UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE – RECOLLETOS

COLLEGE OF LAW

Civil Law Review 1

August 16, 2019

Dear CLR1 Students,

For the 6th Lecture week, we will continue our Lecture on Ownership,
particularly the Rights to Accession Discreta, Accession Continua Natural,
and Accession Continua Industrial and evidence of ownership pertinent to
the subject matter of Land Titles. We will then also discuss Co-ownership,
Possession, and if time permits, Usufruct. To help prepare, please study
the following provisions of law, jurisprudence, and commentaries by
various civil law authors:

1. The Property Code, specifically, Articles 484 – 483 of the New

Civil Code.

2. Civil Law Reviewer by Rabuya, Volume 1, pp. 372-520;

3. The following cases:

(a) Republic of the Philippines v. Hon. Normelito J. Ballocanag,

et. al., GR No. 163794, November 28, 2008;
(b) Midway Maritime & Technological Foundation, Inc., v. Marissa
E. Castro, GR No. 189061, August 6, 2014;
(c) Heirs of Joaquin Limense v. Rita Vda. De Ramos, et. al., GR
No. 152319, October 28, 2009;
(d) Serafin Cheng v. Spouses Vittorio and Ma. Helen Donini, GR
No. 167017, June 22, 2009;
(e) Eden Ballatan, et. al., v. Court of Appeals, et. al., GR No.
125683, March 2, 1999;
(f) Mercy Vda. De Roxas, v. Our Lady’s Foundation, Inc., GR No.
182378, March 6, 2013;
(g) Heirs of Emiliano Navarro v. Intermediate Appellate Court, et.
al., GR No. 68166, February 12, 1997;
(h) Heirs of Francisco Narvasa, et. al., v. Emiliana Imbornal, et.
al., G.R. No. 182908, August 6, 2014;
(i) Spouses Crispin & Caridad Galang v. Spouses Conrado & Fe
Reyes, GR No. 184746, August 8, 2012;
(j) Wilfredo & Lolita Vagilidad, v. Gabino & Dorothy Vagilidad,
GR No. 161136, November 16, 2006;
(k) Vicente Torres, Jr., et. al., v. Lorenzo Lapinid, et. al., GR No.
187987, November 26, 2014;
(l) Vilma Quintos, et. al., v. Pelagia Nicolas, et. al., GR No.
210252, June 16, 2014;
(m) Manuel T. De Guia vs. Court of Appeals, GR # 120864, October
8, 2003;
Civil Law Review, S.Y. 2018-2019, 1st Semester
Jennoh H. Tequillo
 (n) Spouses Charlito & Anne Coja, v. Court of Appeals, et. al., GR
No. 151153, December 10, 2007;
(o) Spouses Jose and Hermogena Engreso v. Herminio and
Nestoria dela Cruz, GR No. 148727, April 9, 2003;
(p) Leonor B. Cruz, v. Teofila M. Catapang, GR No. 164110,
February 12, 2008;
(q) Corinthian Realty vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150240, Dec.
26, 2002;
(r) Carolina Vda. De Figuracion, et. al., v. Emilia Figuracion-
Gerilla, GR No. 151334, February 13, 2013;
(s) Benjamin Coronel vs. Florentino Constantino, GR# 121069,
Feb 7, 2003;
(t) City of Mandaluyong vs. Antonio N. Aguilar, GR# 137152, Jan.
29, 2001;
(u) Lilia Sanchez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 152766, June 20,
2003;
(v) Reynaldo Aguirre vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122249, Jan.
29, 2004;
(w) Sps. Alexander and Adelaida Cruz vs. Eleuterio Leis, G.R. No.
125233, March 9, 2000;
(x) Teresita S. Reyes-De Leon vs. Vicente B. Del Rosario, G.R.
No. 152862, July 26, 2004;
(y) Agueda De Vera vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97761, April 14,
1999;
(z) Sps. Dario and Matilde Lacap vs. Jouvet Ong Lee, G.R. No.
142131, Dec. 11, 2002;
(aa) CIR vs. Solidbank Corp., G.R. No. 148191, Nov. 25, 2003;
(bb) Republic of the Phils. vs. Jerry V. David, G.R. No. 155634,
August 16, 2004;
(cc) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Solidbank Corp., G.R.
No. 148191, November 25, 2003;
(dd) Jose C. Lee vs. RTC of Quezon City Branch 85, G.R. No.
146006, February 23, 2004;
(ee) Fernanda Mendoza Cequena vs. Honorata Mendoza Bolante,
G.R. No. 137944, April 6, 2000;
(ff) Philippine Trust Co. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124658,
Dec. 15, 1999;
(gg) Fernanda Mendoza Cequena vs. Honorata Mendoza Bolante,
G.R. No. 137944, April 6, 2000;
(hh) BPI Family Bank vs. Amado Franco, et al., G.R. No. 123498,
November 23, 2007;

