Ownership; Co-Ownership (1992) (e) What are the legal effects of the contract of sale

executed by A. C and X? Reasons.

A, B and C are the co-owners in equal shares of a residential house
and lot. During their co-ownership, the following acts were
respectively done by the co-owners:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) A undertook the repair of the foundation of the house, then
(a) Yes. A’s sole decision to repair the foundation is binding
tilting to one side, to prevent the house from collapsing.
upon B and C. B and C must contribute 2/3 of the expense. Each co-
2) B and C mortgaged the house and lot to secure a loan. owner has the right to compel the other co-owners to contribute to
the expense of preservation of the thing (the house) owned in
3) B engaged a contractor to build a concrete fence all around the common in proportion to their respective interests (Arts. 485 and
lot. 488, Civil Code).
4) C built a beautiful grotto in the garden. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
5) A and C sold the land to X for a very good price. (b) The mortgage shall not bind the 1/3 right and interest of A and
(a) Is A’s sole decision to repair the foundation of the house shall be deemed to cover only the rights and interests of B and C in
binding on B and C? May A require B and C to contribute their 2/3 the house and lot. The mortgage shall be limited to the portion (2/3)
share of the expense? Reasons. which may be allotted to B and C in the partition (Art. 493, Civil
Code).
(b) What is the legal effect of the mortgage contract
executed by B and C? Reasons. SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(c) Is B’s sole decision to build the fence binding upon A (c) B’s sole decision to build the concrete fence is not binding
and C? May B require A and C to contribute their 2/ 3 share of the upon A and C. Expenses to improve the thing owned in common
expense? Reasons. must be decided upon by a majority of the co-owners who
represent the controlling interest (Arts. 489 and 492. Civil Code).
(d) Is C’s sole decision to build the grotto binding upon A
and B? May C require A and B to contribute their 2/ 3 share of the
expense? Reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(d) C’s sole decision to build the grotto is not binding upon A and B Ramon is wrong on both counts: prescription and laches. His
who cannot be required to contribute to the expenses for the possession as co-owner did not give rise to acquisitive prescription.
embellishment of the thing owned in common if not decided upon Possession by a co-owner is deemed not adverse to the other co-
by the majority of the co- owners who represent the controlling owners but is, on the contrary, deemed beneficial to them (Pongon
interest (Arts. 489 and 492, Civil Code). v. GA, 166 SCRA 375). Ramon’s possession will become adverse only
when he has repudiated the co-ownership and such repudiation
SUGGESTED ANSWER: was made known to Rosario. Assuming that the sale in 1985 where
(e) The sale to X shall not bind the 1/3 share of B and shall be Ramon claimed he was the sole heir of his parents amounted to a
deemed to cover only the 2/3 share of A and C in the land (Art. 493, repudiation of the co-ownership, the prescriptive period began to
Civil Code). B shall have the right to redeem the 2/3 share sold to X run only from that time. Not more than 30 years having lapsed since
by A and C since X is a third person (Art. 1620, Civil Code). then, the claim of Rosario has not as yet prescribed. The claim of
laches is not also meritorious. Until the repudiation of the co-
ownership was made known to the other co-owners, no right has
been violated for the said co-owners to vindicate. Mere delay in
Ownership; Co-Ownership; Prescription (2000)
vindicating the right, standing alone, does not constitute laches.
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. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
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 Ramon has acquired the land by acquisitive prescription, and
sole heir of his parents. Having reached retirement age in 1990 because of laches on the part of Rosario. Ramon’s possession of the
Rosario returned to the province and upon learning what had land was adverse because he asserted sole ownership thereof and
transpired, demanded that the remaining half of the land be given never shared the harvest therefrom. His adverse possession having
to her as her share. Ramon opposed, asserting that he has already been continuous and uninterrupted for more than 30 years, Ramon
acquired ownership of the land by prescription, and that Rosario is has acquired the land by prescription. Rosario is also guilty of laches
barred by laches from demanding partition and reconveyance. not having asserted her right to the harvest for more than 40 years.
Decide the conflicting claims.
Ownership; Co-Ownership; Prescription (2002) owner, he never claimed sole ownership of the property. He is
therefore estopped under Art. 1431, NCC.
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 Ownership; Co-Ownership; Redemption (1993)
had left, Senen seeks a partition of the farm to get his share as the In 1937, A obtained a loan of P20,000.00 from the National City
only co-heir of Peter. Peter interposes his opposition, contending Bank of New York, an American-owned bank doing business in the
that acquisitive prescription has already set in and that estoppel lies Philippines. To guarantee payment of his obligation, A constituted a
to bar the action for partition, citing his continuous possession of real estate mortgage on his 30- hectare parcel of agricultural land. In
the property for at least 10 years, for almost 30 years in fact. It is 1939, before he could pay his obligation. A died intestate leaving
undisputed that Peter has never openly claimed sole ownership of three children. B, a son by a first marriage, and C and D, daughters
the property. If he ever had the intention to do so, Senen was by a second marriage. In 1940, the bank foreclosed the mortgage for
completely ignorant of it. Will Senen’s action prosper? Explain. non-payment of the principal obligation. As the only bidder at the
extrajudicial foreclosure sale, the bank bought the property and was
later issued a certificate of sale. The war supervened in 1941
SUGGESTED ANSWER: without the bank having been able to obtain actual possession of
the property which remained with A’s three children who
Senen’s action will prosper. Article 494 of the New Civil Code appropriated for themselves the income from it. In 1948, B bought
provides that “no prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co- the property from the bank using the money he received as back
heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he expressly or pay from the U. S. Government, and utilized the same in
impliedly recognizes the co- ownership nor notified Senen of his agribusiness. In 1960, as B’s business flourished, C and D sued B
having repudiated the same. for partition and accounting of the income of the property, claiming
that as heirs of their father they were co-owners thereof and
offering to reimburse B for whatever he had paid in purchasing the
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: property from the bank.

