You are on page 1of 55

Succession b.

If said Filipino testator executes his will in

another country,
Disposition; Mortis Causa vs. Inter vivos; the law of the country where he maybe or
Corpse (2009) Philippine law will
No. XI. TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the govern the formalities. (Article 815, Civil Code}
statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is
false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
sentences. (E). A person can dispose of his corpse (2) a. If the testator is a foreigner residing in the
through an act inter vivos. (1%) Philippines
and he executes his will in the Philippines, the
False. A persons cannot dispose of his corpse country of which he is a citizen or Philippine law
through an act inter vivos, i.e., an act to take effect will govern
during his lifetime. Before his death there is no the formalities.
corpse to dispose. But he is allowed to do so b. If the testator is a foreigner and executes his
through an act mortis causa, i.e., an act to take will in a
effect upon his death. foreign country, the law of his place of residence
or the law of
Content of a Will (2014) the country of which he is a citizen or the law of
II. Crispin died testate and was survived by Alex and the place of
Josine, his children from his first wife; Rene and Ruby, execution, or Philippine law will govern the
his children from his second wife; and Allan, Bea, and formalities
Cheska, his children from his third wife. (Articles 17. 816. 817. Civil Code).

One important provision in his will reads as follows: POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL ANSWERS:
a. In the case of a Filipino citizen, Philippine law
“Ang lupa at bahaysaLungsod ng Maynila ay ililipat at shall
ilalagay sa pangalan nila Alex at Rene hindi bilang govern substantive validity whether he executes
pamana ko sa kanila kundi upang pamahalaan at his will in the
pangalagaan lamang nila at nangangsinuman sa aking Philippines or in a foreign country. b. In the case
mga anak, sampu ng aking mga apo at kaapu apuhan of a foreigner, his national law shall govern
ko sa habang panahon, ay may tutuluyan kung substantive validity whether he executes his will
magnanais na mag-aral sa Maynila o sa kalapit na mga in the Philippines or in a foreign country.
Wills; Probate; Intrinsic Validity (1990)
Is the provision valid? (4%) H died leaving a last will and testament wherein
it is stated
SUGGESTED ANSWER: that he was legally married to W by whom he
No, the provision is not valid. At first glance, the had two
provision may appear valid as it provides for the transfer legitimate children A and B. H devised to his said
of title in favor of Alex and Rene over the parcel of land. forced
A legacy or devise is to be construed as a donation heirs the entire estate except the free portion
effective mortis causa, and it is intended to transfer which he gave
ownership to the legatee or devisee. Since the to X who was living with him at the time of his
ownership is legally transferred to the Alex and Rene, death.
they cannot be prohibited by the testator from alienating In said will he explained that he had been
or partitioning the same perpetually. The dispositions of estranged from his
the testator declaring all or part of the estate inalienable wife W for more than 20 years and he has been
for more than twenty years are void. (Article 870) living with X
as man and wife since his separation from his
Wills; Formalities (1990) legitimate
(1) If a will is executed by a testator who is a family.
Filipino citizen, In the probate proceedings, X asked for the
what law will govern if the will is executed in the issuance of
Philippines? letters testamentary in accordance with the will
What law will govern if the will is executed in wherein she is
another named sole executor. This was opposed by W and
country? Explain your answers. her
(2) If a will is executed by a foreigner, for children.
instance, a (a) Should the will be admitted in said probate
Japanese, residing in the Philippines, what law proceedings?
will govern if (b) Is the said devise to X valid?
the will is executed in the Philippines? And what (c) Was it proper for the trial court to consider
law will the intrinsic
govern if the will is executed in Japan, or some validity of the provisions of said will? Explain
other country, your answers,
for instance, the U.S.A.? Explain your answers.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (a) Yes, the will may be probated if executed
(1) a. If the testator who is a Filipino citizen according to the
executes his will formalities prescribed by law.
in the Philippines, Philippine law will govern the (b) The institution giving X the free portion is not
formalities. valid,
because the prohibitions under Art. 739 of the and therefore the notarial will will be admitted to
Civil Code on probate
donations also apply to testamentary dispositions because there is no revoking will.
1028, Civil Code), Among donations which are ADDITIONAL ANSWERS:
considered 1. In the case of Gan vs. Yap (104 Phil 509),
void are those made between persons who were the execution
guilty of and the contents of a lost or destroyed
adultery or concubinage at the time of the holographic will
donation. may not be proved by the bare testimony of
(c) As a general rule, the will should be admitted witnesses
in probate who have seen or read such will. The will itself
proceedings if all the necessary requirements for must be
its extrinsic presented otherwise it shall produce no effect.
validity have been met and the court should not The law
consider the regards the document itself as material proof of
intrinsic validity of the provisions of said will. authenticity. Moreover, in order that a will may
However, the be
exception arises when the will in effect contains revoked by a subsequent will, it is necessary that
only one the
testamentary disposition. In effect, the only latter will be valid and executed with the
testamentary formalities
disposition under the will is the giving of the free required for the making of a will. The latter
portion to X, should
since legitimes are provided by law. Hence, the possess all the requisites of a valid will whether
trial court may it be
consider the intrinsic validity of the provisions of ordinary or a holographic will, and should be
said will. probated in
(Nuguid v. Nuguid, etal.. No. L23445, June 23, order that the revocatory clause thereof may
1966, 17 SCRA; Nepomuceno v. CA, L-62952, 9 produce
October 1985. 139 SCRA 206). effect. In the case at bar, since the holographic
will itself
Wills; Probate; Notarial and Holographic Wills (1997) cannot be presented, it cannot therefore be
Johnny, with no known living relatives, executed probated.
a notarial Since it cannot be probated, it cannot revoke the
will giving all his estate to his sweetheart. One notarial
day, he had a will previously written by the decedent.
serious altercation with his sweetheart. A few 2. On the basis of the Rules of Court, Rule 76,
days later, he Sec. 6,
was introduced to a charming lady who later provides that no will shall be proved as a lost or
became a dear destroyed will unless its provisions are clearly
friend. Soon after, he executed a holographic will and
expressly distinctly proved by at least two (2) credible
revoking the notarial will and so designating his witnesses.
new friend as Hence, if we abide strictly by the two-witness
sole heir. One day when he was clearing up his rule to
desk, Johnny prove a lost or destroyed will, the holographic
mistakenly burned, along with other papers, the will which
only copy of Johnny allegedly mistakenly burned, cannot be
his holographic will. His business associate, probated,
Eduardo knew since there is only one witness, Eduardo, who
well the contents of the will which was shown to can be
him by called to testify as to the existence of the will. If
Johnny the day it was executed. A few days after the
the burning holographic will, which purportedly, revoked the
incident, Johnny died. Both wills were sought to earlier
be probated notarial will cannot be proved because of the
in two separate petitions. Will either or both absence of
petitions the required witness, then the petition for the
prosper? probate of
the notarial will should prosper.
