1. Accession is not a mode of acquiring ownership. *
a. True
b. False
ANSWER: TRUE
Reference: Paras, 2008, Page 203
2. He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown, subject to the right of indemnity. *
a. true
b. false
ANSWER: FALSE
Reference: Art. 448 NCC
3. There is only one concept in which possession may be had. *
a. true
b. false
ANSWER: FALSE
Reference: Paras, 2008, Page 515-516
4. A luxurious expense is also referred to as ornamental expense or expense for pure ostentation, such as a water fountain. *
a. true
b. false
ANSWER: TRUE
Reference: Art. 548 NCC
5. Upon the establishment of an easement, the rights necessary for its use have to be authorized first before they are considered granted. *
a. true
b. false
ANSWER: FALSE
Reference: Art. 625 NCC
6. A party wall is presumed in walls whenever in the dividing wall, there is a window or opening. *
a. true
b. false
ANSWER: FALSE
Reference: Art. 660 NCC
7. If the owner of the servient estate should have bound himself, upon the establishment of the easement, to bear the cost of the work required for the use and preservation thereof, he may free himself from his obligation by renouncing his property to the owner of the dominant estate. *
a. true
b. false
ANSWER: TRUE
Reference: Art. 693 NCC
8. The titles of ownership, or of other rights over immovable property, which are not duly inscribed or annotated in the Registry of Property shall not prejudice third persons. *
a. true
b. false
ANSWER: TRUE
Reference: Spouses Cano vs Spouses Cano, G.R. No. 188666, Dec. 14, 20017
9. Illegal or impossible conditions in onerous donations shall be considered as not imposed. *
a. True
b. False
ANSWER: FALSE
Reference: Art. 1183 NCC
10. Water rights maybe leased in whole or in part to an alien with prior approval of the Council. *
a. True
b. False
ANSWER: FALSE
Reference: PD 1067, Art. 19
11. For many years, the Agusan river deposited soil along its bank, beside the titled land of Jane. In time, such deposit reached an area of one thousand square meters. With the permission of Jane, Vicente cultivated the said area. Ten years later, a big flood occurred in the river and transferred the 1000 square meters to the opposite bank, beside the land of Agnes. The land transferred is now contested by Jane and Agnes as riparian owners and by Vicente who claims ownership by prescription. Who should prevail,? Why? *
a. Jose, by virtue of alluvium.
b. Agnes, by virtue of alluvium.
c. Agnes, by virtue of avulsion.
d. Vicente, by virtue of prescription.
ANSWER: A
Reference: Art. 457 NCC
12. Ana owns a parcel of residential land worth P5,000,000.00. Unknown to Ana, a residential house costing P 1,000,000.00 is built on the entire parcel by Ben, who claims ownership of the land. On the premise that Ben is a builder in good faith and Ana is a landowner in good faith, if the land increased in value to another P5,000,000.00 by reason of the building of the house thereon, what amount should be paid by Ana in order to acquire the house from Ben? *
a. P 1,000,000.00 representing the cost of the improvements.
b. P 5,000,000.00 representing the increase in the value of the land because of the improvements.
c. P 6,000,000.00 representing the cost of the improvements plus the increase in the value.
d. Either P 1,000,000.00 as cost of the improvement or P 5,000,000.00 representing increase in value at the option of Ana.
ANSWER:
Note: C is wrong
Reference:
13. X constructed a house on a lot which he was leasing from Y. Later, X executed a chattel mortgage over said house in favor of Z as security for a loan obtained from the latter. Still later, X acquired ownership of the land where his house was constructed, after which he mortgaged both house and land in favor of a bank, which mortgage was annotated on the Torrens Certificate of Title. When X failed to pay his loan to the bank, the latter, being the highest bidder at the foreclosure sale, foreclosed the mortgage and acquired X’s house and lot. Learning of the proceedings conducted by the bank, Z is now demanding that the bank reconvey to him X’s house or pay X’s loan to him plus interests. Is Z’s demand against the bank valid and sustainable? Why? *
a. No, because it does not appear that the mortgage was registered to bind third persons.
b. No, because X was only a lessee, not an owner of the property.
c. No, because the chattel mortgage executed in his favor over the house is not valid.
d. No, although valid between X and Z, it is not valid as a third party is prejudiced.
