto as heir. If A turns out to be still alive, who inherits? 

3. On September 24, 1977, petitioner donated unto respondent a parcel of land at Canlubang, Calamba, Laguna with an area of 41,117 square meters and registered in its name under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-82803. The deed of donation which also bears the acceptance of the donee recites the considerations therefor and the conditions thereto attached, to wit:

xxxExcept with prior written consent of the Donor or its successor, the Donee shall not use the land except for the purpose as provided above in paragraph 1 hereof, nor sell or dispose the land for any reason whatsoever, nor convey any portion of the same except in lease for commercial use as provided above in paragraph 3 hereof, otherwise the said land with all real improvements thereon shall revert in trust to the Donor for prompt disposition in favor of some other charitable organization that Donor may deem best suited to the care of the aged.xxx

Thereafter, or sometime in 1980, the donee, for purposes of generating funds to build the perimeter fence on the donated property and the construction of a nucleus building for the aged and the infirm, leased a portion of the donated property to one Martin Gomez who planted said portion with sugar cane. There is no dispute that the lease agreement was entered into by the donee without the prior written consent of the donor, as required in the deed of donation. The lease to Gomez ended in 1985.

Question: Will   the subject deed of donation be adjudged revoked and void and the donee ordered to return and/or reconvey the property donated reason of said violation of the attached condition? What law shall govern the said matter? Explain.

4. According to purpose or cause, state the four (4) kinds of donation and explain each.

5. Petitioner Jarco Marketing Corporation is the owner of Syvel's Department Store, Makati City. Petitioners Leonardo Kong, Jose Tiope and Elisa Panelo are the store's branch manager, operations manager, and supervisor, respectively. Private respondents are spouses and the parents of Zhieneth Aguilar (ZHIENETH).

In the afternoon of 9 May 1983, CRISELDA and ZHIENETH were at the 2nd floor of Syvel's Department Store, Makati City. CRISELDA was signing her credit card slip at the payment and verification counter when she felt a sudden gust of wind and heard a loud thud. She looked behind her. She then beheld her daughter ZHIENETH on the floor, her young body pinned by the bulk of the store's gift-wrapping counter/structure. ZHIENETH was crying and screaming for help. Although shocked, CRISELDA was quick to ask the assistance of the people around in lifting the counter and retrieving ZHIENETH from the floor.

Eventually, Zhieneth died.

Questions: (a) Is Jarco Marketing Corporation liable for the death of Zhieneth? (b) What principle of law is applicable in deciding this matter? Explain your answer.

6. The record discloses that the late Francisco Sanz was the former owner of a parcel of land containing 888 square meters, with the buildings and improvements thereon, situated in the poblacion of Romblon. He subdivided the lot into three and then sold each portion to different persons. One portion was purchased by Guillermo Tengtio who subsequently sold it to Vicente Uy Veza. Another portion, with the house of strong materials thereon, was sold in 1927 to Tan Yanon, respondent herein. This house has on its northeastern side, doors and windows overlooking the third-portion, which, together with the camarin and small building thereon, after passing through several hands, was finally acquired by Juan Gargantos, petitioner herein.

On April 23, 1955, Gargantos applied to the Municipal Mayor of Romblon for a permit to demolish the roofing of the old camarin. The permit having been granted, Gargantos tore down the roof of the camarin. On May 11,1955, Gargantos asked the Municipal Council of Romblon for another permit, this time in order to construct a combined residential house and warehouse on his lot .

Tan Yanon opposed approval of this application.

Because both the provincial fiscal and district engineer of Romblon recommended granting of the building permit to Gargantos, Tan Yanon filed against Gargantos an action to restrain him from constructing a building that would prevent plaintiff from receiving light and enjoying the view through the windows of his house, unless such building is erected at a distance of not less than three meters from the boundary line between the lots of plaintiff and defendant, and to enjoin the members of the Municipal Council of Romblon from issuing the corresponding building permit to defendants.

Question: Based on the above facts, did the property of Tan Yanon acquire the easement of light and view against the property of Gargantos? Explain.

7.            (a) Mr. X delivered his piano for repair to Mr. Y. When the piano was already repaired, unknown to Mr. X, the latter sold the piano to Mr. Z, who paid P30k. Mr. Y left the place and took away the said money. What kind of possession has Mr. Y, and what criminal case shall he be made liable of?

