2008 BAR QUESTIONS

1. Anthony bought a piece of untitled agricultural land from Bert. Bert, in turn,
acquired the property by forging carlo's signature in a deed of sale over the property.
Carlo had been in possession of the property for 8 years, declared it for tax purposes,
and religiously paid all taxes due on the property. Anthony is not aware of the defect
in Bert's title, but has been in actual physical possession of the property from the time
he bought it from Bert, who had never been in possession of the property for one year.
a. Can Anthony acquire ownership of the property by acquisitive prescription?
How many more years does he have possess it to acquire ownership? (2%)
b. If Carlo is able to legally recover his property, can he require Anthony to
account for all the fruits he has harvested from the property while in possession?
(2%)
c. If there are standing crops on the property when Carlo recovers possession, can
Carlo appropriate them? (2%)

2. The properties of Jessica and Jenny, who are neighbors, lie along the banks of the
Marikina River. At certain times of the year, the river would swell and as the water
recedes, soil, rocks and other materials are deposited on Jessica's and Jenny's
properties. This pattern of the river swelling, receding and depositing soil and other
materials being deposited on the neighbors' properties have gone on for many years.
Knowing his pattern, Jessica constructed a concrete barrier about 2 meters from her
property line and extending towards the river, so that when the water recedes, soil and
other materials are trapped within this barrier. After several years, the area between
Jessica's property line to the concrete barrier was completely filled with soil,
effectively increasing Jessica's property by 2 meters. Jenny's property, where no
barrier was constructed, also increased by one meter along the side of the river.
a. Can Jessica and Jenny legally claim ownership over the additional 2 meters
and one meter, respectively, of land deposited along their properties? (2%)
b. If Jessica's and Jenny's properties are registered, will the benefit of such
registration extend to the increased area of their properties? (2%)
c. Assume the two properties are on a cliff adjoining the shore of Laguna Lake.
Jessica and Jenny had a hotel built on the properties. They had the erath and rocks
excavated from the properties dumped on the adjoining shore, giving rise to a
new patch of dry land. Can they validly lay claim to the patch of land? (2%)

3. Juliet offered to sell her house and lot, together with all the furniture and appliances
therein to Dehlma. Before agreeing to purchase the property, Dehlma went to the
Register of Deeds to verify Juliet's title. She discovered that while the property was
registered in Juliet's name under the Land Registration Act, as amended by the
Property Registration Decree, it property, Dehlma told Juliet to redeem the property
from Elaine, and gave her an advance payment to be used for purposes of realesing
the mortgage on the property. When the mortgage was released, Juliet executed a
Deed of Absolute Sale over the property which was duly registered with the Registry
of Deeds, and a new TCT was issued in Dehlma's name. Dehlma immediately took
possession over the house and lot and the movables therein. Thereafter, Dehlma went
to theAssessor's Office to get a new tax declaration under her name. She was
surprised to find out that the property was already declared for tax purposes in the
name of XYZ Bank which had foreclosed the mortgage on the property before it was
sold to her. XYZ Bank was also the purchaser in the foreclosure sale of the property.
At that time, the property was still unregistered but XYZ Bank registered the Sheriff's
Deed of Conveyance in the day book of the Register of Deeds under Act. 3344 and
obtained a tax declaration in its name.
a. Was Dehlma a purchaser in good faith? (2%)
b. Who as between Dehlma and XYZ Bank has a better right to the house and lot?
(2%)

Suggested Answer
a. Yes, Dehlam is a purchaser in good faith. In the present case, before Dehlma
bought the property, she went to the Register of Deeds to verify Juliet’s title. When
she discovered that the property was mortgage to Elaine, she gave an advance
payment so that Juliet could release the mortgage. It was only after the mortgage was
released and free from the claims of other persons that Dehlma bought the property.
Thus, Dehlam is a purchases in good faith (Mathay c CA, GR. No. 115788, 17 Sept.
1998).
b. Between Dehlam and XYZ Bank, Dehlma has a better right to the house and
lot. After the release of the mortgage, the Deed of Absolute Sale was registered and a
new title was issues in Dehlma’s name. Act. 3344 is applicable exclusively to
instruments resulting from agreement of parties thereto and does not apply to deeds of
a sheriff convering to a purchase unregistered land sold to him under execution
(Williams v Sunez, 49 Phil. 534). (C). Who owns the movables inside the house?
(2%) Dehlam owns the movables because when she acquired the house and lot from
Juliet, all the furniture and appliances therein were included in the sale. As owner of
the real property, Dehlam also owns the movables found therein (Art. 542, Civil
Code)
 2009 BAR QUESTIONS

