Page 1 of 5

Property Past Examination Question In 1974 the government of Timbuktu donated to the Philippines a parcel of land with an area of 10,000 s ! meters where the Philippine "mbass# would be built! $ut due to the worsening tribal conflict between the $utsia and the %ibulo, the Philippine government abandoned its intention to the use lot, and instead, the President sold the propert# to the highest bidder! & whooping P'00 million was offered b# a Tembukia billio0naire which the government accepted! &ccordingl#, this amount would be enough to pa# the salar# increase of government teachers for the #ear 1994! (ongress earlier approved the salar# increase of teachers and provided for sources of funds to raise the needed amount! )ne of the sources is for the government to sell all its properties abroad! If #ou are against the sale, what legal arguments would #ou raise* The above described propert# was intended for the Phil! "mbass#! Thus, such is part of the public domain! $eing propert# of public dominion, it is outside the commerce of man and is therefore not sub+ect to sale on private appropriation! If #ou are the law#er for the government, how would #ou argue the validit# of the sale* &rt! 4,, of the (ivil code provides that propert# of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for public service shall form part of the patrimonial propert# of the %tate! It is clear in the case at bar that the Philippine government has alread# abandoned its intention to use the said lot for the establishment of the embass# building! It had thereb# been converted into the status of patrimonial propert# and as such, it ma# be a valid ob+ect of a contract of sale! &iko bought from -ufa several pieces of e uipment which she installed in her %awmill plant! .hen &iko failed sale of her finances, a +udgment was made against her! &iko/s sawmill e uipment were levied as chattels and sold at public auction! -ufa was the highest bidder! &iko assailed the sale void! 0ecide! The sale of the e uipment is void! %awmill e uipment installed in a sawmill plant is real propert# pursuant of &rt! 41' par b! 1urthermore, the %( said in the case of &go vs! (&, that +udicial sale of real propert# on e2ecution re uires the advertisement of sale b# publication in a newspaper as provided for under %ec! 13 of -ule 49 of the -ules of (ourt! In the present case, the e uipment were sold as chattels without the re uisite publication! 5ence, the sale is void! "numerate the characteristics of propert# of public dominion! 1! ,! 4! 4! '! 3! The# are outside the commerce of man and cannot be leased, donated, sold or be the ob+ect of an# contract! The# cannot be ac uired b# prescription no matter how long the possession of the properties has been! The# cannot be registered under the 6and -egistration 6aw or be the sub+ect of a Torrens title! The#, as well as their usufruct, cannot be levied upon b# e2ecution nor can the# be attached! In general, the# can be used b# an#bod#! The# ma# either be real or personal propert#!

0r! &ga, a noted animal scientist, is the owner of , high breed &rabian horses, which he keeps for e2periments inside a stable! )ne da# he was surprised to find out that the horses were gone! 6ater, the# were recovered in the possession of 7r! )ki 0oc! .hen asked to e2plain, he contended that the# were sold to him b# a certain 7r! $albin! 1! 5ow would #ou classif# the horses, real of personal propert#* .h#* The horses should be classified as real propert#! &rt! 41' par 3 provided in part that animal houses and the animals inside them are considered as immovables! In this case, since a stable is necessaril# an animal house, it follows that the horses which 0r! &ga kept inside it are real properties! 5ow would #ou classif# the sale to )ki 0oc* %ale of real or personal propert#* It is a sale of personal propert#! &ccording to 8ustice Paras, when the animals inside the permanent animal house99 or gratuitousl#, it is believed that the transaction is an alienation of personal propert#! I would file the following animal cases: -obber# or theft against 7r! $albin and a violation of &nti 1encing 6aw against )ki 0oc! 1rom the viewpoint of criminal law, the animals described in &rt! 41' par 3 must be considered as personal propert#! 5ence, the charges of robber# or theft which concerns unlawful usurpation of personal propert#! .hat are the limitations on ownership* ;ive an e2ample to each limitation! The following are the limitations on ownership: 1! ,! 4! 4! Those given b# the state police power, eminent domain, ta2ation! Those given b# law, legal easements of waters or right of wa#! Those given b# the owner himself: the owner pledges or leases the propert#! Those given b# the person who gave the thing to its present owner: the donor ma# prohibit the done from partitioning the propert# for a period not e2ceeding ,0 #ears!

,!