The probate of the notarial will will prosper. The Wills; Revocation of Wills; Dependent Relative Revocation
holographic (2003)
will cannot be admitted to probate because a Mr. Reyes executed a will completely valid as to
holographic will form. A week
can only be probated upon evidence of the will later, however, he executed another will which
itself unless expressly
there is a photographic copy. But since the revoked his first will, which he tore his first will
holographic will to pieces.
was lost and there was no other copy, it cannot Upon the death of Mr. Reyes, his second will was
be probated presented

for probate by his heirs, but it was denied lawyer, how will you distribute his estate?
probate due to formal defects. Assuming that a Explain. (2.5%)
copy of the first will excluded by a legitimate son
of the decedent [Art. 887, New SUGGESTED ANSWER: After paying the legal
is available, may it now be admitted to probate obligations of
and given the estate, I will give Ronie, as full-blood brother
effect? Why? of Don, 2/3
of the net estate, twice the share of Michelle, the
Yes, the first will may be admitted to probate and who shall receive 1/3. Roshelle will not receive
given anything as
effect. When the testator tore first will, he was she is not a legal heir [Art. 1006 New Civil
under the Code].
mistaken belief that the second will was
perfectly valid and he (3) Assuming he died intestate survived by
would not have destroyed the first will had he his brother Ronie, his half-sister Michelle,
known that the and his legitimate son Jayson, how will you
second will is not valid. The revocation by distribute his estate? Explain. (2.5%)
therefore is dependent on the validity of the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
second will. Jayson will be entitled to the entire
Since it turned out that the second will was P12 Million as the brother and sister will be
invalid, the tearing excluded by a
of the first will did not produce the effect of legitimate son of the decedent. This follows the
revocation. This principle of
is known as the doctrine of dependent relative proximity, where "the nearer excludes the
revocation farther."
(Molo v. Molo, 90 Phil 37.)
(4) Assuming further he died intestate,
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS: survived by his father Juan, his brother
No, the first will cannot be admitted to probate. Ronie, his half-sister Michelle, and his
While it is true legitimate son Jayson, how will you
that the first will was successfully revoked by the distribute his estate? Explain. (2.5%)
second will
because the second will was later denied SUGGESTED ANSWER:
probate, the first will Jayson will still be entitled to the entire P12
was, nevertheless, revoked when the testator Million as the father, brother and sister will be
destroyed it after Civil Code]. This follows the principle that the
executing the second invalid will. descendants exclude the ascendants from
(Diaz v. De Leon, 43 Phil 413 [1922]). inheritance.

Wills; Testamentary Disposition (2006) Wills; Testamentary Intent (1996)

Don died after executing a Last Will and Alfonso, a bachelor without any descendant or
Testament leaving ascendant,
his estate valued at P12 Million to his common- wrote a last will and testament in which he
law wife devised." all the
Roshelle. He is survived by his brother Ronie and properties of which I may be possessed at the
his time of my
half-sister Michelle. death" to his favorite brother Manuel. At the
(1) Was Don's testamentary disposition of time he wrote
his estate in the will, he owned only one parcel of land. But by
accordance with the law on succession? the time he
Whether you agree or not, explain your died, he owned twenty parcels of land. His other
answer. Explain. brothers and
sisters insist that his will should pass only the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Don's testamentary parcel of land
disposition he owned at the time it was written, and did not
of his estate is in accordance with the law on cover his
succession. Don properties acquired, which should be by
has no compulsory heirs not having ascendants, intestate succession.
descendants Manuel claims otherwise. Who is correct?
nor a spouse [Art. 887, New Civil Code]. Explain.
Brothers and sisters
are not compulsory heirs. Thus, he can bequeath SUGGESTED ANSWER:
his entire Manuel is correct because under Art. 793, NCC,
estate to anyone who is not otherwise property
incapacitated to inherit acquired after the making of a will shall only
from him. A common-law wife is not pass thereby, as
incapacitated under the if the testator had possessed it at the time of
law, as Don is not married to anyone. making the will,
should it expressly appear by the will that such
(2) If Don failed to execute a will during his was his
lifetime, as his
intention. Since Alfonso's intention to devise all heirs of Theodore. (Rabadilla v. Conscoluella,
properties he 334 SCRA 522
owned at the time of his death expressly appears [2000] GR 113725, 29 June 2000).
on the will,
then all the 20 parcels of land are included in the Heirs; Fideicommissary Substitution (2008)
devise. No. XIII. Raymond, single, named his sister Ruffa
in his will as a devisee of a parcel of land which he
Wills; Codicil; Institution of Heirs; Substitution of Heirs (2002) owned. The will imposed upon Ruffa the obligation
By virtue of a Codicil appended to his will, of preseving the land and transferring it, upon her
Theodore devised death, to her illegitimate daughter Scarlet who was
to Divino a tract of sugar land, with the then only one year old. Raymond later died, leaving
obligation on the part behind his widowed mother, Ruffa and Scarlet. (A).
of Divino or his heirs to deliver to Betina a Is the condition imposed upon Ruffa, to preserve
specified volume the property and to transmit it upon her death to
of sugar per harvest during Betina’s lifetime. It is Scarlet, valid? (1%)
also stated
in the Codicil that in the event the obligation is SUGGESTED ANSWER:
not fulfilled, Yes, the condition imposed upon Ruffa to preserve
Betina should immediately seize the property the property and to transmit it upon her death to
from Divino or Scarlet is valid because it is tantamount to
latter’s heirs and turn it over to Theodore’s fideicommissary substitution under Art. 863 of the
compulsory heirs. Civil Code.
Divino failed to fulfill the obligation under the
Codicil. Betina (B). If Scarlet predeceases Ruffa, who inherits the
brings suit against Divino for the reversion of the property? (2%)
tract of
a) Distinguish between modal institution and Ruffa will inherit the property as Scarlet's heir.
substation of heirs. (3%) Scarlet acquires a right to the succession from the
b) Distinguish between simple and time of Raymond's death, even though she should
fideicommissary substitution of heirs. (2%) predecease Ruffa (Art. 866, Civil Code).
c) Does Betina have a cause of action against
Divino? (C). If Ruffa predeceases Raymond, can Scarlet
Explain (5%) inherit the property directly from Raymond? (2%)
A. A MODAL INSTITUTION is the institution of If Ruffa predeceases Raymond, Raymond's
an heir made for a certain purpose or cause widowed mother will be entitled to the inheritance.
(Arts. 871 and Scarlet, an illegitimate child, cannot inherit the
882, NCC). SUBSTITUTION is the appointment property by intestate succession from Raymond
of another who is a legitimate relative of Ruffa (Art. 992, Civil
heir so that he may enter into the inheritance in Code). Moreover, Scarlet is not a compulsory heir
default of the of Raymond, hence she can inherit only by
heir originality instituted. (Art. 857, NCC). testamentary succession. Since Raymond executed
B. In a SIMPLE SUBSTITUTION of heirs, the a will in the case at bar, Scarlet may inherit from
testator Raymond.
designates one or more persons to substitute the
Wills; Holographic Wills; Insertions &
instituted in case such heir or heirs should die
Cancellations (2012)
before him, or
No.VII.a) Natividad’s holographic will, which had
should not wish or should be incapacitated to
only one (1) substantial provision, as first written,
accept the
named Rosa as her sole heir. However, when
inheritance. In a FIDEICOMMISSARY
Gregorio presented it for probate, it already
contained an alteration, naming Gregorio, instead
the testator institutes a first heir and charges
of Rosa, as sole heir, but without authentication by
him to preserve
Natividad’s signature. Rosa opposes the probate
and transmit the whole or part of the inheritance
alleging such lack of proper authentication. She
to a second
claims that the unaltered form of the will should be
heir. In a simple substitution, only one heir
given effect. Whose claim should be granted?