1. In 1972, Luciano de la Cruz sold to Chua Chung Chun, a Chinese citizen, a parcel
of land in Binondo. Chua died in 1990, leaving behind his wife and three children,
one of whom, Julian, is a naturalized Filipino citizen. Six years after Chua’s death, the
heir executed an extrajudicial settlement of estate, and the parcel of land was allocated
to Julian. In 2007, Luciano filed suit to recover the land he sold to Chua, alleging that
the sale was void because it contravened the Constitution which prohibits the sale of
private lands to aliens. Julian moved to dismiss the suit on grounds of pari delicto,
laches and acquisitive prescription. Decide the case with reason. (2009)

Suggested Answer:
The case must be dismissed. Julian, who is a naturalized Filipino citizen and to whom
the property was allocated in an extra-judicial partition of the estate, is now the owner
of the property. The defect in ownership of the property of Julian’s alien father has
already been cured by its transfer to Julian. It has been validated by the transfer of the
property to a Filipino citizen. Hence, there is no more violation of the Constitution
because the subject real property is now owned by a Filipino citizen (Halili v. CA,
287 SCRA 465, 1998). Further, after the lapse of 35 years, laches has set in and the
motion to dismiss may be granted, for the failure of Luciano to question the
ownership of Chua before its transfer of ownership to Julian.

2. Before migrating to Canada in 1992, the spouses Teodoro and Anita entrusted all
their legal papers and documents to their nephew, Atty. Tan. Taking advantage of the
situation, Atty. Tan forged a Deed of Sale, making it appear that he had bought the
couple’s property in Quezon City. In 2000, he succeeds in obtaining a TCT over the
property in his name. Subsequently, Atty. Tan sold the same property to Luis, who
built an auto repair shop on the property. In 2004, Luis registered the Deed of
Conveyance, and the title over the property was transferred in his name.
In 2006, the spouses Teodoro and Anita came to the Philippines for a visit and
discovered what happened to their property. They immediately hire you as a lawyer.
What action or actions will you institute in order to vindicate their rights? Explain
fully. (2009)

Suggested Answer:
I will institute the following actions against Atty. Tan: A civil action for damage for
the fraudulent transfer of the title in his name and to recover the value of the property;
An action against the National Treasurer for compensation from the State Assurance
Fraud which is set aside by law to pay those who lose their land suffer damages as a
consequence of the operation of the Torrens System;
A criminal action for forgery or falsification of public document;
A complaint with the Supreme Court/Integrated Bar of the Philippines to disbar or
suspend him or other disciplinary action for violation of the Code of Professional
Ethics.
Any action against Luis will not prosper because he is an innocent purchaser for
value. The title of the land he bough was already in the name of the person who sold
the property to him, and there is nothing on the title which will make him suspect
about the fraud committed by Atty. Tan.
3. Marciano is the owner of a parcel of land through which a river runs out into the
sea. The land had been brought under the Torrens System, and is cultivated by
Ulpiano and his family as farmworkers therein. Over the years, the river brought silt
and sediment from its source up in the mountains and forests so that gradually the
land owned by Marciano increased in area by three hectares. Ulpiano built three huts
on this additional area, where he and his two married children live. On this same area.
Ulpiano and his family planted peanuts, mongo, beans and vegetables. Ulpiano also
regular paid taxes on the land, as shown by tax declarations, for over thirty years.
When Marciano learned of the increase in the size of the land he ordered Ulpiano to
demolish the huts, and demanded that he be paid his share in the proceeds of the
harvest. Marciano claims that under the civil code, the alluvium belongs to him as a
registered riparian owner to whose land the accretion attaches, and that his right is
enforceable against the whole world.
Is Marciano correct? Explain. (3%)