Senen’s action will prosper. This is a case of implied trust. (Art 1441, In brief, how will you answer the complaint of C and D, if you were
NCC) For purposes of prescription under the concept of an owner engaged by D as his counsel?
(Art. 540, NCC). There is no such concept here. Peter was a co-
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Thereafter, she took possession of the hacienda and refused to
share its fruits with her sisters, contending that it was owned
As counsel of B, I shall answer the complaint as follows: When B exclusively by her, having bought it from the bank with her own
bought the property, it was not by a right of redemption since the money. Is she correct or not?
period therefore had already expired. Hence, B bought the property
in an independent unconditional sale. C and D are not co-owners
with B of the property. Therefore, the suit of C and D cannot
prosper. SUGGESTED ANSWER:

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Sylvia is not correct. The 3 daughters are the co-owners of the
hacienda being the only heirs of Ambrosio. When the property was
As counsel of B, I shall answer the complaint as follows: From the foreclosed, the right of redemption belongs also to the 3 daughters.
facts described, it would appear that the Certificate of sale When Sylvia redeemed the entire property before the lapse of the
has not been registered. The one-year period of redemption begins redemption period, she also exercised the right of redemption of
to run from registration. In this case, it has not yet even her co-owners on their behalf. As such she is holding the shares of
commenced. Under the Rules of Court, the property may be her two sisters in the property, and all the fruits corresponding
released by the Judgment debtor or his successor in interest. (Sec. thereto, in trust for them. Redemption by one co-owner inures to
29, Rule 27). It has been held that this includes a joint owner. (Ref. the benefit of all (Adille v. CA, 157 SCRA 455). Sylvia, however, is
Magno vs. Ciola, 61 Phil. 80). entitled to be reimbursed the shares of her two sisters in the
redemption price.

Ownership; Co-Ownership; Redemption (2000)

Ownership; Co-Ownership; Redemption (2002)
Ambrosio died, leaving his three daughters, Belen, Rosario and
Sylvia a hacienda which was mortgaged to the Philippine Antonio, Bart, and Carlos are brothers. They purchased from
National Bank due to the failure of the daughters to pay the bank, their parents specific portions of a parcel of land as evidenced by
the latter foreclosed the mortgage and the hacienda was sold to it three separates deeds of sale, each deed referring to a particular lot
as the highest bidder. Six months later, Sylvia won the grand prize at in meter and bounds. When the deeds were presented for
the lotto and used part of it to redeem the hacienda from the bank. registration, the Register of Deeds could not issue separate
certificates of Title had to be issued, therefore, in the names of Possession (1998)
three brothers as co- owners of the entire property. The situation
has not changed up to now, but each of the brothers has been 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
receiving rentals exclusively from the lot actually purchased by him.
Antonio sells his lot to a third person, with notice to his brothers. To United Car Sales Inc. The sale was registered with the Land
Transportation Office. A week later, the seller learned that the
enable the buyer to secure a new title in his name, the deed of sale
was made to refer to undivided interest in the property of the seller 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
(Antonio), with the metes and bounds of the lot sold being stated.
Bart and Carlos reacted by signifying their exercise of their right of present possessor who knew nothing about the falsified check. In a
suit by United Car Sales, Inc. against Jerico for recovery of the car,
redemption as co owners. Antonio in his behalf and in behalf of
his buyer, contends that they are no longer co- owners, although plaintiff alleges it had been unlawfully deprived of its property
through fraud and should, consequently, be allowed to recover it
the title covering the property has remained in their names as
such. without having to reimburse the defendant for the price the latter
had paid. Should the suit prosper?
May Bart and Carlos still redeem the lot sold by Antonio? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The suit should prosper as to the recovery of the car. However, since
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Jerico was not guilty of any fraud and appears to be an innocent
purchaser for value, he should be reimbursed for the price he paid.
No, they may not redeem because there was no Co- ownership This is without prejudice to United Car Sales, Inc. right of action
among Antonio, Bart, and Carlos to start with. Their parents already against Justine. As between two innocent parties, the party causing
partitioned the land in selling separate portions to them. The the injury should suffer the loss. Therefore, United Car Sales, Inc.
situation is the same as in the case Si v. Court of Appeals, (342 SCRA should suffer the loss.
653 [2000]).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Yes, the suit will prosper because the criminal act of estafa should
be deemed to come within the meaning of unlawful deprivation
under Art. 559, Civil Code, as without it plaintiff would not have
parted with the possession of its car.

