1.

A congregation for religious women, by The lessor must go through the proper channels
way of commodatum, is using the real by filing an appropriate case for unlawful
property owned and registered in the name of detainer or recovery of possession. Every
Spouses Manuel as a retreat house. Maria, a possessor has a right to be respected in his
helper of the congregation discovered a chest possession (Article 539) and in no case my
in the backyard. When she opened the chest, possession be acquired through force or
it contained several pieces of jewelry and intimidation as long as there is a possessor who
money. objects thereto. (Article 536) The act of
Francisco is an abuse of rights because even if he
(A) Can the chest containing the pieces of has the right to recover possession of his
jewelry and money be considered as hidden property, he must act with justice and give the
treasure? lessees their day in court and observe honesty
and good faith.
(B) Who has the right to claim ownership of
it? 3. In 2005, Andres built a residential house on
a lot whose only access to the national
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (2014 BAR Q) highway was a pathway crossing Brando's
property. Andres and others have been using
(a) No, for property to be considered hidden this pathway (pathway A) since 1980. In 2006,
treasure it must consist of money, jewelry or Brando fenced off his property, thereby
other precious objects, the lawful ownership of blocking Andres' access to the national
which does not appear. In the case at bar, the highway. Andres demanded that part of the
chest was just lay in the backyard and the real fence be removed to maintain his old access
property where it 5 Article 2126 11 was found route to the highway (pathway A), but Brando
belongs to the Spouses Manuel. They are thus
refused, claiming that there was another
presumed the owner of the chest where the
available pathway (pathway B) for ingress
jewelry was found.
and egress to the highway. Andres countered
that pathway B has defects, is circuitous, and
(b) Since it does not come within the purview of
hidden treasure, the spouses Manuel have the is extremely inconvenient to use. To settle
right to claim ownership over the chest as well as their dispute, Andres and Brando hired
its contents. Damian, a geodetic and civil engineer, to
survey and examine the two pathways and the
surrounding areas, and to determine the
2. Spouses Magtanggol managed and operated shortest and the least prejudicial way through
a gasoline station on a 1,000 sq.m. lot which the servient estates. After the survey, the
they leased from Francisco Bigla-awa. The engineer concluded that pathway B is the
contract was for a period of three (3) years. longer route and will need improvements and
When the contract expired, Francisco asked repairs, but will not significantly affect the use
the spouses to peacefully vacate the premises. of Brando's property. On the other hand,
The spouses ignored the demand and pathway A that had long been in place, is the
continued with the operation of the gasoline shorter route but would significantly affect
station. One month after, Francisco, with the the use of Brando's property. In light of the
aid of a group of armed men, caused the engineer's findings and the circumstances of
closure of the gasoline station by constructing the case, resolve the parties' right of way
fences around it. dispute.