inherits. In a
Explain. (5%)
fideicommissary substitution, both the first and
second heirs
It depends. If the cancellation of Rosa’s name in
inherit. (Art. 859 and 869, NCC)
the will was done by the testator himself, Rosa’s
C. Betina has a cause of action against Divino.
This is a case claimed that the holographic will in its original
of a testamentary disposition subject to a mode tenor should be given effect must be denied. The
and the will said cancellation has revoked the entire will as
itself provides for the consequence if the mode is nothing remains of the will after the name of Rosa
not was cancelled. Such cancellation is valid
complied with. To enforce the mode, the will revocation of the will and does not require
itself gives authentication by the full signature of the testator
Betina the right to compel the return of the to be effective. However, if the cancellation of
property to the Rosa’s name was not done by the testator himself,
such cancellation shall not be effective and the will compulsory heir of Dr. Fuentes entitled to a
in its original tenor shall remain valid. The legitime.
effectively of the holographic will cannot be left to
the mercy of unscrupulous third parties. The Wills; Holographic Wills; Insertions & Cancellations (1996)
writing of Gregorio’s name as sole heir was Vanessa died on April 14, 1980, leaving behind a
ineffective, even though written by the testator holographic
himself, because such is an alteration that will which is entirely written, dated and signed in
requires authentication by the full signature of the her own
testator to be valid and effective. Not having an handwriting. However, it contains insertions and
authenticated, the designation of Gregorio as an cancellations
heir was ineffective, (Kalaw v. Relova, G.R. No. L- which are not authenticated by her signature.
40207, Sept 28, 1984). For this reason,
the probate of Vanessa's will was opposed by her
Wills; Holographic Wills; Probate (2009) relatives
No.VI. On December 1, 2000, Dr. Juanito Fuentes who stood to inherit by her intestacy. May
executed a holographic will, wherein he gave Vanessa's
nothing to his recognized illegitimate son, Jay. Dr. holographic will be probated? Explain.
Fuentes left for the United States, passed the New
York medical licensure examinations, resided SUGGESTED ANSWER:
therein, and became a naturalized American Yes, the will as originally written may be
citizen. He died in New York in 2007. The laws of probated. The
New York do not recognize holographic wills or insertions and alterations were void since they
compulsory heirs. (A). Can the holographic will of were not
Dr. Fuentes be admitted to probate in the authenticated by the full signature of Vanessa,
Philippines? Why or why not? (3%) under Art. 814,
NCC. The original will, however, remains valid
Yes, the holographic will of Dr. Fuentes may be holographic will is not invalidated by the
admitted to probate in the Philippines because unauthenticated
there is no public policy violated by such insertions or alterations (Ajero v. CA, 236
probate. The only issue at probate is the due SCRA 468].
execution of the will which includes the formal
validity of the will. As regards formal validity, ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
the only issue the court will resolve at probate It depends. As a rule, a holographic will is not
is whether or not the will was executed in adversely
accordance with the form prescribed by the law affected by Insertions or cancellations which
observed by the testator in the execution of his were not authenticated by the full signature of
will. For purposes of probate in the Philippines, the testator (Ajero v. CA,
an alien testator may observe the law of the 236 SCRA 468). However, when the insertion or
place where the will was executed (Art 17, NCC), cancellation
or the formalities of the law of the place where amounts to revocation of the will, Art.814 of the
he resides, or according to the formalities of NCC does
the law of his own country, or in accordance not apply but Art. 830. NCC. Art. 830 of the NCC
with the Philippine Civil Code (Art. 816, NCC). does not
Since Dr. Fuentes executed his will in require the testator to authenticate his
accordance with the Philippine law, the cancellation for the
Philippine court shall apply the New Civil Code effectivity of a revocation effected through such
in determining the formal validity of the cancellation
holographic will. The subsequent change in the (Kalaw v. Relova, 132 SCRA 237). In the
Kalaw case, the
citizenship of Dr. Fuentes did not affect the law
original holographic will designated only one
governing the validity of his will. Under the new
heir as the only
Civil Code, which was the law used by Dr.
substantial provision which was altered by
Fuentes, the law enforced at the time of
substituting the
execution of the will shall govern the formal
original heir with another heir. Hence, if the
validity of the will (Art. 795, NCC).
cancellation amounted to a revocation of the will,
(B). Assuming that the will is probated in the Philippines, can
the will may
Jay validly insist that he be given his legitime? Why or why not be probated because it had already been
not? (3%) revoked.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Wills; Holographic Wills; Witnesses (1994)
No, Jay cannot insist because under New York law On his deathbed, Vicente was executing a will. In
he is not a compulsory heir entitled to a legitime. the room
The national law of the testator determines who his were Carissa, Carmela, Comelio and Atty. Cimpo,
heirs are, the order that they succeed, how much a notary
their successional rights are, and whether or not a public. Suddenly, there was a street brawl which
testamentary disposition in his will is valid (Art 16, caught
NCC). Since, Dr. Fuentes was a US citizen, the Comelio's attention, prompting him to look out
laws of the New York determines who his heirs are. the window.
And since the New York law does not recognize the Cornelio did not see Vicente sign a will. Is the
concept of compulsory heirs, Jay is not a will valid?

SUGGESTED ANSWERS: couple acquired substanial landholdings in London
a) Yes, The will is valid. The law does not require and in Makati. Paula bore John three children,
a witness to Peter, Paul and Mary. In one of their trips to
actually see the testator sign the will. It is London, the couple executed a joint will appointing
sufficient if the each other as their heirs and providing that upon
witness could have seen the act of signing had the death of the survivor between them the entire
he chosen to estate would go to Peter and Paul only but the two
do so by casting his eyes to the proper direction. could not dispose of nor divide the London estate
b) Yes, the will is valid. Applying the "test of as long as they live. John and Paul died tragically
position", in the London Subway terrorist attack in 2005.
although Comelio did not actually see Vicente Peter and Paul filed a petition for probate of their
sign the will, parent's will before a Makati Regional Trial Court.
Cornelio was in the proper position to see (A). Should the will be admitted to probate? (2%)
Vicente sign if
Cornelio so wished. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The will cannot be admitted to probate because
Wills; Joint Will (2015) a joint will is expressly prohibited under Art. 818 of
I. Alden and Stela were both former Filipino citizens. the Civil Code. This provision applies John and
They were married in the Philippines but they later Paula became Filipino citizens after their marriage.
migrated to the United States where they were
naturalized as American citizens. In their union they (B). Are the testamentary dispositions valid? (2%)
were able to accumulate several real properties both in
the US and in the Philippines. Unfortunately, they were SUGGESTED ANSWER:
not blessed with children. In the US, they executed a No. The testamentary dispositions are not valid
joint will instituting as their common heirs to divide their because (a) omission of Mary, a legitimate child, is
combined estate in equal shares, the five siblingsand of tantamount to preterition which shall annul the
Alden the seven siblings of Stela. Alden passed away in institution of Peter and Paul as heirs (Art. 854,
2013 and a year later, Stela also died. The siblings of Civil Code); and, (b) the disposition that Peter and
Alden who were all citizens of the US instituted probate Paul could not dispose of nor divide the London
proceedings in a US court impleading the siblings of estate for more than 20 years is void (Art. 870,
Stela who were all in the Philippines.