ANOTHER ANSWER:

No, the suit will not prosper. The sale is valid and Jerico is a buyer in
good faith.

ANOTHER ANSWER:

Under the law on Sales, when the thing sold is delivered by the
seller to the buyer without reservation of ownership, the ownership
is transferred to the buyer. Therefore in the suit of United Car Sales,
Inc. against Jerico for the recovery of the car, the plaintiff should not
be allowed to recover the car without reimbursing the defendant for
the price that the latter paid. (EDCA Publishing and Distributing
Corp. vs. Santos, 184 SCRA 614. April 26, 1900).
Builder; Good Faith (1992) planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for in Articles 546
and 546 of the Civil Code.
A owns a parcel of residential land worth P500,000.00 unknown to
A, a residential house costing P 100,000.00 is built on the entire (b) A should pay B the sum of P50,000. Article 548 of the Civil Code
parcel by B who claims ownership of the land. Answer all the provides that useful expenses shall be refunded to the possessor in
following questions based on the premise that B is a builder in good faith with the right of retention, the person who has defeated
good faith and A is a landowner in good faith. him in the possession having the option of refunding the amount of
the expenses or of paying the increase in value which the thing may
a) May A acquire the house built by B? If so, how? have acquired by reason thereof. The increase in value amounts to
b) If the land increased in value to P500,000.00 by reason of the P50,000.00.
building of the house thereon, what amount should be paid by A (c) Yes, A may require B to buy the land. Article 448 of the Civil
in order to acquire the house from B? Code provides that the owner of the land on which anything has
c) Assuming the cost of the house was P90,000.00 and not been built in good faith shall have the right to oblige the one who
P100,000.00, may A require B to buy the land? built to pay the price of the land if its value is not considerably more
than that of the building,
d) If B voluntarily buys the land as desired by A, under what
circumstances may A nevertheless be entitled to have the house (d) If B agrees to buy land but fails to pay, A can have the house
removed? removed (Depra vs. Dumlao, 136 SCRA 475).

e) In what situation may a “forced lease” arise between A and B. (e) Article 448 of the Civil Code provides that the builder cannot be
and what terms and conditions would govern the lease? obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of
the building. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner
Give reasons for your answers. of the land does not choose to appropriate the building after proper
indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
in case of disagreement, the court fix the terms thereof.
(a) Yes, A may acquire the house build by B by paying indemnity to
B. Article 448 of the Civil Code provides that the owner of the land
on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good faith,
shall have the right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or
Builder; Good Faith vs. Bad Faith (1999) 447, in relation to Art 454). Y continues as owner of the lot and
becomes, under the second option, owner of the house as well,
(a) Because of confusion as to the boundaries of the adjoining after he pays the sums demanded.
lots that they bought from the same subdivision company, X
constructed a house on the adjoining lot of Y in the honest belief
that it is the land that he bought from the subdivision company.
Builder; Good Faith vs. Bad Faith (2000)
What are the respective rights of X and Y with respect to X’s house?

(b) Suppose X was in good faith but Y knew that X was In good faith, Pedro constructed a five-door commercial building on
the land of Pablo who was also in good faith. When Pablo
constructing on his (Y’s) land but simply kept quiet about it, thinking
perhaps that he could get X’s house later. What are the respective discovered the construction, he opted to appropriate the building by
paying Pedro the cost thereof. However, Pedro insists that he should
rights of the parties over X’s house in this case?
be paid the current market value of the building, which was
SUGGESTED ANSWER: much higher because of inflation.