ANSWER: D
Reference: Associated Insurance vs Iya
14. Donna was the owner of an agricultural land with no access to a public road. She had been passing through the land of Ernie with the latter’s acquiescence for over 20 years. Subsequently, Donna subdivided her property into 20 residential lots and sold them to different persons. Ernie blocked the pathway and refused to let the buyers pass through his land. Did Donna acquire the easement of right of way? Why? *
a. No, because an easement of right of way is a discontinuous easement and cannot be acquired by prescription.
b. No, because using by means of the tolerance of the owner does not toll the running of the prescriptive period.
c. No, because the easement to Donna does not extend to the new owners.
d. No, because an easement of right of way that is discontinuous need a contract to be acquired by prescription.
ANSWER: A
Reference: Ronquillo vs Roco [G.R. No. L-10619]
15. Lauro owns an agricultural land planted mostly with fruit trees. Hernando owns an adjacent land devoted to his piggery business, which is two (2) meters higher in elevation. Although Hernando has constructed a waste disposal lagoon for his piggery, it is inadequate to contain the waste water containing pig manure, and it often overflows and inundates Lauro’s plantation. This has increased the acidity of the soil in the plantation, causing the trees to wither and die. Lauro sues for damages caused to his plantation. Hernando invokes his right to the benefit of a natural easement in favor of his higher estate, which imposes upon the lower estate of Lauro the obligation to receive the waters descending from the higher estate. Is Hernando correct? *
a. Yes, by express provision of law, Lauro as owner of the lower estate is compelled to receive the waters as easement.
b. Yes, because the easement to receive waters from higher estates are superior notwithstanding any nuisance caused therein.
c. No, because what runs to Lauro's property is not just waters from Hernando's estate, but waste from piggery and is actually a nuisance.
d. No, because actually, there is no easement at all, only a nuisance.
ANSWER: C
Reference: Remman Enterprises vs CA [G.R. No. 107671]
16. In 1955, Ramon and his sister Rosario inherited a parcel of land in Albay from their parents. Since Rosario was gainfully employed in Manila, she left Ramon alone to possess and cultivate the land. However, Ramon never shared the harvest with Rosario and was even able to sell one-half of the land in 1985 by claiming to be the sole heir of his parents. Having reached retirement age in 1990 Rosario returned to the province and upon learning what had transpired, demanded that the remaining half of the land be given to her as her share. Ramon opposed, asserting that he has already acquired ownership of the land by prescription, and that Rosario is barred by laches from demanding partition and reconveyance. Is Ramon correct? Why? *
a. No, possession by a co-owner is deemed not adverse to the other co-owners but is, on the contrary, deemed beneficial to them.
b. No, laches and prescription do not apply to co-ownership.
c. Yes, there is already an implied repudiation of the co-ownership due to inaction of Rosario.
d. Yes, since Ramon's possession is deemed adverse.
ANSWER:
Note: B is wrong
Reference:
17. Which of the following is an indispensable requirement in an action for "quieting of title" involving real property? The plaintiff must *
2/2
a. be in actual possession of the property.
B. be the registered owner of the property.
c. have legal or equitable title to property
d. be the beneficial owner of the property.
ANSWER: C
Reference: Art. 477 NCC
18. Xam and Yari were to marry in 3 months. Meantime, to express his affection, Xam donated a house and lot to Yari, which donation Xam wrote in a letter to Yari. Yari wrote back, accepting the donation and took possession of the property. Before the wedding, however, Yari suddenly died of heart attack. Can Yari’s heirs get the property? *
(A) No, since the marriage did not take place.
(B) Yes, since all the requisites of a donation of an immovable are present.
(C) No, since the donation and its acceptance are not in a public instrument.
(D) Yes, since Xam freely donated the property to Yari who became its owner.
ANSWER: C
Reference: Art. 749 NCC
19. Lander executed a simple deed of donation of P50 million on time deposit with a bank in favor of A, B, C, D, and E, without indicating the share of each donee. All the donees accepted the donation in writing. A, one of the donees, died. Will B, C, D, and E get A’s share in the money? *
(A) Yes, accretion will automatically apply to the joint-donees in equal shares.
(B) Yes, since the donor’s intention is to give the whole of P50 million to the joint-donees in equal shares.
(C) No, A"s share will revert to the donor because accretion applies only if the joint-donees are spouses.
(D) No, A's share goes to his heirs because the donation did not provide for reversion to donor.
ANSWER: D
Reference: Art. 753 NCC
20. Who can make a donation? *
(A) All persons who can enter into a contract and can dispose of their property.