Civil Code).
a) Was the joint will executed by Alden and Stela
who were both former Filipinos valid?
Wills; Joint Wills; Probate (2012)
Explain with legal basis. (3%)
No.VII.b) John Sagun and Maria Carla Camua,
b) Can the joint will produce legal effect in the
British citizens at birth, acquired Philippine
Philippines with respectto the propertiesand of
citizenship by naturalization after their marriage.
Alden Stela found here? If so, how? (3%)
c) Is the situation presented in Item I an example During their marriage, the couple acquired
of depe9age? (2%) substantial landholdings in London and in Makati.
Maria begot three (3) children, Jorge, Luisito, and
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Joshur. In one of their trips to London, the couple
a) Yes, the joint will of Alden and Stela is considered executed a joint will appointing each other as their
valid. Being no longer Filipino citizens at the time they heirs and providing that upon the death of the
executed their joint will, the prohibition under our Civil survivor between them, the entire estate would go
Code on joint wills will no longer apply to Alden and to Jorge and Luisito only but the two (2) could not
Stela. For as long as their will was executed in dispose of nor divide the London estate as long as
accordance with the law of the place where they reside, they live. John and Maria died tragically in the
or the law of the country of which they are citizens or London subway terrorist attack in 2005. Jorge and
even in accordance with the Civil Code, a will executed Luisito filed a petition for probate of their parents’
by an alien is considered valid in the Philippines. (Article will before a Makati Regional Trial Court. Joshur
816) vehemently objected because he was preterited. (1)
Should the will be admitted to probate? Explain.
b) Yes, the joint will of Alden and Stela can take effect (2%)
even with respect to the properties located in the
Philippines because what governs the distribution of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
their estate is no longer Philippine law but their national No, the will should not be admitted to probate.
law at the time of their demise. Hence, the joint will Since the couples are both Filipino citizens, Art
produces legal effect even with respect to the properties 818 and 819 of the NCC shall apply. Said articles
situated in the Philippines. prohibits the execution of joint wills and make
them void, even though authorized of the country
c) No, because depecage is a process of applying rules where they were executed.
of different states on the basis of the precise issue
involved. It is a conflict of laws where different issues (2) Are the testamentary dispositions valid?
within a case may be governed by the laws of different Explain. (2%)
states. In the situation in letter (a) no conflict of laws will
arise because Alden and Stela are no longer Filipino SUGGESTED ANSWER:
citizens at the time of the execution of their joint will and Since the joint will is void, all the testamentary
the place of execution is not the Philippines. disposition written therein are also void. However,
if the will is valid, the institutions of the heirs shall
Wills; Joint Wills (2008) be annulled because Joshur was preterited. He
No. XI. John and Paula, British citizens at birth, was preterited because he will receive nothing from
acquired Philippine citizenship by naturalization the will, will receive nothing in testacy, and the
after their marriage. During their marriage the facts do not show that he received anything as an
advance on his inheritance. He was totally youngest child desires to stay there. Article 1083 of
excluded from the inheritance of his parents. the New Civil Code allows a decedent to prohibit,
by will, the partition of a property and his estate
(3) Is the testamentary prohibition against the for a period not longer than 20 years no matter
division of the London estate valid? Explain. (1%) what his reason maybe. Hence, the three co-heir
SUGGESTED ANSWER: cannot demand its partition at anytime but only
Assuming the will of John and Maria was valid, the after 20 years from the death of their father. Even
testamentary prohibition on the division of the if the deceased parent did not leave a will, if the
London estate shall be valid but only for 20 years. house and lot constituted their family home,
Under Arts 1083 and 494 of the NCC, a Article 159 of the Family Code prohibits its
testamentary disposition of the testator cannot partition for a period of ten (10) years, or for as
forbid the partition of all or part of the estate for a long as there is a minor beneficiary living in the
period longer than twenty (20) years. family home.

Wills; Joint Wills (2000) Heirs; Intestate Succession; Legitime;

Manuel, a Filipino, and his American wife Computation (2010)
Eleanor, executed No.XI. The spouses Peter and Paula had three (3)
a Joint Will in Boston, Massachusetts when they children. Paula later obtained a judgment of nullity
were residing of marriage. Their absolute community of property
in said city. The law of Massachusetts allows the having been dissolved, they delivered P1 million to
execution of each of their 3 children as their presumptive
joint wills. Shortly thereafter, Eleanor died. Can legitimes. Peter later re-married and had two (2)
the said Will children by his second wife Marie. Peter and Marie,
be probated in the Philippines for the settlement having successfully engaged in business, acquired
of her real properties. Peter later died intestate. (A). Who
estate? (3%) are Peter’s legal heirs and how will his estate be
divided among them? (5%)
Suggested Answer:
Yes, the will may be probated in the Philippines SUGGESTED ANSWER:
insofar as The legal heirs of Peter are his children by the first
the estate of Eleanor is concerned. While the and second marriages and his surviving second
Civil Code wife.
prohibits the execution of Joint wills here and Their shares in the estate of Peter will depend, however, on
abroad, such the cause of the nullity of the first marriage. If the nullity of
prohibition applies only to Filipinos. Hence, the the first marriage was psychological incapacity of one or both
joint will spouses, the three children of that void marriage are
which is valid where executed is valid in the legitimate and all of the legal heirs shall share the estate of
Philippines but Peter in equal shares. If the judgment of nullity was for other
only with respect to Eleanor. Under Article 819,
causes, the three children are illegitimate and the estate shall
it is void
be distributed such that an illegitimate child of the first
with respect to Manuel whose joint will remains
marriage shall receive half of the share of a legitimate child of
void in the
Philippines despite being valid where executed. the second marriage, and the second wife will inherit a share
equal to that of a legitimate child. In no case may the two
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: legitimate children of the second marriage receive a share
The will cannot be probated in the Philippines, less than one-half of the estate which is their legitime. When
even though the estate is not sufficient to pay all the legitimes of the
valid where executed, because it is prohibited compulsory heirs, the legitime of the spouse is preferred and
under Article the illegitimate children suffer the reduction. Computation:
818 of the Civil Code and declared void under (A) If the ground of nullity is psychological incapacity:
Article 819, 3 children by first 1/6 of the estate
The prohibition should apply even to the marriage for each
American wife 2 children by second 1/6 of the estate
because the Joint will is offensive to public policy. marriage for each
Moreover, Surviving second 1/6 of the estate
it is a single juridical act which cannot be valid spouse
as to one Note: The legitime of an illegitimate child is
testator and void as to the other. supposed to be ½ the legitime of a legitimate child
or 1/8 of the estate. But the estate will not be
Wills; Prohibition to Partition of a Co-Owned sufficient to pay the said legitime of the 3
Property (2010) illegitimate children, because only ¼ of the estate is
No.I. True or False. (B) X, a widower, died leaving left after paying the legitime of the surviving spouse
a will stating that the house and lot where he lived which is preferred. Hence, the remaining ¼ of the
cannot be partitioned for as long as the youngest of estate shall be divided among the 3 illegitimate
his four children desires to stay there. As coheirs children.