(a) The rights of Y, as owner of the lot, and of X, as builder of a 1) Who is correct Pedro or Pablo?
house thereon, are governed by Art. 448 of the Civil Code which
2) In the meantime that Pedro is not yet paid, who is entitled to the
grants to Y the right to choose between two remedies: (a)
appropriate the house by indemnifying X for its value plus whatever rentals of the building, Pedro or Pablo?
necessary expenses the latter may have incurred for the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
preservation of the land, or (b) compel X to buy the land if the
price of the land is not considerably more than the value of the Pablo is correct. Under Article 448 of the New Civil Code in relation
house. If it is, then X cannot be obliged to buy the land but he shall to Article 546, the builder in good faith is entitled to a refund of the
pay reasonable rent, and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix necessary and useful expenses incurred by him, or the increase in
the terms of the lease. value which the land may have acquired by reason of the
improvement, at the option of the landowner. The builder is
SUGGESTED ANSWER: entitled to a refund of the expenses he incurred, and not to the
(b) Since the lot owner Y is deemed to be in bad faith (Art 453), X as market value of the improvement.
the party in good faith may (a) remove the house and demand
indemnification for damages suffered by him, or (b) demand
payment of the value of the house plus reparation for damages (Art
The case of Pecson v. CA, 244 SCRA 407, is not applicable to the Builder; Good Faith vs. Bad Faith; Accession (2000)
problem. In the Pecson case, the builder was the owner of the land
who later lost the property at a public sale due to non-payment of a) Demetrio knew that a piece of land bordering the beach belonged
to Ernesto. However, since the latter was studying in Europe and no
taxes. The Court ruled that Article 448 does not apply to the case
where the owner of the land is the builder but who later lost the one was taking care of the land, Demetrio occupied the same and
constructed thereon nipa sheds with tables and benches which he
land; not being applicable, the indemnity that should be paid to the
buyer must be the fair market value of the building and not just the rented out to people who want to have a picnic by the beach. When
Ernesto returned, he demanded the return of the land. Demetrio
cost of construction thereof. The Court opined in that case that to
do otherwise would unjustly enrich the new owner of the land. agreed to do so after he has removed the nipa sheds. Ernesto
refused to let Demetrio remove the nipa sheds on the ground that
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: these already belonged to him by right of accession. Who is correct?

Pedro is correct. In Pecson vs. CA, it was held that Article 546 of the
New Civil Code does not specifically state how the value of useful
improvements should be determined in fixing the amount of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
indemnity that the owner of the land should pay to the builder in Ernesto is correct, Demetrio is a builder in bad faith because he
good faith. Since the objective of the law is to adjust the rights of knew beforehand that the land belonged to Ernesto, under Article
the parties in such manner as “to administer complete justice to 449 of the New Civil Code, one who builds on the land of another
both of them in such a way as neither one nor the other may enrich loses what is built without right to indemnity. Ernesto becomes the
himself of that which does not belong to him”, the Court ruled that owner of the nipa sheds by right of accession. Hence, Ernesto is well
the basis of reimbursement should be the fair market value of the within his right in refusing to allow the removal of the nipa sheds.
building.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

2) Pablo is entitled to the rentals of the building. As the owner of

the land, Pablo is also the owner of the building being an accession
thereto. However, Pedro who is entitled to retain the building is also
entitled to retain the rentals. He, however, shall apply the rentals
to the indemnity payable to him after deducting reasonable cost of
repair and maintenance.
Builder; Good Faith vs. Bad Faith; Presumption (2001) or removed because this is not one of the options given by law to
the owner of the land. The owner may choose between the
Mike built a house on his lot in Pasay City. Two years later, a survey appropriation of what was built after payment of indemnity, or to
disclosed that a portion of the building actually stood on the compel the builder to pay for the land if the value of the land is not
neighboring land of Jose, to the extent of 40 square meters. Jose considerably more than that of the building. Otherwise, the builder
claims that Mike is a builder in bad faith because he should know shall pay rent for the portion of the land encroached.
the boundaries of his lot, and demands that the portion of the
house which encroached on his land should be destroyed or
removed. Mike replies that he is a builder in good faith and offers to
buy the land occupied by the building instead. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

1) Mike cannot be considered a builder in good faith because he

1) Is Mike a builder in good faith or bad faith? Why?
built his house without first determining the corners and boundaries
2) Whose preference should be followed? Why? of his lot to make sure that his construction was within the
perimeter of his property. He could have done this with the help of a
geodetic engineer as an ordinary prudent and reasonable man
SUGGESTED ANSWER: would do under the circumstances.