&rt! 4,, of the (ivil (ode provides: Propert# of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for public service shall form part of the patrimonial propert# of the %tate! .hat do #ou understand b# patrimonial propert#* ;ive an e2ample! Patrimonial propert# of the state is the propert# it owns but which is not devoted to public use, public service or the development of the national wealth! It is a wealth owned b# the state in its private <7I=I%T"-I&6> as distinguished from its public capacit# <;)?"-=7"=T&6>! & good e2ample is of this would be a municipal owned waterworks s#stem! .hile such s#stem is open to the public, still the s#stem serves onl# to those who pa# the charges and rentals!

Page 2 of 5

5ow would propert# of public dominion be converted to patrimonial propert#* "2plain! &ccording to the tenor of the decision in 1austino Ignacio vs! 0ir! )f 6ands, the e2ecutive and, possibl# the legislative department have the authorit# and power to make the declaration converting propert# of public dominion to patrimonial propert#! %tated otherwise, there should be a formal declaration from the government, either through the e2ecutive or legislative withdrawing the intention to devote propert# to public use! &fter this conversion, the propert#, which is now P&T-I7)=I&6, can alread# be alienated!

Dnlawful detainer, accion publicianaB accion reinvindicatoria 7s! &#e -em# 1abila while coming out of 6as 7alas gallera saw a man about to carnap his all new Ta#ana trisikad! 5e immediatel# pulled his ;lock 19 and shot the man which resulted to the latter/s death! .hen asked to answer for the death, he contended that his action was +ustified under the doctrine of selfChelp! 0ecide! 5er action was not +ustified under the doctrine of self help! &rt 4,9B enumerate re uisites C The doctrine re uires that reasonable means necessar# to repel the force must be used! %uch is absent in this case!

.hat is an act in a state of necessit#! "2plain! &rt! 44,, enumerate re uisitesB e2pound!

The 7unicipalit# of Trese Percados leased to 7r! 7olanida a portion of Pla@a -oman! The lease went on for ,0 #ears! The leased portion was no longer used b# the public ever since a building thereon was erected! 1inall#, the leased propert# was sold to 7r! 7olanida! -ule on validit# of the sale! The sale was valid! .hen a municipalit# no longer uses a public pla@a as such and instead constructed a building thereon, it is clear that the propert# has become patrimonial &ct! 4,,! $eing patrimonial, the same ma# from that moment on9! sold to a private individual! <7un! of )&% vs! -)&, 7 Phil ,0>

In the above doctrine, is it necessar# that the actor is free from negligence in the creation of such situation* =o, it is not necessar#! %imple negligence is +ustified! The law does not re uire that the person acting under such doctrine be free from negligence in the creation of a state of necessit#! <Tolentino/s commentar#>

.hen two persons are confronted with a situation where one would act under the doctrine of self help and the other in a state of necessit#, there would be conflict of rights! .ho has the superior right* "2plain! The one acting in a state of necessit# has the superior right! The right of selfChelp is not available against an act in a state of necessit# because there would be unlawful aggression on the person acting pursuant to the doctrine of state necessit#!

8oan (astaAeda owns a parcel of land! 5e donated a portion of it to the church for religious purposes! & part of the land was kept open and used b# the townspeople as a pla@a! 6ater, the entire pla@a was donated b# the town to the church! .ho owns the land* "2plain the reasons! The state owns the land! "ven if 7arcelino was the original owner, when he allowed the people to use the same as a public pla@a, he was in effect waiving his right thereto, for the benefit of the townfolks! $eing propert# for public use, the town cannot be said to have validl# donated it in favor of the church! The pla@a also could not have been ac uired b# the church through prescription! <5art# vs! 7un! of ?ictoria, 14 Phil 1',>

EPutolF9!owner! (risteta, on the other hand, argued that she owns the house where the treasure was found, ergo under the law, the treasure belongs to her! 0ecide! )ne half of the treasure must go to &stro, the finder and one half to (risteta, the owner of the propert#! 5ad the# alread# been married at the time of the discover#, the treasure would have belonged to the con+ugal partnership under &rt! 117 of the P(! It is clear that the# were still Gliving inH at the time of the discover# b# (risteta! -ea is believed to be entitled to no share at all! &rt! 44I provides that hidden treasure belongs to the owner of the land, building or other propert# on which it is found! Therefore, since the treasure was found in the basement of (risteta/s mansion,then the same belongs to him! .hen the building and the land belongs to two different persons, each is considered separate from the other, and the propert# found in the building will belong to the owner of the building! P-)P"-TJ <5ot tips for midCterm e2ams> 7istake upon a doubtful or difficult uestion of law <provided that such ignorance is not gross and therefore ine2cusable> ma# be the basis of good faith! <Kasilag vs! -odrigue@>! It is true that Gignorance of the law shall e2cuse no oneH but error in the application of the law, in the legal solutions arising from such application, and the interpretation of doubtful doctrine can still make a person a transgressor, violator, or possessor in good faith! 1or indeed ignorance of the law ma# be based on an error of fact!