(B) All persons who are of legal age and suffer from no civil interdiction.
(C) All persons who can make a last will and testament.
(D) All persons, whether natural or artificial, who own property.
ANSWER: A
Reference: UST Golden Notes, 2018, Page 203
21. X, the owner, constituted a 10-year usufruct on his land as well as on the building standing on it in Y’s favor. After flood totally destroyed the building 5 years later, X told Y that an act of God terminated the usufruct and that he should vacate the land. Is X, the owner of the land, correct? *
(A) No, since the building was destroyed through no fault of Y.
(B) No, since Y still has rights to use the land and the materials left on it.
(C) Yes, since Y cannot use the land without the building.
(D) Yes, since the destruction of the building without the X’s fault terminated the usufruct.
ANSWER: B
Reference: Art. 607 NCC
22. Virgilio owned a bare and simple swimming pool in his garden. MB, a 7-year old child, surreptitiously entered the garden and merrily romped around the ledges of the pool. He accidentally tripped, fell into the pool, and drowned. MB’s parents sued Virgilio for damages arising from their child’s death, premised on the principle of "attractive nuisance". Is Virgilio liable for the death of MB? *
(A) No, the child was 7 years old and knew the dangers that the pool offered.
(B) Yes, being an attractive nuisance, Virgilio had the duty to prevent children from coming near it.
(C) No, since the pool was bare and had no enticing gadgets, floats or devices that would entice a 7 year old child.
(D) Yes, since Virgilio did not cover the swimming pool while not in use to prevent children from falling into it.
ANSWER: C
Reference: Hidalgo Enterprises vs Balandan [G.R. No. L-3422]
23. When the donor gives donations without reserving sufficient funds for his support or for the support of his dependents, his donations are *
(A) Rescissible, since it results in economic lesion of more than 25% of the value of his properties.
(B) Voidable, since his consent to the donation is vitiated by mindless kindness.
(C) Void, since it amounts to wanton expenditure beyond his means.
(D) Reducible to the extent that the donations impaired the support due to himself and his dependents.
ANSWER: D
Reference: Art. 750 NCC
24. An action for reconveyance of a registered piece of land may be brought against the owner appearing on the title based on a claim that the latter merely holds such title in trust for the plaintiff. The action prescribes, however, within 10 years from the registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate of title of the property as long as the trust had not been repudiated. What is the exception to this 10-year prescriptive period? *
(A) When the plaintiff had no notice of the deed or the issuance of the certificate of title.
(B) When the title holder concealed the matter from the plaintiff.
(C) When fortuitous circumstances prevented the plaintiff from filing the case sooner.
(D) When the plaintiff is in possession of the property.
ANSWER: D
Reference:
25. What is the prescriptive period for filing an action for revocation of a donation based on acts of ingratitude of the donee? *
(A) 5 years from the perfection of the donation.
(B) 1 year from the perfection of the donation.
(C) 4 years from the perfection of the donation.
(D) Such action does not prescribe.
ANSWER: B
Reference: Art. 769 NCC
26. Salvador, a timber concessionaire, built on his lot a warehouse where he processes and stores his timber for shipment. Adjoining the warehouse is a furniture factory owned by NARRAMIX of which Salvador is a majority stockholder. NARRAMIX leased space in the warehouse where it placed its furniture-making machinery.
(A) How would you classify the furniture-making machinery as property under the Civil Code? Explain. (B) Suppose the lease contract between Salvador and NARRAMIX stipulates that at the end of the lease the machinery shall become the property of the lessor, will your answer be the same? Explain. *
Suggested ANSWER:
A. The furniture-making machinery owned by NARRAMIX is a personal property. To be a real property; the machinery, receptacle, instruments and implements intended for industry or works, it should be placed by the owner (Salvador) of the tenement in the warehouse (immovable); and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works. [Art. 415, Par. 5 NCC].
Although in the case at bar; Salvador is the majority stockholder of NARRAMIX; but the said industry has its own personality distinct to that of Salvador; hence Article 415, Paragraph 5 of the New Civil Code is not Applicable.
B. No, my answer will be different; in the case decided in Valdez vs Central Altragracia; when the agent of the owner is the one who will attached the machinery to the tenement of the principal; hence the machinery becomes immovable by destination pursuant to Art. 415, Par. 5 of the New Civil Code.