1) Yes, Mike is a builder in good faith. There is no showing that when 2) Jose’s preference should be followed. He may have the building
he built his house, he knew that a portion thereof encroached on removed at the expense of Mike, appropriate the building as his
Jose’s lot. Unless one is versed in the science of surveying, he cannot own, oblige Mike to buy the land and ask for damages in addition to
determine the precise boundaries or location of his property by any of the three options. (Articles 449, 450, 451, CC)
merely examining his title. In the absence of contrary proof, the law
presumes that the encroachment was done in good faith [Technogas
Phils v. CA, 268 SCRA 5, 15 (1997)].

2} None of the preferences shall be followed. The preference of

Mike cannot prevail because under Article 448 of the Civil Code, it is
the owner of the land who has the option or choice, not the builder.
On the other hand, the option belongs to Jose, he cannot demand
that the portion of the house encroaching on his land be destroyed
Easement vs. Usufruct (1995) b) Usufruct may be constituted on immovable or movable
property. Easement may be constituted only on an immovable
1. What is easement? Distinguish easement from usufruct. property.
2. Can there be (a) an easement over a usufruct? (b) a usufruct c) Easement is not extinguished by the death of the owner of
over an easement? (c) an easement over another easement? the dominant estate while usufruct is extinguished by the death of
Explain. the usufructuary unless a contrary intention appears.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: d) An easement contemplates two (2) estates belonging to two (2)
1. An EASEMENT or servitude is an encumbrance imposed upon different owners; a usufruct contemplates only one property (real
an immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging to a or personal) whereby the usufructuary uses and enjoys the
different owner. (Art. 613, NCC). property as well as its fruits, while another owns the naked title
during the period of the usufruct.
USUFRUCT gives a right to enjoy the property of another with the
obligation of preserving its form and substance, unless the title e) A usufruct may be alienated separately from the property to
constituting it or the law otherwise provides (Art. 562, NCC). which it attaches, while an easement cannot be alienated separately
from the property to which it attaches.

NOTE: It is recommended by the Committee that any two (2)

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: distinction sshould be given full credit.

Easement is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the

benefit of another immovable belonging to a different owner in
which case it is called real or predial easement, or for the benefit of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a community or group of persons in which case it is known as a 2. (a) There can be no easement over a usufruct. Since an easement
personal easement. may be constituted only on a corporeal immovable property,
The distinctions between usufruct and easement are: no easement may be constituted on a usufruct which is not a
corporeal right.
a) Usufruct includes all uses of the property and for all purposes,
including jus fruendi. Easement is limited to a specific use.
(b) There can be no usufruct over an easement. While a usufruct Easement; Effects; Discontinuous Easements; Permissive Use
maybe created over a right, such right must have an existence of its (2005)
own independent of the property. A servitude cannot be the
Don was the owner of an agricultural land with no access to a public
object of a usufruct because it has no existence independent of the
property to which It attaches. road. He had been passing through the land of Ernie with the latter’s
acquiescence for over 20 years. Subsequently, Don subdivided
his property into 20 residential lots and sold them to different
persons. Ernie blocked the pathway and refused to let the buyers
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS: pass through his land.
There cannot be a usufruct over an easement since an easement a) Did Don acquire an easement of right of way? Explain.
presupposes two (2) tenements belonging to different persons and
the right attaches to the tenement and not to the owner. While a
usufruct gives the usufructuary a right to use, right to enjoy, right to ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
the fruits, and right to possess, an easement gives only a limited use
No, Don did not acquire an easement of right of way. An easement
of the servient estate.
of right of way is discontinuous in nature — it is exercised only if a
However, a usufruct can be constituted over a property that has man passes over somebody’s land. Under Article 622 of the Civil
in its favor an easement or one burdened with servitude. The Code, discontinuous easements, whether apparent or not, may only
usufructuary will exercise the easement during the period of be acquired by virtue of a title. The Supreme Court, in Abellana, Sr.
usufruct. v. Court of Appeals (G.R. N0. 97039, April 24, 1992), ruled that an
easement of right of way being discontinuous in nature is not
(c) There can be no easement over another easement for the same acquirable by prescription.
reason as in (a). An easement, although it is a real right over an
immovable, is not a corporeal right. There is a Roman maxim which Further, possession of the easement by Don is only permissive,
says that: There can be no servitude over another servitude. tolerated or with the acquiescence of Ernie. It is settled in the case
of Cuaycong v. Benedicto (G.R. No. 9989, March 13, 1918)that a
permissive use of a road over the land of another, no matter how
long continued, will not create an easement of way by prescription.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, Don acquired an easement of right of way. An easement
that is continuous and apparent can be acquired by prescription and
title. According to Professor Tolentino, an easement of right of way SUGGESTED ANSWER:
may have a continuous nature if there is a degree of regularity to Prior to the grant of an easement, the buyers of the dominant
indicate continuity of possession and that if coupled with an estate have no other right than to compel grant of easement of right
apparent sign, such easement of way may be acquired by of way.
prescription.
Since the properties of the buyers are surrounded by other
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public highway and
Yes, Ernie could close the pathway on his land. Don has not the isolation is not due to their acts, buyers may demand an
easement of a right of way provided proper indemnity is paid and
acquired an easement of right of way either by agreement or by
judicial grant. Neither did the buyers. Thus, establishment of a road the right of way demanded is the shortest and least prejudicial to
Ernie. (Villanueva v. Velasco, G.R. No. 130845, November 27,2000).
or unlawful use of the land of Ernie would constitute an invasion of
possessory rights of the owner, which under Article 429 of the Civil
Code may be repelled or prevented. Ernie has the right to exclude
any person from the enjoyment and disposal of the land. This is an
attribute of ownership that Ernie enjoys.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Yes, Ernie may close the pathway, subject however, to the rights of
the lot buyers. Since there is no access to the public road, this
results in the creation of a legal easement. The lot buyers have the
right to demand that Ernie grant them a right of way. In turn, they
have the obligation to pay the value of the portion used as a
right of way, plus damages.