& piece of land was registered in the name of phew phew! )ne side of the land is upon this lot is built a stone for which had stood there from time immemorial and was at times used as defense against the inclusions of the 7oros! The municipalit# claimed that it e2ercised acts of ownership over the land b# permitting it to be occupied and consenting to the erection of private houses thereon! The 0ir! )f 6ands9! Putol9 sorr#! The plaintiff had obtained in a previous action a +udgement for a sum of mone# against the defendant municipalit# of )tot! $ecause of lack of funds, the mone# +udgment was not paid! Plaintiff then sought a writ of e2ecution on the following properties: 1 unit ambulanceB 1 unit police carB 1 unit bulldo@erB one ,'0 s m lotB and 1 police station building! Is the action valid* =o it is not! The attachment is not proper because municipalCowned real and personal properties devoted to public or governmental purposes ma# not be attached and sold for the pa#ment of a +udgment against a municipalit#! It is essential and +ustifiable to e2empt propert# for public use from e2ecution, otherwise, governmental service would be +eopardi@ed or impaired! <?da! 0e Tantoco vs! 7uniciap (ouncil of Iloilo>

"numerate the 4 actions for recover# of a real propert#:

Page 3 of 5

I! &rt! '47! &cts merel# tolerated and those e2ecuted clandestinel# and without the knowledge of the possessor of a thing, or b# violence, do not affect possession! &rt! '44! )ne who succeeds b# hereditar# title shall not suffer the conse uences of the wrongful possession of the decedent, if it is not shown that he was aware of the flaws affecting itB but the effects of possession in good faith shall not benefit him e2cept from the date of death of the decedent! "2planation: If the father of the decedent was in bad faith, it does necessaril# mean that the son was also in bad faith! The son presented to be in ;))0 1&IT5! 5owever, since the father was in $&0 1&IT5, the conse uences of the ;))0 1&IT5 of the son should be counted onl# from the date of the decedent/s death! Luer#: 1ather possessed in bad faith for 4 #ears 0iana Mubiri/s land, after which the propert# was presumabl# inherited 0odong, the father/s son! 0odoong was in good faith! If 0iana within 4 #ears brings an action to recover the propert# and fruits, should 0iana/s action prosper* &nswer: -egarding the land, J"%, because 0odong has not #et become the owner! -egarding the fruitsCCC a! 0odong does not have to reimburse the value of the fruits for the 4C#ear period he was in possession, since he is a possessor of ;))0 1&IT5! b! $ut, if 0odong obtained an# cash or benefit from the fruits harvested b# his father, said value must be returned <minus the necessar# e2penses for cultivation, gathering and harvesting> because the father was in bad faith, and the effects of 0odong/s good faith, it must be remembered, should onl# commence from the father/s death! ?II! (ase: &M=&- vs! J&P0I&=;() 5eld: Jou ma# ac uire title if there was in fact deliver# of the sub+ect matter! -D6" )= I--"I?I=0I(&$I6ITJ (6&=0"%TI=" P)%%"%%I)= is a secret possession b# stealth! 1or clandestine possession to affect the owner/s possession, the possession must also be unknown to the owner! If it is secret to man# but known to the owner, his possession is affected! There is a presumption however that when possession is clandestine, it is also unknown to the owner! (ase: (D&J()=; vs! $"="0I(T) <47 P 7I1> 5eld: & permissive use b# an ad+acent proprietor of a road or path over the land of another no matter how long continued, could not create an easement of wa# b# prescription! The mere fact that a tract of land has been used for a long time as a road will not give the presumption that it has been dedicated to the public! 1urther, an easement of right of wa# is a continuous and apparent easement and thus cannot be ac uired b# prescription! &rt! '4'! If at that time the good faith ceases, there should be an# natural or industrial fruits, the possessor shall have a right to a part of the e2penses of cultivation, and to a part of the net harvest, both in proportion to the time of possession! The charges shall be divided on the same basis of two possessors! The owner of the thing ma#, should he so desires, give the possessor in good faith the right to finish the cultivation and gathering of the growing fruits, as an indemnit# for his part of the