and co-owners, the other three may demand
partition anytime. (1%) (B). What is the effect of the receipt by Peter’s 3
children by his first marriage of their presumptive
SUGGESTED ANSWER: legitimes on their right to inherit following Peter’s
FALSE, The other three co – heirs may not anytime death? (5%)
demand the partition of the house and lot since it
was expressly provided by the decedent in his will SUGGESTED ANSWER:
that the same cannot be partitioned while his
In the distribution of Peter’s estate, ½ of the The following may inherit from Ramon: (1).
presumptive received by the 3 children of the first Michelle, as an adopted child of Ramon, will inherit
marriage shall be collated to Peter’s estate and as a legitimate child of Ramon. As an adopted
shall be imputed as an advance of their respective child, Michelle has all the rights of a legitimate
inheritance from Peter. Only half of the child (Sec 18, Domestic Adoption Law). (2). Lia will
presumptive legitime is collated to the estate of inherit in representation of Anna. Although Lia is
Peter because the other half shall be collated to the an illegitimate child, she is not barred by Articles
estate of his first wife. 992, because her mother Anna is an illegitimate
herself. She will represent Anna as regards Anna's
Intestate Succession (2008) legitime under Art. 902, NCC and as regards
No.X. Arthur executed a will which contained only: Anna's intestate share under Art. 990, NCC. The
(i) a provision disinheriting his daughter Bernica following may not inherit from Ramon:
for running off with a married man, and (ii) a (1). Shelly, being an adopted child, she cannot
provision disposing of his share in the family house represent Cherry. This is because adoption creates
and lot in favor of his other children Connie and a personal legal relation only between the adopter
Dora. He did not make any provisions in favor of and the adopted. The law on representation
his wife Erica, because as the will stated, she requires the representative to be a legal heir of the
would anyway get ½ of the house and lot as her person he is representing and also of the person
conjugal share. The will was very brief and from whom the person being represented was
straightforward and both the above provisions were supposed to inherit. While Shelly is a legal heir of
contained in page 1, which Arthur and his Cherry, Shelly is not a legal heir of Ramon.
instrumental witness, signed at the bottom. Page 2 Adoption created a purely personal legal relation
contained the attestation clause and the only between Cherry and Shelly. (2). Hans and
signatures, at the bottom thereof, of the 3 Gretel are barred from inheriting from Ramon
instrumental witnesses which included Lambert, under Art. 992, NCC. Being illegitimate children,
the driver of Arthur; Yoly, the family cook, and they cannot inherit ab intestao from Ramon.
Attorney Zorba, the lawyer who prepared the will.
There was a 3rd page, but this only contained the ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
notarial acknowledgement. The attestation clause The problem expressly mentioned the dates of the
stated the will was signed on the same occasion by adoption of Cherry and Michelle as 1971 and 1972.
Arthur and his instrumental witnesses who all During that time, adoption was governed by the
signed in the presence of each other, and the New Civil Code. Under the New Civil Code,
notary public who notarized the will. There are no husband and wife were allowed to adopt separately
marginal signatures or pagination appearing on or not jointly with the other spouse. And since the
any of the 3 pages. Upon his death, it was problem does not specifically and categorically
discovered that apart from the house and lot, he state, it is possible to construe the use of the word
had a P 1 million account deposited with ABC "respectively" in the problem as indicative of the
bank. situation that Cherry was adopted by Ramon alone
(D). How should the house and lot, and the cash be and Michelle was adopted by Dessa alone. In such
distributed? (1%) case of separate adoption the alternative answer to
the problem will be as follows: Only Lia will inherit
SUGGESTED ANSWER: from Ramon in representation of Ramon's
Since the probate of the will cannot be allowed, the illegitimate daughter Anna. Although Lia is an
rules on intestate succession apply. Under Art. 996 illegitimate child, she is not barred from inheriting
of the Civil Code, if a widow or widower and from Ramon because her mother is herself
legitimate children or descendants are left, the illegitimate. Shelly cannot inherit in representation
surviving spouse has the same share as of the of Cherry because Shelly is just an adopted child of
children. Thus, ownership over the house and lot Cherry. In representation, the representative must
will be created among wife Erica and her children not only be a legal heir of the person he is
Bernice, Connie and Dora. Similarly, the amount of representing but also of the decedent from whom
P 1 million will be equally divided among them. the represented person is supposed to inherit. In
the case of Shelly, while she is a legal heir of
Intestate Succession; Rights of Representation: Cherry by virtue of adoption, she is not a legal heir
Illegitimate, Adopted Child; Iron Curtain Rule of Ramon. Adoption creates a personal legal
(2007) relation only between the adopting parent and the
No. X. For purpose of this question, assume all adopted child (Teotico v. Del Val, 13 SCRA 406,
formalities and procedural requirements have been 1965. Michelle cannot inherit from Ramon,
complied with. because she was adopted not by Ramon but by
In 1970, Ramon and Dessa got married. Prior to Dessa. In the eyes of the law, she is not related to
their marriage, Ramon had a child, Anna. In 1971 Ramon at all. Hence, she is not a legal heir of
and 1972, Ramon and Dessa legally adopted Ramon. Hans and Gretel are not entitled to inherit
Cherry and Michelle respectively. In 1973, Dessa from Ramon, because they are barred by Art. 992
died while giving birth to Larry Anna had a child, NCC. Being illegitimate children of Larry, they
Lia. Anna never married. Cherry, on the other cannot inherit from the legitimate relatives of their
hand, legally adopted Shelly. Larry had twins, father Larry. Ramon is a legitimate relative of Larry
Hans and Gretel, with his girlfriend, Fiona. In who is the legitimate father.
2005, Anna, Larry and Cherry died in a car
accident. In 2007, Ramon died. Who may inherit Intestate Succession (2008) No. VII. Ramon
from Ramon and who may not? Give your reason Mayaman died intestate, leaving a net estate of
briefly. (10%) P10,000,000.00. Determine how much each heir
will receive from the estate: (A). If Ramon is
SUGGESTED ANSWER: survived by his wife, three full-blood brothers, two
half-brothers, and one nephew (the son of a they boarded was of Philippine registry. While en
deceased full-blood brother)? Explain. (3%) route from
Manila to Greece some passengers hijacked the
Having died intestate, the estate of Ramon shall be the chief pilot hostage at the cockpit and ordered
inherited by his wife and his full and half blood him to fly
siblings or their respective representatives. In instead to Libya. During the hijacking Isidro
intestacy, if the wife concurs with no one but the suffered a heart
siblings of the husband, all of them are the attack and was on the verge of death. Since Irma
intestate heirs of the deceased husband. The wife was already
will receive half of the intestate estate, while the eight months pregnant by Isidro, she pleaded to
siblings or their respective representatives, will the hijackers
inherit the other half to be divided among them to allow the assistant pilot to solemnize her
equally. If some siblings are of the full-blood and marriage with
the other of the half blood, a half blood sibling will Isidro. Soon after the marriage, Isidro expired.
receive half the share of a full-blood sibling. (1). As the plane
The wife of Ramon will, therefore, receive one half landed in Libya Irma gave birth. However, the
(½) of the estate or the amount of P5,000,000.00. baby died a
few minutes after complete delivery. Back in the
(2). The three (3) full-blood brothers, will, therefore, receive Philippines
P1,000,000.00 each. (3). The nephew will receive Irma Immediately filed a claim for inheritance.