c) What are the rights of the lot buyers, if any? Explain.

Easement; Nuisance; Abatement (2002)
Lauro owns an agricultural land planted mostly with fruit trees. Hernando is not correct. Article 637 of the New Civil Code provides
Hernando owns an adjacent land devoted to his piggery that the owner of the higher estate cannot make works which will
business, which is two (2) meters higher in elevation. Although increase the burden on the servient estate. (Remman Enterprises,
Hernando has constructed a waste disposal lagoon for his piggery, it Inc. v. CA, 330 SCRA 145 [2000]). The owner of the higher estate
is inadequate to contain the waste water containing pig manure, may be compelled to pay damages to the owner of the lower
and it often overflows and inundates Lauro’s plantation. This has estate.
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 Easements; Classification (1998)
favor of his higher estate, which imposes upon the lower estate of
Lauro the obligation to receive the waters descending from the Distinguish between:
higher estate. Is Hernando correct?
1. Continuous and discontinuous easements;

2. Apparent and non-apparent easements; and

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
3. Positive and negative easements.
Hernando is wrong. It is true that Lauro’s land is burdened with the
natural easement to accept or receive the water which naturally and
without interruption of man descends from a higher estate to a SUGGESTED ANSWER:
lower estate. However, Hernando has constructed a waste disposal
lagoon for his piggery and it is this waste water that flows 1. CONTINUOUS EASEMENTS are those, the use of which is or may
downward to Lauro’s land. Hernando has, thus, interrupted the flow be incessant, without the intervention of any act of man, while
of water and has created and is maintaining a nuisance. Under Act. DISCONTINUOUS EASEMENTS are those which are used at intervals
697 NCC, abatement of a nuisance does not preclude recovery of and depend upon the acts of man. (Art. 615, Civil Code)
damages by Lauro even for the past existence of a nuisance.

The claim for damages may also be premised in Art. 2191 (4) NCC.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. APPARENT EASEMENTS are those which are made known and construct a road to have access to his plant nursery. Aniceta refused
are continually kept in view by external signs that reveal the use and claiming that she had already allowed him a previous road right of
enjoyment of the same, while NON- APPARENT EASEMENTS are way.
those which show no external indication of their existence. (Art.
615, Civil Code) Is Tomas entitled to the easement he now demands from Aniceta?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Art. 651 of the Civil Code provides that the width of the easement
3. POSITIVE EASEMENTS are those which impose upon the owner
of the servient estate the obligation of allowing something to be must be sufficient to meet the needs of the dominant estate, and
may accordingly change from time to time. It is the need of the
done or of doing it himself, while NEGATIVE EASEMENTS are those
which prohibit the owner of the servient estate from doing dominant estate which determines the width of the passage. These
needs may vary from time to time. As Tomas’ business grows, the
something which he could lawfully do if the easement did not exist.
(Art. 615. Civil Code) need for use of modern conveyances requires widening of the
easement.