Lastly, please also rehearse answering the following sample Final

Exams questions:

1. Manuel owned a piece of land with an area of 2 hectares adjacent to the

sea subject to an Original Certificate of Title issued by the Land
Registration Authority in his name. Of these 2 hectares, around 1 hectare
is submerged in water. The remaining one hectare, on the other hand, is
occupied by uninvited squatters. Manuel filed a case for forcible entry
against these squatters. In their defense, the squatters claimed that
Manuel can not fairly claim ownership over these lands, because, by their
nature, they constitute “foreshore lands” which form part of the public
domain. To prove their defense the squatters proved the location of the
dry portion of the property to be proximate to the submerged portion. They

Civil Law Review, S.Y. 2018-2019, 1st Semester

Jennoh H. Tequillo
 admitted, however, that the property remained dry all throughout the year.
If you were the honorable presiding judge, how would you rule?

2. Mr. and Mrs. X migrated to the US with all their children. As they had no
intention of coming back, they offered their house and lot for sale to their
neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. A (the buyers) who agreed to buy the property for
P8 Million. Because Mr. and Mrs. A needed to obtain a loan from a bank
first, and since the sellers were in a hurry to migrate, the latter told the
buyers that they could already occupy the house, renovate it as it was
already in a state of disrepair, and pay only when their loan is approved
and released. While waiting for the loan approval, the buyers spent. P1
Million in repairing the house. A month later, a person carrying an
authenticated special power of attorney from the sellers demanded that
the buyers either immediately pay for the property in full now or vacate it
and pay damages for having made improvements on the property without
a sale having been perfected. (a) What are the buyers' options or legal
rights with respect to the expenses they incurred in improving the property
under the circumstances? (b) Can the buyers be made to immediately
vacate on the ground that the sale was not perfected? Explain briefly.
3. Nikko and Florinda, husband and wife, owns Lot 888. Prior to their
Marriage, they signed a Marriage Settlement stipulating to be governed by
the Conjugal Partnership of Gains. 10 years into their Marriage, Florinda
filed a Petition for the Declaration of Nullity of their Marriage on the ground
of Article 36 of the Family Code. The Court granted their Petition, which
became final and executory. The couple, however, failed to dissolve or
liquidate their conjugal properties. They went their separate ways without
settling their conjugal assets. 2 years after the declaration of the nullity of
their marriage, Florinda applied for a loan from METROBANK and she
delivered Lot 888 to them by way of Real Estate Mortgage without the
consent of her former husband. When Nikko heard about the
encumbrance, he sued METROBANK for nullity of the Real Estate
Mortgage. METROBANK contended that since his marriage was already
dissolved, Nikko had no cause of action against them, since Lot 888
ceased to be conjugal property. Is the Real Estate Mortgage valid?

4. X, Y, Z are siblings who inherited a IO-storey building from their parents.

They agreed in writing to maintain it as a co-owned property for leasing
out and to divide the net profits among themselves equally for a period of
20 years. On the 8th year, X wanted to get out of the co-ownership so he
could get his 1/3 share in the property. Y and Z refused, saying X is bound
by their agreement to keep the co-ownership for 20 years. Are Y and Z
correct? Explain.
5. Don Fabian is the owner of Lot 349. He has 4 children. In order to protect
Lot 349 from his creditors, Don Fabian agreed to sign an absolutely
simulated sale in favor of Fidel, one of his children. Everyone in the family
was told that no money changed hands between Fidel and Don Fabian.
For the next 10 years, Don Fabian never gave up possession of Lot 349.
On the 10th year, Don Fabian died. Fidel and his wife took possession of
Lot 349 in the concept of owner. For five years, the three siblings of Fidel
pleaded with him to already partition Lot 349. Fidel refused, saying he was
already the registered owner of Lot 349. So his 3 siblings sued him for
Judicial Partition of Lot 349. In his Answer, Fidel assailed his siblings’ right
of action to sue him for partition, since they did not even appear to be his
registered co-owners. Furthermore, Fidel claims that his possession