e2penses of cultivation and the net proceedsB the possessor in good faith who for an# reason whatever should refuse to accept this concession, shall have the right to be indemnified in an# other matter! The article refers to the rights about pending fruits, if there is no harvest, the e2penses shall be divided in proportion respectivel#! Therefore, the owner has two options! To take possession of the land but he is obliged to share with the e2penses incurred in the cultivation and a part of the net harvest, ) To allow the possessor in good faith to finish the cultivation and gathering of the growing crops as an indemnit# for his part of the e2penses of cultivation and net proceeds! 7)0"% )1 "NTI=;DI%57"=T )1 "&%"7"=T% 1! b# merger ,! b# nonCuser for 10 #ears 4! b# impossibilit# of use or bad condition of the tenement 4! b# e2piration of the term or fulfilment of the condition '! waiver or renunciation of the dominant estate 3! redemption agreed upon 7! other causes! III! &TT-&(TI?" =DI%&=("! This is an# contrivance which is ver# attractive to children but ver# dangerous to them! &n attractive nuisance is not illegal! It ma# be legal or legitimate thing but because of its nature, it can easil# in+ure a child that is wh# it is called attractive nuisance! If one is an owner of an attractive nuisance, he is re uired to e2ercise the highest degree of diligence to prevent it from being pla#ed b# children! I?! -"LDI%IT"% 1)- T5" "%T&$6I%57"=T )1 & -I;5T )1 .&J That the dominant estate is surrounded b# immovables and there is no ade uate wa# to the public highwa# That there is no pa#ment of indemnit# That the isolation is not caused b# proprietor/s act That the right wa# claimed is at a point least pre+udicial to the servient estate! &rt! '79! The usufructuar# ma# make on apropert# held in usufruct such useful improvements or e2penses for mere pleasure as he ma# deem proper, provided he does not alter its form or substanceB but he shall have no right to be indemnified therefor! 5e ma#, however, remove such improvements, should it be possible to do so without damage to the propert#! & usufructuar# introduced useful improvements, which he can remove without damage, but he does not want remove them! (an he be compelled b# the naked owner to make removal* =o, for the law sa#s Gma#H and therefore he ma# or ma# not remove, the right being potestative! & usufructuar# introduced useful improvements which he can remove without damage! 5e wants to remove them but the owner wants to retain them and offers to reimburse them! .ho should prevail* The usufructuar# prevails for the right of removal is granted to him b# the law! )n a parcel of land held b# & in usufruct, & constructed a building and planted some trees! Dpon the termination of the usufruct, ma# & destro# the building and cut down trees*

Page 4 of 5

Jes, because he after all owned the improvements and he could thus remove them for the land would not be in+ured! 5owever, he must leave the land in the wa# it had been before construction of the building and the planting of the trees! In the case of a sale of condominium, the bu#er is not deemed the owners of the separate interest and the undivided interest in the lot and other common areas until 1D66 P&J7"=T is made! 1ull pa#ment is a On action sine ua non to of which, which in turn ipso facto makes him a shareholder of the condominium corporation incited in the case of %D=%"T ?I". vs! (&7P)%! &ccession is the right pertaining to an owner of a propert# to ever#thing produced attached or incorporated to it naturall# or artificiall#! &s a general rule, accessor# follows the principal! 5owever, accession is not made of ac uiring ownership for accession presupposes ownership! Instances when the owner of the land does not own the fruits: 1! Possessor in good faith of the land! 5e owns the fruits alread# received! ,! Dsufructuar# 4! 6essee gets the fruits of the land <owner gets the civil fruits from the rentals> 4! In the contract of antichresis, the antichretic creditor gets the fruits, although of course, said fruits should be complied first to the interest, if an# is owing, and then to the principal amount of the loan! (haracteristics of () ).="-%5IP Pluralit# of sub+ects %ingularit# of ob+ects 0esignation of ideal shares %ources of () ).="-%5IP 6aw (ontract (hance )ccupation .ll