(b) Miss Chua is a bank teller. Mr. Te is a depositor who handed P50k to Miss Chua so that the same can be deposited in his account. Miss Chua however took the money and misappropriated the same. What kind of possession has Miss Chua, and what crime shall she be made liable of?

8. On 15 March 1978, Private Respondent Visitacion’s late mother Marciana Vda. De Coronado (Vda. De Coronado) and the Municipality of Nagcarlan, Laguna (represented by the then Municipal Mayor Crisostomo P. Manalang) entered into a lease contract whereby the Municipality allowed the use and enjoyment of property comprising of a lot and a store located at the corner of Coronado and E. Fernandez Sts. at Poblacion, Nagcarlan, Laguna, in favor of the respondent’s mother for a period of twenty (20) years beginning on 15 March 1978 until 15 March 1998, extendible for another 20 years.

The lease contract provided that the late Vda. De Coronado could build a firewall on her rented property which must be at least as high as the store; and in case of modification of the public market, she or her heir/s would be given preferential rights.

Visitacion took over the store when her mother died sometime in 1984.From then on up to January 1993, Visitacion secured the yearly Mayor’s permits.

Sometime in 1986, a fire razed the public market of Nagcarlan. Upon Visitacion’s request for inspection on 15 May 1986, District Engineer Marcelino B. Gorospe (Engineer Gorospe) of the then Ministry of Public Works and Highways,Regional Office No. IV-A, found that the store of Visitacion remained intact and stood strong. This finding of Engineer Gorospe was contested by the Municipality of Nagcarlan.

The store of Visitacion continued to operate after the fire until 15 October 1993.

On 1 September 1993, Visitacion received a letter from Mayor Comendador directing her to demolish her store within five (5) days from notice. Attached to the letter were copies of Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 156 dated 30 August 1993 and a Memorandum issued by Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Marianito Sasondoncillo of Laguna.

On 15 September 1993, Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Florencio Buyser sent a letter to Visitacion ordering her to vacate the portion of the public market she was occupying within 15 days from her receipt of the letter; else, a court action will be filed against her.

On 11 October 1993, the Sangguniang Bayan of Nagcarlan, Laguna issued Resolution No. 183 authorizing Mayor Comendador to demolish the store being occupied by Visitacion using legal means

On 15 October 1993, Mayor Comendador relying on the strength of Sangguniang Bayan Resolution Nos. 183 and 156 authorized the demolition of the store with Asilo and Angeles supervising the work.

Engineer Winston Cabrega (Engineer Cabrega), a licensed civil engineer, estimated the cost of the demolished property as amounting to P437,900.00^.

Questions: (1) Will you make the (a) municipality of Nagcarlan and/or (b) Mayor Comendador liable for damages in the case at  bar?

(2) What principle of law is applicable in this case?

(3) Does the Sanggunian of Nagcarlan have the power to declare the structure of Visitacion as a nuisance per se? Explain.

9. 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. Among the occupants of Lot No. 666 are the [respondents] in this case.

[Respondents]-heirs of Vicente Ermac claim ownership over the portions of Lot No. 666 now occupied by them by right of succession as direct descendants of the original owner, Claudio Ermac. [Respondents] Luisa Del Castillo and Estaneslao Dionson allegedly derived their title by purchase from the children of Claudio Ermac. [Respondent] Vicente Dionson, on the other hand, bought his land from the heirs of Pedro Ermac, while [Respondents] Emigdio Bustillo and Liza Parajele derived their ownership from the Heirs of Balbina Ermac-Dabon. [respondents'] ownership and possession had been peaceful and undisturbed, until recently when the [petitioners]-heirs of Clemente Ermac filed an action for ejectment against them.

The filing of the said ejectment caused a cloud of doubt upon the [respondents'] ownership over their respective parcels of land, prompting them to file this action for quieting of title."

[Petitioners], on the other hand, denied the material allegations of the [respondents], and claimed that the [respondents] have no cause of action against them. It is essentially claimed that it was Clemente Ermac and not his grandfather Claudio Ermac who is the original claimant of dominion over Lot No. 666. During his lifetime, Clemente Ermac was in actual, peaceful, adverse and continuous possession in the concept of an owner of the entire Lot No. 666. With the help of his children, he cultivated the said lot, and planted corn, peanuts, cassava and fruit products. Clemente also effected the registration of the subject lot in his name. Upon Clemente's death, [petitioners] inherited Lot No. 666, and they constructed their residential houses thereon. [Petitioners] claim that [respondents'] recent occupation of some portions of Lot No. 666 was only tolerated by Clemente Ermac and the [petitioners]. [Petitioners] in fact had never surrendered ownership or possession of the property to the [respondents]. [Petitioners] also set up the defense of prescription and laches.