Suggested Answer:
Marciano's contention is correct. Since the accretion was deposited on his land by the
action of the waters of the river and he did not construct any structure to increase the
deposition of soil ad silt, Marciano automatically owns the accretion. His real right of
ownership is enforceable against the whole word including Ulpiano and his two
married children. Although Marciano's land is registered the 3 hectares land deposited
through accretion was not automatically registered. As unregistered land, it is subject
to acquisitive prescription by third persons.
Although Ulpiano and his children live in the 3-hectare unregistered land owned by
Marciano, they are farmworkers; therefore they are possessors not in the concept of
owners but in the concept of more holders. Even if they possessed the land for more
than 30 years, they cannot become the owners thereof through extraordinary
acquisitive prescription, because the law requires possession in the concept of owner.
Payment of taxes and tax declaration are not enough to make their possession one in
the concept of owner. They must repudiate the possession in the concept of holder by
executing unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to custer of Marciano, known to
Marciano and must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Only then would his
possession become adverse.
 2019 BAR QUESTIONS

1. Mr. R is the registered owner of a parcel of land located in Cebu City covered
by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 1234 issued in 1955. Since his
acquisition of the lot, Mr. R and his family had been in continuous, open, and
peaceful possession thereof. Mr. R died in 1980, resulting in the land being
transferred in the names of his heirs, i.e., A, B, and C, who became registered
owners thereof as per TCT No. 5678. During the entire time, said land had never
been encumbered or disposed, and that its possession always remained with
them.
Sometime in 1999, A, B, and C wanted to build a concrete fence around the
parcel of land, but they were opposed by Mrs. X, who started claiming
ownership over the same property on the strength of a Deed of Absolute Sale
purportedly entered into by her with Mr. R during the time that he was still
alive. Aggrieved, A, B, and C intend to file a complaint for quieting of title
against Mrs. X.
(a) What are the substantive requisites for the action to prosper? Do they
obtain in this case? Explain. (3%)
(b) Within what period should A, B, and C tile the complaint for quieting of
title? Explain. (2%)
(c) Assuming that Band Care residing abroad, may A, without the
knowledge of B and C, file the complaint for quieting of title on behalf of all
the heirs? Explain. (2%)

Suggested Answers:
For an action to quiet title to prosper, the following requisites must obtain in the case: 
(1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title  to or interest in the
real property subject of the action; and 
(2) the instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding 
claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or
inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy. 

The requisites for an action to quiet the title obtain in this case, since A, B, and Care
the registered owners of the parcel of land, having inherited the same from their father
Mr. R, and the Deed of Absolute Sale, which cast a cloud on their title may be shown
to be invalid or inoperative (Heirs of Delfin v. Heirs of Bacud, G.R. No. 187633,
April 4, 2016). 

The action for quieting of title does not prescribe, because the plaintiffs are in
possession of the land [Heirs of Uheras v. CFI, October 30, 1978).

Yes, A may file the complaint, provided that he files the same for the co-ownership.
Anyone of the co-owners may bring such an action in ejectment (Article 87 of the
Civil Code), even without joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs, because the
suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all, assuming A wins the case.
Parenthetically, if A loses in the action to quiet title, it will if not affect B and C,
because the Court did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons. The Court further
held that if the action is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone, such that he claims the
possession for himself and not for the co-ownership, the action will not
prosper (Celino v. Heirs of Alejo, G.R. No. 1618117, July 30, 2004). 
2. In 2015, O, the original registered owner of a 300-square meter property
covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-1234 appointed F as its
caretaker. A year after, while was abroad, F surreptitiously broke open O’s sure
and stole the duplicate copy of the said OCT. F then forged a Deed of Absolute
Sale and made it appear that O sold the property to him. Consequently. F was
able to have OCT No. 0-1234 cancelled and in lieu thereof a new title. Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-4321 was issued in his name.