Was the act of Francisco and his men lawful? SUGGESTED ANSWER: (2013 BAR Q)
Why?
Andres is not entitled to the easement of right of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (2014 BAR Q) way for Pathway A. Pathway B must be used.
The owner of a dominant estate may validly
No, the act was not lawful. Even if the lessee’s
obtain a compulsory right of way only after he
right to occupy the premises has expired, the
has established the existence of four requisites,
lessor cannot physically oust the lessee from the
leased premises if the latter refuses to vacate. to wit:
1. The (dominant) estate is surrounded by other on the land, as shown by tax declarations, for
immovables and is without adequate outlet to a over thirty years. When Marciano learned of
public highway; the increase in the size of the land, he ordered
Ulpiano to demolish the huts, and demanded
2. After payment of the proper indemnity; that he be paid his share in the proceeds of the
harvest. Marciano claims that under the Civil
3. The isolation was not due to the proprietor's Code, the alluvium belongs to him as a
own acts; and registered riparian owner to whose land the
accretion attaches, and that his right is
4. The right of way claimed is at a point least enforceable against the whole world.
prejudicial to the servient estate, and insofar
as consistent with this rule, where the a. Is Marciano correct? Explain.
distance from the dominant estate to the
public highway may be the shortest (Art. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
650).
Marciano’s contention is correct. Since that
However, the Supreme Court has consistently
accretion was deposited on his land by the action
ruled that in case both criteria cannot be
of the waters of the river and he did not construct
complied with, the right of way shall be
any structure to increase the deposition of soil
established at the point least prejudicial to the
and silt, Marciano automatically owns the
servient estate.
accretion. His real right of ownership is
enforceable against the whole world including
The first and fourth requisites are not complied
Ulpiano and his two married children. Although
with. First, there is another available outlet to the
Marciano’s land is registered, the three (3)
national highway (Pathway B). Second, the right
hectares land deposited through accretion was
of way obtained (Pathway A) is not the least
not automatically registered. As an unregistered
prejudicial to Brando's property as evidenced by
land, it is subject to acquisitive prescription by
the reports of the geodetic and civil engineer.
third persons.
When there is already an existing adequate outlet
Although Ulpiano and his children live in the
from the dominant estate to a public highway,
three (3) hectare unregistered land owned by
even if the said outlet, for one reason or another,
Marciano, they are farm workers; therefore, they
be inconvenient, the need to open up another
are possessors not in the concept of owners but
servitude is entirely unjustified (Costabella
in the concept of mere holders. Even if they
Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 80511, January 25, 1991).
possess the land for more than 30 years, they
The rule that the easement of right of way shall
cannot become the owners thereof through
be established at the point least prejudicial to the
extraordinary acquisitive prescription, because
servient estate is controlling (Quimen v. CA,
the law requires possession in the concept of the
G.R. No. 112331, May 29, 1996).
owner. Payment of taxes and tax declaration are
not enough to make their possession one in the
4. Marciano is the owner of a parcel of land
concept of owner. They must repudiate the
through which a river runs out into the sea.
possession in the concept of holder by executing
The land had been brought under the Torrens
unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to
System, and is cultivated by Ulpiano and his
ouster of Marciano, known to Marciano and
family as farmworkers therein. Over the
must be proven by clear and convincing
years, the river has brought silt and sediment
evidence. Only then would his possession
from its sources up in the mountains and
become adverse.
forests so that gradually the land owned by
Marciano increased in area by three hectares.
Ulpiano built three huts on this additional b. What rights, if any, does Ulpiano have
area, where he and his two married children against Marciano? Explain. (2009)
live. On this same area, Ulpiano and his
family planted peanuts, monggo beans and SUGGESTED ANSWER:
vegetables. Ulpiano also regularly paid taxes
Although Ulpiano is a possessor in bad faith, favorable to Jennifer that the deed is a donation
because he knew he does not own the land, he inter vivos.
will lose the three huts he built in bad faith and
make an accounting of the fruits he has gathered, Furthermore, what is most significant in
he has the right to deduct from the value of the determining the type of donation is the absence
fruits the expenses for production, gathering and of stipulation that the donor could revoke the
preservation of the fruits (Art. 443). donation; on the contrary, the deeds expressly
declare them to be “irrevocable,” a quality
He may also ask for reimbursement of the taxes absolutely incompatible with the idea of
he has paid, as these are charges on the land conveyances mortis causa where revocability is
owned by Marciano. This obligation is based on the essence of the act, to the extent that a testator
a quasi-contract (Art. 2175) cannot lawfully waive or restrict his right of
revocation. The provisions of the deed of
donation which state that the same will only take
effect upon the death of the donor and that there
5. Josefa executed a deed of donation covering is a prohibition to alienate, encumber, dispose, or
a one- hectare rice land in favor of her sell the same should be harmonized with its
daughter, Jennifer. The deed specifically express irrevocability (Austria-Magat v. CA,
provides that: G.R. No. 106755, February 1, 2002).