P1,000,000.00 by right of representation. (4). The two (2) The parents of
half-brothers will receive P500,000.00 each. (B). If Ramon is Isidro opposed her claim contending that the
survived by his wife, a half-sister, and three nephews (sons of marriage
between her and Isidro was void ab initio on the
a deceased full-blood brother)? Explain. (3%)
grounds: (a) they had not given their consent to
the marriage
The wife will receive one half (1/2) of the estate or
of their son; (b) there was no marriage license;
P5,000,000.00. The other half shall be inherited by
(c) the
(1) the full-blood brother, represented by his three
solemnizing officer had no authority to perform
children, and (2) the half-sister. They will divide
the marriage;
the other half between them such that the share of
and, (d) the solemnizing officer did not file an
the half-sister is just half the share of the full-
affidavit of
blood brother. The share of the full-blood brother
marriage with the proper civil registrar.
shall in turn be inherited by the three nephews in
2. Does Irma have any successional rights at all?
equal shares by right of presentation. Therefore,
the three (3) nephews will receive P1,111,111.10
each the half-sister will receive the sum of
P1,666,666.60. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. Irma succeeded to the estate of Isidro as his
Heirs; Representation; Iron-Curtain Rule (2012) surviving
No.VIII.a) Ricky and Arlene are married. They begot spouse to the estate of her legitimate child.
Franco during their marriage. Franco had an illicit When Isidro died, he was succeeded by his
relationship with Audrey and out of which, they surviving wife Irma, and his
begot Arnel. FraNco predeceased Ricky, Arlene and legitimate unborn child. They divided the estate
Arnel. Before Ricky died, he executed a will which equally
when submitted to probate was opposed by Arnel between them, the child excluding the parents of
on the ground that he should be given the share of Isidro. An
his father, Franco. Is the opposition of Arnel unborn child is considered born for all purposes
correct? Why? (5%) favorable to
it provided it is born later. The child was
SUGGESTED ANSWER: considered born
No, his opposition is not correct. Arnel cannot because, having an intra-uterine life of more
inherit from Ricky in the representation of his than seven
father Franco. In representation, the representative months, it lived for a few minutes after its
must not only be a legal heir of the person he is complete delivery.
representing, he must also be a legal heir of the It was legitimate because it was born within the
decedent he seeks to inherit from. valid marriage
While Arnel is a legal heir of Franco, he is not a of the parents. Succession is favorable to it.
legal heir of Ricky because under Art 992 of the When the child
NCC, an illegitimate child has no right to inherit died, Irma inherited the share of the child.
ab intestato from the legitimate children and However, the
relatives of his father or mother. Arnel is share of the child in the hands of Irma is subject
disqualified to inherit from Ricky because Arnel is to reserva
an illegitimate child of Franco and Ricky is a troncal for the benefit of the relatives of the child
legitimate relative of Franco. within the
third degree of consanguinity and who belong to
Heirs; Intestate Heirs; Reserva Troncal (1995) the line of
Isidro and Irma, Filipinos, both 18 years of age, Isidro.
passengers of Flight No. 317 of Oriental Airlines. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The plane
If the marriage is void. Irma has no successional in his own right Article 977 of the Civil Code
rights with provides that heirs who repudiate their share
respect to Isidro but she would have cannot be represented.
successional rights with
respect to the child. Intestate Succession (1997)
"T" died intestate on 1 September 1997.He was
Heirs; Intestate Heirs; Shares (2003) survived by
Luis was survived by two legitimate children, M (his mother), W (his widow), A and B (his
two illegitimate legitimate
children, his parents, and two brothers. He left children), C (his grandson, being the legitimate
an estate of P1 son of B), D
million. Luis died intestate. Who are his intestate (his other grandson, being the son of E who was
heirs, and a legitimate
how much is the share of each in his estate? son of, and who predeceased, "T"), and F (his
SUGGESTED ANSWER: being the son of G, a legitimate son who
The intestate heirs are the two (2) legitimate repudiated the
children and the inheritance from "T"). His distributable net
two (2) illegitimate children. In intestacy the estate is
estate of the P120.000.00. How should this amount be shared
decedent is divided among the legitimate and in intestacy
illegitimate among the surviving heirs?
children such that the share of each illegitimate
child is one SUGGESTED ANSWER:
-half the share of each legitimate child. The legal heirs are A, B, D, and W. C is excluded
Their share are : For each legitimate child – by B who is
P333,333.33 For each illegitimate child – still alive. D inherits in representation of E who
P166,666.66 (Article 983, New Civil Code; predeceased.
Article 176, Family Code) F is excluded because of the repudiation of G,
Intestate Succession (1992) predecessor. M is excluded by the legitimate
F had three (3) legitimate children: A, B, and C. children of
B has one T. The answer may be premised on two theories:
(1) legitimate child X. C has two (2) legitimate the Theory
children: Y of Exclusion and the Theory of Concurrence.
and Z. F and A rode together in a car and
perished together Under the Theory of Exclusion the legitimes of
at the same time in a vehicular accident, F and A the heirs
died, each are accorded them and the free portion will be
of them leaving substantial estates in intestacy. given
a) Who are the intestate heirs of F? What are exclusively to the legitimate descendants. Hence
their under the
respective fractional shares? Exclusion Theory:
b) Who are the intestate heirs of A? What are A will get P20.000.00. and P 13.333.33 (1/3 of
their the free portion)
respective fractional shares? B will get P 20,000.00. and P13. 333.33 (1/3 of
c) If B and C both predeceased F, who are F’s the free portion)
intestate D will get P20.000.00. and P13. 333.33 (1/3 of
heirs? What are their respective fractional the free portion)
shares? Do W, the widow is limited to the legitime of
they inherit in their own right or by P20.000.00
representation? Under the Theory of Concurrence. In addition
Explain your answer. to their legitimes, the heirs of A, B, D and W will
d) If B and C both repudiated their shares in the be given equal shares in the free portions:
estate of A: P20.000.00 plus P10.000.00 (1 /4 of the free
F who are F's intestate heirs? What are their portion)
respective B: P20,000.00 plus P10.000.00 (l/4 of the free
fractional shares? Do they inherit in their own portlon)
right or by C: P20,000.00 plus P10.000.00 (1/4 of the free
representation? Explain your answer, portion)
W: P20,000.00 plus P10,000.00 (l/4 of the free
(a) B = 1/2
(b) B = 1/2 Z = 1/4 by representation of C C= 1/2 Alternative Answer:
Article 982 of the Civil Code provides that Shares in Intestacy T - decedent Estate:
grandchildren inherit by right of representation. P120.000.00
(c) X = 1/2 by representation of B C=l/2 Y = 1/4 Survived by: M - Mother............................None
by W - Widow.............................P 30,000.00
representation of C A - Son.................................P 30,000.00
(d) X - 1/3 in his own right Y- 1/3 in his own right B - Son.................................P30.000.00
2 - 1/3 C - Grandson (son of B).............None
D - Grandson (son of E who predeceased
T)................P 30,000.00
F – Grandson (son of G who repudiated the F (legitimate child of D) P 75.000 + P 37.500 -
Inheritance from"T").......................None P112,500
G (illegitimate child) P 75.000 0 -P 75,500
Explanation: H (illegitimate child) P 75.000 0 - P 75,500
a) The mother (M) cannot inherit from T because W (Widow) P150,000 0 -P150.000
under Art. 985 the ascendants shall inherit in
default of legitimate children and descendants of Intestate Succession (1998)
the deceased. Tessie died survived by her husband Mario, and
b) The widow's share is P30.000.00 because two nieces,
under Art, Michelle and Jorelle, who are the legitimate
996 it states that if the widow or widower and children of an
legitimate children or descendants are left, the elder sister who had predeceased her. The only
surviving spouse has in the succession the same property she
share as that of be set aside as Mario's conjugal left behind was a house and lot worth two million
share from the community each of the children, pesos,
c) C has no share because his father is still alive which Tessie and her husband had acquired with
hence succession by representation shall not the use of
apply (Art. 975). Mario's savings from his income as a doctor.