A few months after, F offered the property for sale to X After conducting the
required due diligence to verify the title of F. and finding no occupant in the
property during ocular inspection, X signed the contract of sale, and thereupon,
fully paid the purchase price. A few days later, X was able to obtain TCT No. T
5678 under his name. 

When O discovered T’s fraudulent acts upon his return in 2017. O immediately
filed a complaint for reconveyance against F and X, principally pointing out that
F merely forged his signature in the Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly made in
F’s favor and thus, F could not have validly transferred the title thereof to X.
Consequently, he sought the return of the subject property to him. 

Will the prayer of O for the return of the subject property prosper? Explain.
(3%)

Assuming that could no longer recover the subject property in view of X’s
registration thereof in his name, may a claim against the Assurance Fund
pursuant to the provisions of the Property Registration Decree be instituted?
Explain. (3%) 

Suggested Answers:

No, the prayer of O will not prosper, because X purchased the land from an apparent
owner in good faith and for value. Section 53 of P.D. 1529 provides that in all cases
of registration procured by fraud, the owner may pursue all his legal and equitable
remedies against the parties to such fraud without prejudice, however, to the rights of
any innocent holder for value of a certificate of title. The Court in the case of Heirs of
Abalon v. Andal (G.R. No. 183448, June 30, 2014), defined an innocent purchaser for
value as one who buys the property of another without notice that some other person
has a right to or interest therein and who then pays a full and fair price for it at the
time of the purchase or before receiving a notice of the claim or interest of some other
persons in the property. 

Yes, a claim against the Assurance Fund may be instituted. Section 95 of P.D. 1529
provides that a person who, without negligence on his part, sustains loss or damage,
or is deprived of land or any estate or interest therein in consequence of the bringing
of the land under the operation of the Torrens system arising after original registration
of land, through fraud or in consequence of any error, omission, mistake or
misdescription in any certificate of title or in any entry or memorandum in the
registration book, and who by the provisions of this Decree is barred or otherwise
precluded under the provision of any law from bringing an action for the recovery of
such land or the estate or interest therein, may bring an action in any court of
competent jurisdiction for the recovery of damages to be paid out of the Assurance
Fund. 

(Alternative answer)

The property is already registered under the name of X, an innocent purchaser for
value. The registration of the innocent purchaser for value’s title is a condition sine
qua non in order to properly claim against the Assurance Fund. This is because it is
only after the registration of the innocent purchaser for value’s title and not the
usurper’s title which constitutes a breach of trust) can it be said that the claimant
effectively sustains loss or damage, or is deprived of land or any estate or interest
therein Manuel v. RD for Legazpi City, G.R. No. 224678, July 3, 2018]. 

3. Socorro Orcullo was a grantee of a Free Patent for a parcel of land in Cebu.
Subsequently, the subject lot was sold to SAAD Agro-Industries, Inc. by one of
Orcullo’s heirs. Yet, the Solicitor General filed a complaint for the annulment of
the title and reversion of the said lot on the ground that the issuance of the free
patent and title was irregular and erroneous, following the discovery that the lot
is allegedly part of the timberland and forest reserve.

Decide on the case.

Suggested Answer:

In instances where a parcel of land considered to be inalienable land of the public

Nevertheless, in applying the Regalian Doctrine, the paramount considerations of

4. Rosario filed her application for land registration of a rice land that she had
inherited, owning and possessing it openly, publicly, uninterruptedly, adversely
against the whole world, and in the concept of owner since then. This was
opposed by the The Republic opposed claiming that Rosario failed to occupy and
possess the land for at least 30 years immediately preceding the filing of the
application; and that the land applied for, being a portion of a river control
system, that could not be subject of appropriation or land registration.

Is land subject of application susceptible of private acquisition?