Easements; Right of Way (1993)

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Tomas Encarnacion’s 3,000 square meter parcel of land, where he
has a plant nursery, is located just behind Aniceta Magsino’s two The facts show that the need for a wider right of way arose from
the increased production owing to the acquisition by Tomas of an
hectare parcel land. To enable Tomas to have access to the
highway, Aniceta agreed to grant him a road right of way a meter additional area. Under Art. 626 of the Civil Code, the easement can
be used only for the immovable originally contemplated. Hence, the
wide through which he could pass. Through the years Tomas’
business flourished which enabled him to buy another portion increase in width is justified and should have been granted.
which enlarged the area of his plant nursery. But he was still
landlocked. He could not bring in and out of his plant nursery a jeep
or delivery panel much less a truck that he needed to transport his
seedlings. He now asked Aniceta to grant him a wider portion of her
Easements; Right of Way (2000)
property, the price of which he was willing to pay, to enable him to
The coconut farm of Federico is surrounded by the lands of Romulo. had been extinguished by such failure to annotate. How would you
Federico seeks a right of way through a portion of the land of decide the controversy?
Romulo to bring his coconut products to the market. He has chosen
a point where he will pass through a housing project of Romulo. The
latter wants him to pass another way which is one kilometer longer. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Who should prevail?
The complaint for cancellation of easement of right of way must fail.
The failure to annotate the easement upon the title of the servient
estate is not among the grounds for extinguishing an easement
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
under Art. 631 of the Civil Code. Under Article 617, easements are
Romulo will prevail. Under Article 650 of the New Civil Code, the inseparable from the estate to which they actively or passively
easement of right of way shall be established at the point least belong. Once it attaches, it can only be extinguished under Art. 631,
prejudicial to the servient estate and where the distance from the and they exist even if they are not stated or annotated as an
dominant estate to a public highway is the shortest. In case of encumbrance on the Torrens title of the servient estate. (II Tolentino
conflict, the criterion of least prejudics prevails over the criterion of 326, 1987 ed.)
shortest distance. Since the route chosen by Federico will prejudice
the housing project of Romulo, Romulo has the right to demand that
Federico pass another way even though it will be longer. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Under Section 44, PD No. 1529, every registered owner receiving a

certificate of title pursuant to a decree of registration, and every
Easements; Right of Way; Inseparability (2001)
subsequent innocent purchaser for value, shall hold the same
Emma bought a parcel of land from Equitable-PCI Bank, which free from all encumbrances except those noted on said certificate.
acquired the same from Felisa, the original owner. Thereafter, Emma This rule, however, admits of exceptions.
discovered that Felisa had granted a right of way over the land in
Under Act 496, as amended by Act No. 2011, and Section 4, Act
favor of the land of Georgina, which had no outlet to a public
highway, but the easement was not annotated when the servient 3621, an easement if not registered shall remain and shall be held
to pass with the land until cutoff or extinguished by the
estate was registered under the Torrens system. Emma then filed a
complaint for cancellation of the right of way, on the ground that it registration of the servient estate. However, this provision has been
suppressed in Section 44, PD No. 1529. In other words, the
registration of the servient estate did not operate to cut-off or Art, 649, NCC. The owner, or any person who by virtue of a real right
extinguish the right of way. Therefore, the complaint for the may cultivate or use any immovable which is surrounded by other
cancellation of the right of way should be dismissed. immovables pertaining to other persons and without adequate
outlet to a public highway, is entitled to demand a right of way
through the neighboring estates, after payment of the property
Easements; Right of Way; Requisites (1996) indemnity.

David is the owner of the subdivision in Sta. Rosa, Laguna, without Should this easement be established in such a manner that its use
an access to the highway. When he applied for a license to establish may be continuous for all the needs of the dominant estate,
the subdivision, David represented that he will purchase a rice field establishing a permanent passage, the indemnity shall consist of the
located between his land and the highway, and develop it into an value of the land occupied and the amount of the damage caused to
access road. But. when the license was already granted, he did not the servient estate.
bother to buy the rice field, which remains unutilized until the In case the right of way is limited to the necessary passage for the
present. Instead, he chose to connect his subdivision with the cultivation of the estate surrounded by others and for the gathering
neighboring subdivision of Nestor, which has an access to the of its crops through the servient estate without a permanent way,
highway. Nestor allowed him to do this, pending negotiations on the the indemnity shall consist in the payment of the damage cause by
compensation to be paid. When they failed to arrive at an such encumbrance.
agreement, Nestor built a wall across the road connecting with
David’s subdivision. David filed a complaint in court, for the This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the immovable is
establishment of an easement of right of way through the due to the proprietor’s own acts (564a).
subdivision of Nestor which he claims to be the most adequate and
The easement of right of way shall be established at the point least
practical outlet to the highway.
prejudicial to the servient estate, and insofar as consistent with this
1) What are the requisites for the establishment of a compulsory rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a public
easement of a right of way? highway may be the shortest (Art. 650, NCC: Vda. de Baltazar v. CA,
245 SCRA 333)

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The requisites for a compulsory easement of right of way are: (a) the
dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and is without
an adequate outlet to a public street or highway; (b) proper
indemnity must be paid; (c) the isolation must not be due to the
acts of the owner of the dominant estate; and (d) the right of way
claimed is at a point least prejudicial to the servient estate and,
insofar as is consistent with this rule, where the distance to the
street or highway is shortest.