RECURRING QUESTIONS 1! ,! 4! 4! '! (hattel mortgage of building is valid between parties! $uilding sub+ect of a chattel mortgage! ?alid between the parties on the ground of estoped! =onCcompliance with the law on e2ecution! ?alid groud to uestion the validit# of the sale! Painting placed in a house temporaril#, considered as a movable propert#! &! &fter lease, machineries shall pertain to the lesee, movable! $! 7achineries placed b# the owner in an industr#, movable! (hina $ank ownership of the land, void! &lien cannot own real propert#! -ights of a person over his propert#! "n+o#, dispose, recover! 5idden treasure! )wnership is with the owner and under who is not a trespasser! -e uisites! 6imitations on the right if ownership! Imposed b# the state, donor, law, owner! Tanks and water pumps are personal properties, can be separated without breaking the material! $asement of a part# wall! Part# wall is the servient estate! 0istinguish between servient and dominant easements! -ule on finder/s keepers! If owner is knownPunknown! .hen ownership conferred! =oises! =uisance! (oncept! Proof is re uired! 0isturbancePin+ur# be#ond what is reasonable! 6imitations imposed9 the donor who wants to dispose 9 or his propert# b# donation in vivos! 0octrines! Trademark! 1unctions of trademarks! Tests used! 0ominanc#, similarit#, dissimilarit#! 0onations prohibited b# law! 0onations between spouses! "2ceptions! )wnership of land b# an alien! ?oid! -evocationPreduction of donation! -ight of retention of lessee under &rt! 44I! =one! .hen &rt! 44I applicable! Penalties of donation! Personal propert#! -eal propert#! "asements, how created! $# the court* "asement, should not depart from its purpose! 1ailure to ascertain true identit# of the seller is bad faith! .hen in good faith! -ight to collect rent! Pertains onl# to the owner! (landestine possession! =ot ripen into ownership! &! -emoval of useful improvements belong to the usufructuar#! $! Dsufructuar# has the option to remove the improvement of not! 7istake in law! ;ood faith! Kasilag vs! -o ue case! )wnership not transferred, want of deliver#! (oncept of irreivindicabilit#! ;eneral rule! "2ceptions! "2ceptions to e2cept! -emed#! &! )ccupation vs! Possession $! 6and not ac uired b# occupation! -egalian 0octrine! .hat is usufruct* Purpose! In a usufructuar#, building was destro#ed, effects! Presumptions of ownership! "numerate! 8ust title vs! (olorable title! 8ust title in GpossessionH and in GprescriptionH! Dnlawful deprivation! &@nar vs! Japdiangco case! "0(& and Tagactac case! "2tinguishment of usurfructuar# and its conditions! -estrictions in easements! %hould not add burden! ?iolations of restrictive easements 0istance, re uisites, construction of building ad+oining estates

3! 7! I! 9! 10! 11! 1,! 14! 14! 1'! 13! 17! 1I! 19! ,0! ,1! ,,! ,4! ,4! ,'!

,3! ,7! ,I! ,9! 40! 41! 4,! 44! 44! 4'! 43! 47!

Page 5 of 5

4I! "asement of right of wa#! ;auge Q =ecessit# and not convenience 49! 0onations! Inapplicabilit# 40! (omputation of inofficious donation 41! 7ere tolerance, not e uivalent to ownership 4,! "2tinguishment of easement, enumerate 44! "asement of right of wa#! 5ow established* -e uisites! (an it be ac uired thru prescription* 44! " uipments, movable or immovable* .ould an action for replevin prosper* It depends! 4'! Inherent powers of the state as a limitation on ownership! Police, eminent domain, ta2ation 43! 0octrine of self helpB re uisites, mere disturbance mere possession 47! 0octrine of necessit#B re uisites 4I! Patrimonial propert# of the state 49! Propert# of public dominion when converted to patrimonial! "2ecutive act pursuant to a law! '0! "lectric posts are not immovables, not permanentl# attached thereto and can be separated from the land! '1! (haracteristics of pulbic properties! (an/t be sub+ect of attachmentPe2ecution! ',! Prescription to lie against a coCownerB re uisites '4! (oCownership! Partition of propert#! Prescription! =aturePrights of coCowner over the propert#! '4! .ould an issue on registration bar an action for recover# of possession* =o! ''! 1ruits falling in ad+acent lands! $ranches that go be#ond boundaries! -oots that e2tend to another/s land! '3! 6essee not entitled to right of retention! $ad faith! '7! Infringement! %imilarit# and dissimilarit# tests! 0el monte and %an 7iguel cases! 'I! (an parties classifi# a peropert# as movable when classified b# law as immovable! ;eneral rule: =o! "2ception re uisites: <1> &gree <,> =o one will be in+ured thereb#! '9! 7achiner#, receptacles, instruments, when immovable* .hen movable* 30! %eparation of properties under Par 4 and '! of 41' <immovable>! 0istinguish! 31! 6egal guardianship over a dead person, valid* 3,! "numerate properties a uired b# accession! 0iscretaP(ontinua 34! (onstruction of pumpling station, nuisance* Public use! =o, but it ma# be considered as one if be#ond normal!