Suggested Answer:

NO. The land of the public domain, to be the subject of appropriation, must be
declared alienable and disposable either by the President or the Secretary of the
DENR. Unless public land is shown to have been reclassified or alienated to a private
person by the State, it remains part of the inalienable public domain. Indeed,
occupation thereof in the concept of owner, no matter how long, cannot ripen into
ownership and be registered as a title (Republic vs. De Joson, G.R. No. 163767,
March 10, 2014)

5. Mario applied for registration of his land. He claims that he bought the land
from Eduardo who also claims that his great grandfather owned the land. Mario
submitted a CENRO from DENR stating that the land is alienable and
disposable in 1982. However, the Republic appealed claiming that Mario did not
adhere to the requirements of time required by the law and he failed to proof
that the land is an alienable and disposable land. The Court ruled in favor of the
Republic stating that the possession of the land before it is declared alienable and
disposable cannot be included in the computation of possession of the land, thus,
Mario did not adhere to the period required by law.

Can Mario register his land?

Suggested Answer:

NO. Mario failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that they and their
predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the land since June 12, 1945.
Without satisfying the requisite character and period of possession—possession and
occupation that is open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious since June 12, 1945, or
earlier—the land cannot be considered ipso jure converted to private property even
upon the subsequent declaration of it as alienable and disposable. Prescription never
began to run against the State, such that the land has remained ineligible for
registration under Sec. 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree. Likewise, the land
continues to be ineligible for land registration under Sec. 14(2) of the Property
Registration Decree unless Congress enacts a law or the President issues a
proclamation declaring the land as no longer intended for public service or for the
development of the national wealth (Malabanan v. Republic, G.R. No. 179987,
September 3, 2013) (Bersamin, J.).

6. Noynoy, Erap, Manny and Gibo are co-owners of a parcel of land.

May Manny seek registration in his name of the land in its entirety?

Suggested Answer:

NO. Since a co-owner cannot be considered a true owner of a specific portion until
division or partition is effected, he cannot file an application for registration of the
whole area without joining the co-owners as applicants.

7. Is dealing with land under controversy allowed while there’s pending original
registration?

Suggested Answer:
YES. Sec. 22 allows land subject of registration to be dealt with after the filing of the
application and before issuance of decree. The land may be sold or otherwise
encumbered, but whatever may be the nature of the transaction, the interested party
should submit to the court the pertinent instruments evidencing the transaction to be
considered in the final adjudication of the case.

8. The Cenizas applied for registration of their title over a parcel of public land
which they inherited. Without presenting proof that the land in question is
classified as alienable or disposable, the court granted the application, holding
that mere possession for a period as provided for by law would automatically
entitle the possessor the right to register public land in his name.

Was the court ruling correct?

Suggested Answer:

NO. Mere possession for a period required by law is not enough. The applicant has to
establish first the disposable and alienable character of the public land, otherwise,
public lands, regardless of their classification, can be subject of registration of private
titles, as long as the applicant shows that he meets the required years of possession.
The applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government, such as
a presidential proclamation or an executive order; administrative action; reports of
Bureau of Lands investigators and a legislative act or a statute (Republic v. Ceniza,
G.R. No. 127060, November 19, 2002)

9. Carmen Galeno, a co-owner of the subject property applied for a petition for
correction of the land area. She alleged that there was a discrepancy as the title
reflects only 20,498 square meters while the certification issued by the DENR
Office of the Regional Technical Director shows an area of 21,298 square meters.
The trial court, in allowing the evidence to be presented ex parte, granted the
petition on the basis of the Certification. It was only after the decision of the trial
court that the Office of the Solicitor General filed a motion for reconsideration
opposing the petition for correction on the ground that the no competent
evidence was given to warrant a correction.

a. Can the Office of the Solicitor General still question the propriety of the
petition even after judgment?

b. Should the petition for correction be granted?

Suggested Answers:

Yes. The Republic cannot be barred from assailing the petition granting the correction
of title, if based on the law and evidence of record, such petition has no merit. Thus,
the court can admit motion for reconsideration even after judgment of the trial court.

Yes. The Republic cannot be barred from assailing the petition granting the correction
of title, if based on the law and evidence of record, such petition has no merit. Thus,
the court can admit motion for reconsideration even after judgment of the trial court.