"For and in consideration 6. Mr. and Mrs. X migrated to the US with all
of the love and service their children. As they had no intention of
Jennifer has shown and coming back, they offered their house and lot
given to me, I hereby freely, for sale to their neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. A
voluntarily and irrevocably (the buyers) who agreed to buy the property
donate to her my one- for 128 Million. Because Mr. and Mrs. A
hectare rice land covered by needed to obtain a loan from a bank first, and
TCT No. 11550, located in since the sellers were in a hurry to migrate,
San Fernando, Pampanga. the latter told the buyers that they could
This donation shall take already occupy the house, renovate it as it was
already in a state of disrepair, and pay only
effect upon my death."
when their loan is approved and released.
While waiting for the loan approval, the
The deed also contained Jennifer's signed
buyers spent .Pl Million in repairing the
acceptance, and an attached notarized
house. A month later, a person carrying an
declaration by Josefa and Jennifer that the authenticated special power of attorney from
land will remain in Josefa's possession and the sellers demanded that the buyers either
cannot be alienated, encumbered, sold or immediately pay for the property in full now
disposed of while Josefa is still alive. Advise or vacate it and pay damages for having made
Jennifer on whether the deed is a donation improvements on the property without a sale
inter vivos or mortis causa and explain the having been perfected.
reasons supporting your advice. (2013)
a) What are the buyers' options or legal
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The donation is a rights with respect to the they
donation inter vivos. expenses incurred in improving the
property under circumstances? (3%)
When the donor intends that the donation shall
take effect during the lifetime of the donor, b) Can the buyers be made to
though the property shall not be delivered till immediately vacate on the ground
after the donor’s death, this shall be a donation that the sale was not perfected?
inter vivos (Art. 729). The Civil Code prefers Explain briefly. (3%)
inter vivos transmissions. Moreover, mortis
causa donations should follow the formalities of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a will (Art. 728). Here there is no showing that a) The buyers here may be deemed
such formalities were followed. Thus, it is possessors or builders in good faith
 because they were made to believe that result of the partition among the co-owners. In a
they were allowed to make repairs or co-ownership there is no mutual agency except
renovation by the sellers themselves. As as provided under Article 487. Thus, Fe cannot
builders in good faith, they have the sell the shares of Esperanza and Caridad without
right to seek reimbursement for the a special power of attorney from them and the
value of the improvements in case the sale with respect to the shares of the latter
owner decides to appropriate them. without their written authority is void under
They cannot be asked to remove the Article 1874. Hence, the sale of the property to
improvements because that is not one of Manuel is not valid with respect to the shares of
the options given by law to the Esperanza and Caridad. Maria can only assail the
landowner in case the builder is in good portion pertaining to Fe as the same has been
faith. validly sold to her by Fe.

b) No, the buyers cannot be made to

vacate on the ground that the sale was
not perfected for the fact of the matter is
that a contract of sale is consensual and
is perfected by mere consent.(Article
1315, Civil Code) In this case, there
was an agreement to deliver a
determinate thing for a price certain in
money. When the owners made an offer
to sell their property to Mr. and Mrs. A
and the latter accepted the offer, there
was already a meeting of the minds
between the parties resulting in the
perfection of the contract

7. Fe, Esperanza, and Caridad inherited from

their parents a 500 sq. m. lot which they
leased to Maria for three (3) years. One year
after, Fe, claiming to have the authority to
represent her siblings Esperanza and
Caridad, offered to sell the leased property to
Maria which the latter accepted. The sale was
not reduced into writing, but Maria started to
make partial payments to Fe, which the latter
received and acknowledged. After giving the
full payment, Maria demanded for the
execution of a deed of absolute sale which
Esperanza and Caridad refused to do. Worst,
Maria learned that the siblings sold the same
property to Manuel. This compelled Maria to
file a complaint for the annulment of the sale
with specific performance and damages. If
you are the judge, how will you decide the
case? (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will dismiss the case for annulment of the sale
and specific performance filed by Maria with
respect to the shares pertaining to Esperanza and
Caridad. Since the object of the sale is a co-
owned property, a co-owner may sell his
undivided share or interest in the property owned
in common but the sale will be subject to the