Civil Law Review, S.Y. 2018-2019, 1st Semester

Jennoh H. Tequillo
 already ripened into ownership by virtue of acquisitive prescription from
the time he repudiated their co-ownership at the time when Don Fabian
sold the property to him. Who is the owner of Lot 349? Decide.
6. Mr. and Mrs. Roman and Mr. and Mrs. Cruz filed an application for
registration of a parcel of land which after due proceedings was granted
by the RTC acting as a land registration court. However, before the decree
of registration could be issued, the spouses Roman and the spouses Cruz
sold the lot to Juan. In the notarized deed of sale, the sellers expressly
undertook to submit the deed of sale to the land registration court so that
the title to the property would be directly issued in Juan's name. (a) Is
such a stipulation valid? (b) Distinguish a direct attack from a collateral
attack on a title. (c) If the title in Item XX.A is issued in the names of the
original sellers, would a motion filed by Juan in the same case to correct
or amend the title in order to reflect his name as owner be considered a
collateral attack?
7. O, owner of Lot A, learning that Japanese soldiers may have buried gold
and other treasures at the adjoining vacant Lot B belonging to spouses X
& Y, excavated in Lot B where she succeeded in unearthing gold and
precious stones. How will the treasures found by O be divided?
8. Respondent Cortez, a missionary by vocation established an orphanage
and school in Punta Verde, Palaui Island, San Vicente, Sta. Ana,
Cagayan. He claimed that since 1962, he has been in peaceful
possession of about 50 hectares of land located in the western portion of
Palaui Island which he, with the help of Aetas and other people under his
care, cleared and developed for agricultural purposes in order to support
his charitable, humanitarian and missionary works. On May 22, 1967,
President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 201 reserving the 2,000
hectares of the southern half portion of the Palaui Island for military
purposes a parcel of the public domain. On August 16, 1994, President
Ramos issued Proclamation No. 447 declaring Palaui Island and the
surrounding waters situated in the Municipality of Sta. Ana, Cagayan as
marine reserve. These reserved lands were withdrawn from sale or
settlement and reserved for the use of the Philippine Navy and marine
protected area, subject, however, to private rights if there be any. On June
13, 2000, respondent filed a Petition for Injunction with Prayer for the
Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction against Biñas,
Commanding Officer of the Philippine Naval Command. Respondent
alleged that some members of the Philippine Navy, upon orders of Biñas,
disturbed his peaceful and lawful possession of the said 50-hectare
portion of Palaui Island when on March 15, 2000, they commanded him
and his men, through the use of force and intimidation, to vacate the area.
The RTC granted the application for a writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction only up to five hectares (subject area) not to the whole 50
hectares claimed to have been occupied by Rev. Cortez. The said order
was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Is the subject property can be a
proper object of possession?
9. Mr. Bong owns several properties in Pasig City. He decided to build a
condominium named Flores de Manila in one of his lots. To fund the
project, he obtained a loan from the National Bank (NB) secured by a real
estate mortgage over the adjoining property which he also owned. During
construction, he built three (3) pumps on the mortgaged property to supply
water to the condominium. After one (1) year, the project was completed
and the condominium was turned over to the buyers. However, Mr. Bong

Civil Law Review, S.Y. 2018-2019, 1st Semester

Jennoh H. Tequillo
 failed to pay his loan obligation to NB. Thus, NB foreclosed the mortgaged
property where the pumps were installed. During the sale on public
auction of the mortgaged property, Mr. Simon won in the bidding. When
Mr. Simon attempted to take possession of the property, the condominium
owners, who in the meantime constituted themselves into Flores de
Manila Inc. (FMI), claimed that they have earlier filed a case for the
declaration of the existence of an easement before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Pasig City and prayed that the easement be annotated in
the title of the property foreclosed by NB. FMI further claimed that when
Mr. Bong installed the pumps in his adjoining property, a voluntary
easement was constituted in favor of FMI. Will the action prosper?
10. Six tenants sued X, the landowner, for willfully denying them water for their
farms, which water happened to flow from land under X’s control, his
intention being to force them to leave his properties. Is X liable for his act
and why?
11. X, Y, and Z are co-owners of Lot 12345, which is a 1000 square-meter
titled property. X and Y left for Canada to reside and work there. Before
they left, they appointed Z as administrator of the co-ownership by a
unanimous vote. In their absence, Z then entered into a 10-year contract
with a Montessori school using his power as administrator. When X and Y
learned about this contract, they vehemently objected and they emailed Z
that the lease is invalid. Is the lease, in fact, valid or invalid?
12. A’s pure diamond was accidentally attached in a fixed manner to B’s
bronze ring, without anyone’s bad faith. B as owner of the ring insisted to
appropriate the diamond upon payment of its value to A. Can B prevail
over A’s objection?
13. Vicente, Mariano and Carlos are co-owners of several parcels of land
located at Cogon, Carcar, Cebu; among which is the subject of this case.
In 1993, Jesus filed a case for partition against them and other co-owners;
which was resolved by a Compromise Agreement in 2001, wherein they
agreed that Jesus, Mariano and Vicente were jointly authorized to sell the
said properties and receive the proceeds thereof and distribute them to all
the co-owners. However, the agreement was later amended to exclude
Jesus as an authorized seller. Upon inspection by Vicente, Mariano and
Carlos, they discovered that a certain Lapinid was occupying a specific
portion of the 3000 square meters of Lot No. 4389 by virtue of a deed of
sale executed by Jesus in favor of Lapinid sometime in 1997.

