1. State if the probate court has the power to determine :(a) the due
execution of a holographic will (b) whether the testator is of sound mind (c)
whether the last will is freely executed (d) whether the solemnities and
formalities are observed (e) whether the property in question is part of the
estate of the decedent or not.
ANSWER:
Petitioner should realize that the allowance of her husband’s will is
conclusive only as to its due execution.[11] The authority of the
probate court is limited to ascertaining whether the testator, being of sound
mind, freely executed the will in accordance with the formalities prescribed by
law.[12] Thus, petitioner’s claim of title to the properties forming
part of her husband’s estate should be settled in an ordinary action before the
regular courts.
2. If a decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at
the time of his death, what court shall
have jurisdiction of the probate of his
will? If he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, will your answer be the
same?
ANSWER:
If the decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien, his will shall be
proved, or letters of administration granted, and his estate settled, in the
Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) in the province in which he
resides at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign
country, the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of any province
in which he had estate.
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?
4. According to purpose or cause,
state the four (4) kinds of donation and explain each.
Answer:
Donations, according to its purpose or cause, may be categorized as: (1) pure
or simple; (2) remuneratory or compensatory; (3) conditional or modal; and (4)
onerous. A pure or simple donation is one where the
underlying cause is plain gratuity. This is donation in its
truest form. On the other hand, a remuneratory or compensatory donation
is one made for the purpose of rewarding the donee for past services, which
services do not amount to a demandable debt. A conditional or modal donation is one where the donation is made in
consideration of future services or where the donor imposes certain conditions,
limitations or charges upon the donee, the value of which is inferior than that
of the donation given. Finally, an onerous donation
is that which imposes upon the donee a reciprocal obligation or, to be more
precise, this is the kind of donation made for a valuable
consideration, the cost of which is equal to or more than the thing donated.
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
30k. 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: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?
No comments:
Post a Comment