d) D inherits P30.000 which is the share of his How much of
father E who predeceased T by virtue of Art. 981 the property or its value, if any, may Michelle
on the right of representation. and Jorelle
e) F has no share because his father G claim as their hereditary shares? [5%]
repudiated the inheritance. Under Article 977
heirs who repudiate their share may not be SUGGESTED ANSWER:
represented. Article 1001 of the Civil Code provides, "Should
brothers and sisters or their children survive
Intestate Succession (1998) with the widow or widower, the latter shall be
Enrique died, leaving a net hereditary estate of entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the
P1.2 million. brothers and sisters or their children to the other
He is survived by his widow, three legitimate half." Tessie's gross estate consists of a house
children, two and lot acquired during her marriage, making it
legitimate grandchildren sired by a legitimate part of the community property. Thus, one-half of
child who the said property would have to property. The
predeceased him, and two recognized other half, amounting to one million pesos, is her
illegitimate children. conjugal share (net estate), and should be
Distribute the estate in intestacy. [5%] distributed to her intestate heirs. Applying the
above provision of law, Michelle and Jorelle,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Tessie's nieces, are entitled to one-half of her
Under the theory of Concurrence, the shares are conjugal share worth one million pesos, or
as follows: 500,000 pesos, while the other one-half
A (legitimate child) = P200,000 amounting to P500,000 will go to Mario, Tessie's
B (legitimate child) = P200,000 surviving spouse. Michelle and Jorelle are then
C (legitimate child) = P200,000 entitled to P250,000 pesos
D (legitimate child) = O (predeceased] each as their hereditary share.
E (legitimate child of D) = P100,000 - by right of
representation Intestate Succession (1999)
F (legitimate child of D) = P100,000 – by right of Mr. and Mrs. Cruz, who are childless, met with a
representation serious
G (illegitimate child) = P100,000 - ½ share of the motor vehicle accident with Mr. Cruz at the
legitimate child wheel and Mrs.
H (illegitimate child) = P100,000 - ½ share of the Cruz seated beside him, resulting in the instant
legitimate child death of Mr.
W (Widow) = P200.000 - same share as Cruz. Mrs. Cruz was still alive when help came
legitimate child but she also
died on the way to the hospital. The couple
Under the theory of Exclusion the free portion properties worth One Million (P1,000,000.00)
(P300,000) is distributed only among the Pesos during
legitimate children and is given to them in their marriage, which are being claimed by the
addition to their legitime. All other Intestate parents of
heirs are entitled only to their respective both spouses in equal shares. Is the claim of both
legitimes. The distribution is as follows: sets of
parents valid and why? (3%)
Legitime Free Portion Total
A [legitimate child) P150.000 + P 75,000 - SUGGESTED ANSWER:
P225.000 (a) No, the claim of both parents is not valid.
B {legitimate child) P150.000 + P150.000 - When Mr. Cruz
P225.000 died, he was succeeded by his wife and his
C (legitimate child) P150.000 + P 75.000 - parents as his
P225.000 intestate heirs who will share his estate equally.
D (legitimate child) 0 0 0 His estate
E (legitimate child of D) P 75,000 + P35.500 - was 0.5 Million pesos which is his half share in
P112,500 the absolute
community amounting to 1 Million Pesos. His applicable. This is because Antero is claiming his
wife, will, inheritance
therefore, inherit O.25 Million Pesos and his from his illegitimate father, not from Eugenio.
parents will
inherit 0.25 Million Pesos. Intestate Succession; Reserva Troncal (1999)
When Mrs. Cruz died, she was succeeded by her Mr. Luna died, leaving an estate of Ten Million
parents as (P1
her intestate heirs. They will inherit all of her 0,000,000.00) Pesos. His widow gave birth to a
estate consisting child four
of her 0.5 Million half share in the absolute months after Mr, Luna's death, but the child died
community and five hours
her 0.25 Million inheritance from her husband, after birth. Two days after the child's death, the
or a total of widow of Mr.
0.750 Million Pesos. Luna also died because she had suffered from
In sum, the parents of Mr. Cruz will inherit difficult
250,000 Pesos childbirth. The estate of Mr. Luna is now being
while the parents of Mrs. Cruz will inherit claimed by his
750,000 Pesos. parents, and the parents of his widow. Who is
entitled to Mr.
Intestate Succession (2000) Luna'a estate and why? (5%)
Eugenio died without issue, leaving several
parcels of land in SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Bataan. He was survived by Antonio, his Half of the estate of Mr. Luna will go to the
legitimate brother; parents of Mrs.
Martina, the only daughter of his predeceased Luna as their inheritance from Mrs. Luna, while
sister Mercedes; the other
and five legitimate children of Joaquin, another half will be inherited by the parents of Mr. Luna
predeceased as the
brother. Shortly after Eugenio's death, Antonio reservatarios of the reserved property inherited
also died, by Mrs. Luna
leaving three legitimate children. Subsequently, from her child.
Martina, the When Mr. Luna died, his heirs were his wife and
children of Joaquin and the children of Antonio the unborn
executed an child. The unborn child inherited because the
extrajudicial settlement of the estate of Eugenio, inheritance was
dividing it favorable to it and it was born alive later though
among themselves. The succeeding year, a it lived only
petition to annul for five hours. Mrs. Luna inherited half of the 10
the extrajudicial settlement was filed by Antero, Million
an illegitimate estate while the unborn child inherited the other
son of Antonio, who claims he is entitled to share half. When
in the the child died, it was survived by its mother, Mrs.
estate of Eugenio. The defendants filed a motion Luna. As
to dismiss the only heir, Mrs. Luna inherited, by operation
on the ground that Antero is barred by Article of law, the
992 of the estate of the child consisting of its 5 Million
Civil Code from inheriting from the legitimate inheritance from
brother of his Mr. Luna. In the hands of Mrs. Luna, what she
father. How will you resolve the motion? (5%) inherited
from her child was subject to reserva troncal for
The motion to dismiss should be granted. Article of the relatives of the child within the third
992 does degree of
not apply. Antero is not claiming any inheritance consanguinity and who belong to the family of
from Mr. Luna, the
Eugenio. He is claiming his share in the line where the property came from.
inheritance of his When Mrs. Luna died, she was survived by her
father consisting of his father's share in the parents as her
inheritance of Eugenio (Dela Merced v. Dela only heirs. Her parents will inherit her estate
Merced, Gr No. 126707, 25 5M inherited by consisting of the
Mrs. Luna from Mr. Luna will be inherited 5 Million she inherited from Mr. Luna. The other
February 1999). 5 Million
she inherited from her child will be delivered to
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: the parents of
It depends. If Antero was not acknowledged by Mr. Luna as beneficiaries of the reserved
Antonio, the property.
motion to dismiss should be granted because In sum, 5 Million Pesos of Mr. Luna's estate will
Antero is not a go to the
legal heir of Antonio. If Antero was parents of Mrs. Luna, while the other 5 Million
acknowledged, the Pesos will go
motion should be denied because Article 992 is to the parents of Mr. Luna as reservatarios.