"After trial, the lower [court] rendered its [D]ecision, finding that the original owner of the lot in question was Claudio Ermac, and therefore, the property was inherited upon his death by his children Esteban, Balbina and Pedro. All the heirs of Claudio Ermac, therefore, should share in the ownership over Lot No. 666, by right of succession. The ruling [was] supported by the admissions of Irene[a] Seno, witness for the [petitioners] and daughter of Clemente Ermac, establishing facts which show that [petitioners] and their predecessor Clemente did not own the entire property, but that the other heirs of Claudio Ermac are entitled to two-thirds (2/3) of the lot. Since the entire lot is now registered in the name of Clemente Ermac, the shares belonging to the other heirs of Claudio Ermac, some of which have already been purchased by some of the [respondents], are being held in trust by the [petitioners] in favor of their actual occupants.

Questions:

 (1) Is the decision of the Court correct?

(2) On the basis of your reading of the Ermac case, what principle of law was used by the court in adjudicating the rights of the parties? Explain.

(3) Decide :

(a)  Whether or not O.C.T. No. RO-752 issued in the names of [Spouses] Clemente Ermac [and] Anunciacion Suyco is indefeasible and incontrovertible under the Torrens System

(b) Whether or not the alleged tax declarations and tax receipts are sufficient to defeat the title over the property in the names of petitioner's predecessors-in-interest [Spouses] Clemente Ermac and Anunciacion Suyco

(c) Whether or not laches ha[s] set in on the claims by the respondents on portions of Lot No. 666

9. In the early 1950s, Gancayco bought a parcel of land located at 746 Epifanio delos Santos Avenue (EDSA), Quezon City with an area of 375 square meters and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT114558.

On 27 March 1956, the Quezon City Council issued Ordinance No. 2904, entitled "An Ordinance Requiring the Construction of Arcades, for Commercial Buildings to be Constructed in Zones Designated as Business Zones in the Zoning Plan of Quezon City, and Providing Penalties in Violation Thereof."

An arcade is defined as any portion of a building above the first floor projecting over the sidewalk beyond the first storey wall used as protection for pedestrians against rain or sun.

Ordinance No. 2904 required the relevant property owner to construct an arcade with a width of 4.50 meters and height of 5.00 meters along EDSA, from the north side of Santolan Road to one lot after Liberty Avenue, and from one lot before Central Boulevard to the Botocan transmission line.

Questions: (a) Is the ordinance constitutional?

(b) Gancayco did not construct an arcade; will you consider his building a nuisance for not complying with the ordinance?

10. The spouses Rufino Dulay, Sr. and Ignacia Vicente were the owners of a parcel of land located in Rizal, Santiago, Isabela, with an area of 29,002 square meters. The lot was covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-6776.

On August 3, 1981, the spouses Dulay executed a deed of donation over a 10,000-square-meter portion of their property in favor of the Ministry of Education and Culture (now the Department of Education, Culture and Sports [DECS]).

The deed provided, among others: xxx That for and in consideration of the benefits that may be derived from the use of the above described property which is intended for school purposes, the said DONORS do by these presents TRANSFER AND CONVEY by way of DONATION unto the DONEE, its successors and assigns, the above property to become effective upon the signing of this document.

The property was subdivided. On April 13, 1983, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-143337 covering the portion identified as Lot 8858-A was issued in the name of the Ministry of Education and Culture, represented by Laurencio C. Ramel, the Superintendent of Schools of Isabela.  However, the property was not used for school purposes and remained idle. Sometime in 1988, the DECS, through its Secretary, started construction of the Rizal National High School building on a parcel of land it acquired from Alejandro Feliciano. The school site was about 2 kilometers away from the land donated by the spouses Dulay. In a letter to the DECS Secretary dated August 19, 1994, the spouses Dulay requested that the property be returned to them considering that the land was never used since 1981, or a period of more than 13 years.

Questions: (a) Did the Department of Education comply with the condition imposed in the Deed of Donation?

(b) Shall the deed of donation be revoked?

 (c) Is the respondent’s right to have the revocation of the Deed of Donation barred already by prescription and laches?