In the case at bar, the NARRAMIX becomes the agent of Salvador; hence as Principal; he owned the machinery at the end of the contract; therefore such machine becomes immovable by destination. The machine also is the principal element of the furniture business; hence it is submitted that the machinery is real property.
27. Pedro is the registered owner of a parcel of land situated in Malolos, Bulacan. In 1973, he mortgaged the land to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) to secure a loan of P100.000.00. For Pedro’s failure to pay the loan, the PNB foreclosed on the mortgage in 1980, and the land was sold at public auction to PNB for being the highest bidder. PNB secured title thereto in 1987.In the meanwhile, Pedro, who was still in possession of the land, constructed a warehouse on the property. In 1988, the PNB sold the land to Pablo, the Deed of Sale was amended in 1989 to include the warehouse.Pedro, claiming ownership of the warehouse, files a complaint to annul the amended Deed of Sale before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, where he resides, against both the PNB and Pablo. The PNB filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for improper venue contending that the warehouse is real property under Article 415(1) of the Civil Code and therefore the action should have instead been filed in Malolos, Bulacan. Pedro claims otherwise. The question arose as to whether the warehouse should be considered as real or as personal property.If consulted, what would your legal advice be? *
Suggested ANSWER:
My advised is that the warehouse is a real property distinct from the land to which it is erected.
In Article 415, Par. 1 of NCC, it provides that the immovable property are the "lands, building, roads and construction of all kind attached to the soil", so the warehouse is a type of building attached to the soil; distinct form the land itself.
Hence, the contention of Pedro that he Warehouse is personal property is wrong. PNB is correct that the action should be dismiss on the ground of improper venue because the property is situated in Malolos, Bulacan; thus Pedro should file in the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan and not RTC Quezon City.
28. On 1 January 1980, Minerva, the owner of a building, granted Petronila a usufruct over the property until 01 June 1998 when Manuel, a son of Petronila, would have reached his 30th birthday. Manuel, however, died on 1 June 1990 when he was only 26 years old. Minerva notified Petronila that the usufruct had been extinguished by the death of Manuel and demanded that the latter vacate the premises and deliver the same to the former. Petronila refused to vacate the place on the ground that the usufruct in her favor would expire only on 1 June 1998 when Manuel would have reached his 30th birthday and that the death of Manuel before his 30th birthday did not extinguish the usufruct. Whose contention should be accepted and why? *
Suggested ANSWER:
The contention of Petronila is tenable.
Usufruct can be extinguished by the death of the usufructuary Petronila. The death of Manuel did not extinguished the usufruct; the condition that the usufruct would continue up to 01 June 1998 when Manuel, a son of Petronila, would have reached his 30th birthday is only the range of time that will constitute the end of the right of usufructuary in June 1, 1998; the death of Manuel is not determining factor as to the extinguishment of the usufruct.
29. Tim came into possession of an old map showing where a purported cache of gold bullion was hidden. Without any authority from the government Tim conducted a relentless search and finally found the treasure buried in a new river bed formerly part of a parcel of land owned by spouses Tirso and Tessie. The old river which used to cut through the land of spouses Ursula and Urbito changed its course through natural causes.To whom shall the treasure belong? Explain. *
Suggested ANSWER:
It is submitted that even Tim conducted a relentless search without the formal authority from the government; still Tim should be entitled for the one-half of the treasure; and one-half for the government.
One-half should go to the government because the new river bed is part of the property of the state. One-half should go to Tim, as the finder by chance; he is not trespasser of the said river; the used of such river being a public property is belonging to all persons; hence Tim; although he did not have the authority from the government but nevertheless he is NOT a trespasser of the said property of public domain. [Art. 438 NCC].
30. A drug lord and his family reside in a small bungalow where they sell shabu and other prohibited drugs. When the police found the illegal trade, they immediately demolished the house because according to them, it was a nuisance per se that should be abated. Can this demolition be sustained? Explain. *
Suggested ANSWER:
No. The demolition of the house should not be sustained. The house although used by the drug lord to their illegal activities is not nuisance per se.
Nuisance per se is evil or bad in any condition or place; but the house is not nuisance per se because it is not the prime element of making the prohibited drugs nor the selling of shabu; one can sell shabu in any place at any time.