2) Is David entitled to a right of way in this case? Why or why not?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, David is not entitled to the right of way being claimed. The
isolation of his subdivision was due to his own act or omission
because he did not develop into an access road the rice field which
he was supposed to purchase according to his own representation
when he applied for a license to establish the subdivision (Florous v.
Llenado, 244 SCRA 713).

Nuisance; Family House; Not Nuisance per se (2006)

A drug lord and his family reside in a small bungalow where they sell It is a public nuisance if it affects a community or neighborhood or
shabu and other prohibited drugs. When the police found the illegal any considerable number of persons. It is a direct encroachment
trade, they immediately demolished the house because according to upon public rights or property which results injuriously to the public.
them, it was a nuisance per se that should be abated. Can this It is a private nuisance, if it affects only a person or small number of
demolition be sustained? Explain. persons. It violates only private rights.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) A squatter’s hut

No, the demolition cannot be sustained. The house is not a nuisance If constructed on public streets or riverbeds, it is a public nuisance
per se or at law as it is not an act, occupation, or structure which is a because it obstructs the free use by the public of said places. (City of
nuisance at all times and under any circumstances, regardless of Manila v. Garcia, G.R. No. L-26053, February 21, 1967). If
location or surroundings. A nuisance per se is a nuisance in and of constructed on private land, it is a private nuisance because it
itself, without regard to circumstances (Tolentino, p. 695, citing hinders or impairs the use of the property by the owner.
Wheeler v. River Falls Power Co., 215 Ala. 655,111 So. 907).
b) A swimming pool

This is not a nuisance in the absence of any unusual condition

Nuisance; Public Nuisance vs.Private Nuisance (2005) or artificial feature other than the mere water. In Hidalgo
Enterprises v. Balandan (G.R. No. L-3422, June 13, 1952), the
State with reason whether each of the following is a nuisance, Supreme Court ruled that a swimming pool is but a duplication of
and if so, give its classification, whether public or private: Article 694 nature — thus, could not be considered as a nuisance.
of the Civil Code defines nuisance as any act, omission,
establishment, business, condition or property, or anything else c) A house of prostitution
which injures or endangers the health or safety of others, or annoys
Irrespective of its location and how its business is
or offends the senses, or shocks, defies or disregards decency or
morality or obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any conducted, it is a nuisance since it defies, shocks and disregards
decency and morality. It is a public nuisance because of its injury to
public highway or street or any body of water or hinders or impairs
the use of property. the public.
d) A noisy o rdangerous factory in a private land

If the noise injuriously affects the health and comfort of ordinary

people in the vicinity to an unreasonable extent, it is a nuisance. It
is a public nuisance because there is a tendency to annoy the
public. (Velasco v. Manila Electric Co., G.R. No. L-18390, August
6,1971)

e) Uncollected garbage

It will become a nuisance if it substantially impairs the comfort

and enjoyment of the adjacent occupants. The annoyance and the
smell must be substantial as to interfere sensibly with the use and
enjoyment by persons of ordinary sensibilities. It is a public nuisance
because of its injury to the public.
Usufruct (1997) ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

On 1 January 1980, Minerva, the owner of a building, granted This is a usufruct which is clearly intended for the benefit of Manuel
Petronila a usufruct over the property until 01 June 1998 when until he reaches 30 yrs. of age with Petronila serving only as a
Manuel, a son of Petronila, would have reached his 30th birthday. conduit, holding the property in trust for his benefit. The death of
Manuel, however, died on 1 June 1990 when he was only 26 years Manuel at the age of 26 therefore, terminated the usufruct.
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?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Petronila’s contention is correct. Under Article 606 of the Civil Code,

a usufruct granted for the time that may elapse before a third
person reaches a certain age shall subsist for the number of years
specified even if the third person should die unless there is an
express stipulation in the contract that states otherwise. In the case
at bar, there is no express stipulation that the consideration for the
usufruct is the existence of Petronila’s son. Thus, the general rule
and not the exception should apply in this case.