Vicente, Mariano and Carlos filed a case praying that the deed of sale be
declared null and void arguing that the sale of a definite portion of a co-
owned property without notice to the other co-owners is without force and
effect. Is the sale between Lapinid and Jesus valid?

14. A holds no title to a parcel of land, but has possessed it for more than 10
years already. On the 11th year, A leased that parcel of land to B by way of
a Contract of Lease. On that year, B constructed a building worth 10
Million Pesos on the Property. On the fifth year, the lease contract expired.
The lessee claims a right of retention until full payment, for being a builder
in good faith. (a) Can this lessee, in fact, be a builder in good faith? (b)
What rights, if any, does B, the Lessee, hold pertinent to the useful
improvements he made on A’s property?
15. A’s pure diamond was accidentally attached in a fixed manner to B’s
bronze ring, without anyone’s bad faith. B as owner of the ring insisted to
Civil Law Review, S.Y. 2018-2019, 1st Semester
Jennoh H. Tequillo
 appropriate the diamond upon payment of its value to A. Can B prevail
over A’s objection?
16. Spouses Magtanggol managed and operated a gasoline station on a
1,000 sq.m. lot which they leased from Francisco Bigla-awa. The contract
was for a period of three (3) years. When the contract expired, Francisco
asked the spouses to peacefully vacate the premises. The spouses
ignored the demand and continued with the operation of the gasoline
station. One month after, Francisco, with the aid of a group of armed
men, caused the closure of the gasoline station by constructing fences
around it. Was the act of Francisco and his men lawful? Why?
17. On March 27, 1980, Cornelio filed an application for land registration
involving a parcel of agricultural land that he had bought from Isaac
identified as Lot No. 2716 with an area of one (1) hectare. During the trial,
Cornelio claimed that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in
open, continuous, uninterrupted, public and adverse possession and
occupation of the land for more than thirty (30) years. He likewise
introduced in evidence a certification dated February 12, 1981 citing a
presidential declaration to the effect that on June 14, 1980, agricultural
lands of the public domain, including the subject matter of the application,
were declared alienable and disposable agricultural land. (a) If you are the
judge, will you grant the application for land registration of Cornelio? (b)
Can Cornelio acquire said agricultural land through acquisitive
prescription, whether ordinary or extraordinary?
18. 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?
19. 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?
20. The Roppongi property in Japan, consists of the land and building for the
Chancery of the Philippine Embassy. As intended, it became the site of
the Philippine Embassy until the latter was transferred to Nampeidai when
the Roppongi building needed major repairs. Due to the failure of our
government to provide the necessary funds, the Roppongi property has
remained undeveloped since that time.
A proposal was presented to President A by former Philippine
Ambassador V, to make the property subject of a lease agreement with a
Japanese firm. The president issued E.O. No. 296 entitling non-Filipino
citizens or entities to avail of reparations’ capital goods and services in the
event of sale, lease or disposition. The Roppongi property was specifically
mentioned in the first “Whereas” clause.
X objects to the alienation of the Roppongi property to anyone and adds
as a principal objection the alleged unjustified bias of the Philippine
government in favor of selling the property to non-Filipino citizens and
entities. X submits that the Roppongi property comes under “property
intended for public service” in paragraph 2 of Article 420 of the Civil Code.

Civil Law Review, S.Y. 2018-2019, 1st Semester

Jennoh H. Tequillo
Y refute X’s contention by saying that the subject property is not governed
by our Civil Code but by the laws of Japan where the property is located.
Y rely upon the rule of lex situs which is used in determining the applicable
law regarding the acquisition, transfer and devolution of the title to a
property. They add that assuming arguendo that the Civil Code is
applicable, the Roppongi property has ceased to become property of
public dominion. That it has become patrimonial property because it has
not been used for public service or for diplomatic purposes for over
thirteen (13) years now. Whose contention will prosper?

Thanks,

J.H. Tequillo

Civil Law Review, S.Y. 2018-2019, 1st Semester

Jennoh H. Tequillo