31. Senen and Peter are brothers. Senen migrated to Canada early while still a teenager. Peter stayed in Bulacan to take care of their widowed mother and continued to work on the Family farm even after her death. Returning to the country some thirty years after he had left, Senen seeks a partition of the farm to get his share as the only co-heir of Peter. Peter interposes his opposition, contending that acquisitive prescription has already set in and that estoppel lies to bar the action for partition, citing his continuous possession of the property for at least 10 years, for almost 30 years in fact. It is undisputed that Peter has never openly claimed sole ownership of the property. If he ever had the intention to do so, Senen was completely ignorant of it. Will Senen’s action prosper? Explain. *
Suggested ANSWER:
Senen's action will prosper.
The general rule is that "prescription does not run against a co-owner to the property held in common." The exception of this is that when the co-owner reputed the claimed of ownership of the plaintiff.
In the given case, since Peter did not openly claimed sole ownership of the property; hence prescription as his defense does not warrant to bar the action of Senen for partition to the farm.
32. Using a falsified manager’s check, Justine, as the buyer, was able to take delivery of a second hand car which she had just bought from United Car Sales Inc. The sale was registered with the Land Transportation Office. A week later, the seller learned that the check had been dishonored, but by that time, Justine was nowhere to be seen. It turned out that Justine had sold the car to Jerico, the present possessor who knew nothing about the falsified check. In a suit by United Car Sales, Inc. against Jerico for recovery of the car, plaintiff alleges it had been unlawfully deprived of its property through fraud and should, consequently, be allowed to recover it without having to reimburse the defendant for the price the latter had paid. Should the suit prosper? *
Suggested ANSWER:
The suit would prosper.
Although Jerico as an innocent purchaser of value to the car has the presumption of title, when he acquired the car in good faith [Art. 459 NCC], but the same law does not prejudice the true owner to claim their property in the judicial proceedings.
As to the contention of the United Car Sales praying for the recovery of the car without having to reimburse the defendant Jerico is also anchor with the our civil law; because although Jerico as an innocent purchaser of value to the car; he did not acquired it from the Public sale, nor acquired the same in the market as provided in the Code of Commerce; thus Jerico is not entitled to the reimbursement of what he paid to Justine.
33. Rex, a philanthropist, donated a valuable lot to the municipality on the condition that it will build a public school on such lot within 2 years from its acceptance of the donation. The municipality properly accepted the donation but did not yet build the public school after 2 years. Can Rex revoke the donation? Why? *
Suggested ANSWER:
Yes. Rex can revoked the donation.
As provided in Art. 764 of the New Civil Code; when the donation has an stipulated condition imposed by the donor to the donee as in the case at bar, the same can be a ground for revocation.
The condition of the donation is that a public school should be build in the property within two years from the acceptance of the same; hence such failure on the part of municipality is fatal. Rex can revoke the donation on the ground of non-compliance of the condition.
34. Enumerate the Immovable and movable properties. *
Suggested ANSWER:
The following are immovable properties [Art. 415 NCC]:
(1) Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil;
(2) Trees, plants, and growing fruits, while they are attached to the land or form an integral part of an immovable;
(3) Everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in such a way that it cannot be separated therefrom without breaking the material or deterioration of the object;
(4) Statues, reliefs, paintings or other objects for use or ornamentation, placed in buildings or on lands by the owner of the immovable in such a manner that it reveals the intention to attach them permanently to the tenements;
(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works;
(6) Animal houses, pigeon-houses, beehives, fish ponds or breeding places of similar nature, in case their owner has placed them or preserves them with the intention to have them permanently attached to the land, and forming a permanent part of it; the animals in these places are included;
(7) Fertilizer actually used on a piece of land;
(8) Mines, quarries, and slag dumps, while the matter thereof forms part of the bed, and waters either running or stagnant;
(9) Docks and structures which, though floating, are intended by their nature and object to remain at a fixed place on a river, lake, or coast;
(10) Contracts for public works, and servitudes and other real rights over immovable property.
Art. 416. The following things are deemed to be personal property:
(1) Those movables susceptible of appropriation which are not included in the preceding article;
(2) Real property which by any special provision of law is considered as personal property;
(3) Forces of nature which are brought under control by science; and
(4) In general, all things which can be transported from place to place without impairment of the real property to which they are fixed. (335a)
Art. 417. The following are also considered as personal property:
(1) Obligations and actions which have for their object movables or demandable sums; and
(2) Shares of stock of agricultural, commercial and industrial entities, although they may have real estate.
#FSUU
No comments:
Post a Comment