If the child had an intra-uterine life of not less SUGGESTED ANSWER:
than 7 months, it FALSE. Not all the relatives within the third degree
inherited from the father. In which case, the will inherit as reservatario , and not all those who
estate of 10M will be divided equally between are entitled to inherit will inherit in the equal
the child and the widow as legal heirs. Upon the shares . The applicable laws of intestate succession
death of the child, its share of 5M shall go by will determine who among the relatives will inherit
operation of law to the mother, which shall be as reservatarios and what shares they will tak, i.e.,
subject to reserva troncal. Under Art. 891, the the direct line excludes the collateral, the
reserva is in favor of relatives belonging to the descending direct line excludes the ascending ,the
paternal line and who are within 3 degrees from nearer excludes the more remote, the nephews and
the child. The parents of Mr, Luna are entitled to nieces exclude the uncles and the aunts, and half
the reserved portion which is 5M as they are 2 blood relatives inherit half the share of full-blooded
degrees related from child. The from her by her relatives.
However, if the child had intra-uterine life of less Proceedings; Intestate Proceedings; Jurisdiction (2004)
than 7 In his lifetime, a Pakistani citizen, ADIL, married
months, half of the estate of Mr. Luna, or 5M, three times
will be under Pakistani law. When he died an old
inherited by the widow (Mrs. Luna), while the widower, he left
other half, or behind six children, two sisters, three homes,
5M, will be inherited by the parents of Mr. Luna. and an estate
Upon the worth at least 30 million pesos in the Philippines.
death of Mrs. Luna, her estate of 5M will be He was
inherited by her born in Lahore but last resided in Cebu City,
own parents. where he had a
mansion and where two of his youngest children
Reserval Troncal (2014) now live
XIII. Esteban and Martha had four (4) children: Rolando, and work. Two of his oldest children are farmers
Jun, Mark, and Hector. Rolando had a daughter, Edith, in Sulu,
while Mark had a son, Philip. After the death of Esteban while the two middle-aged children are
and Martha, their three (3) parcels of land were employees in
adjudicated to Jun. After the death of Jun, the properties Zamboanga City. Finding that the deceased left
passed to his surviving spouse Anita, and son Cesar. no will, the
When Anita died, her share went to her son Cesar. Ten youngest son wanted to file intestate
(10) years after, Cesar died intestate without any issue. proceedings before the
Peachy, Anita’s sister, adjudicated to herself the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. Two other
properties as the only surviving heir of Anita and Cesar. siblings objected, arguing that it should be in
Edith and Philip would like to recover the properties Jolo before a Shari’a mother, in favor of another
claiming that they should have been reserved by Peachy sister, with their mother not court since his lands
in their behalf and must now revert back to them. are in Sulu. But Adil’s sisters in Pakistan want
the proceedings held in Lahore before a
Is the contention of Edith and Philip valid? (4%) Pakistani court. Which court has jurisdiction and
is the proper venue for the intestate
SUGGESTED ANSWER: proceedings? The law of which country shall
No, the contention is not valid. The property adjudicated govern succession to his estate? (5%)
to Jun from the estate of his parents which he in turn left
to Anita and Cesar is not subject to reservation in favor SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of Edith and Philip. In Mendozaet. al. vs.Policarpio, et. In so far as the properties of the decedent
al. 1 the court ruled that lineal character of the reservable located in the
property is reckoned from the ascendant from whom the Philippines are concerned, they are governed by
propositus received the property by gratuitous title. The Philippine
ownership should be reckoned only from Jun, as he is law (Article 16, Civil Code). Under Philippine
the ascendant from where the first transmission occurred law, the proper
or from whom Cesar inherited the properties. Moreover, venue for the settlement of the estate is the
Article 891 provides that the person obliged to reserve
domicile of the
the property should be an ascendant. Peachy is not
decedent at the time of his death. Since the
Cesar’s ascendant but a mere collateral relative. On the
decedent last
assumption that the property is reservable, Edith and
resided in Cebu City, that is the proper venue for
Philip being first cousins of Cesar who is the propositus
the intestate
are disqualified to be reservatarios as they are not third
settlement of his estate.
degree relatives of Cesar.
However, the successional rights to the estate of
ADIL are
Heirs; Reserva Troncal (2009)
governed by Pakistani law, his national law,
No. I. TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the
under Article 16
statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is
of the Civil Code.
false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2)
sentences. (B).In reservatroncal, all reservatarios
Inheritance; illegitimate child (2015)
(reservees) inherit as a class and in equal shares
NO. III. Julie had a relationship with a married man who
regardless of their proximity in degree to the
had legitimate children. A son was born out of that illicit
prepositus. (1%)
relationship in 1981. Although the putative father did not
recognize the child in his certificate of birth, he
G.R. NO. 176422 -March 20, 2013
nevertheless provided the with child all the support he
needed and spent time regularly with the child and his
mother. When the man died in 2000, the child was "X", the decedent, was survived by W (his
already 18 years old so he filed a petition to be widow). A (his
recognized as an illegitimate child of the putative father son), B (a granddaughter, being the daughter of
and sought to be given a share in his putative father's A) and C and
estate. The legitimate family opposed, saying that under D (the two acknowledged illegitimate children of
the Family Code his action cannot prosper because he the
did not bring the action for recognition during the lifetime decedent). "X" died this year (1997) leaving a net
of his putative father. estate of
b) Wishing to keep the peace, the child during P180,000.00. All were willing to succeed, except
the pendency of the case decides to compromise A who
with his putative father's family by abandoning his repudiated the inheritance from his father, and
petition in exchange for Yi of what he would have they seek your
received as inheritance if he were recognized as legal advice on how much each can expect to
an illegitimate child. As the judge, would you receive as their
approve such a compromise? (2%) respective shares in the distribution of the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: estate. Give your
b) No, I will not approve the compromise agreement answer.
because filiation is a matter to be decided by law. It is
not for the parties to stipulate whether a person is a SUGGESTED ANSWER:
legitimate or illegitimate child of another. (De Jesus v. The heirs are B, W, C and D. A inherits nothing
Estate of Dizon 366 SCRA 499) In all cases of because of his
illegitimate children, their filiation must be duly proved. renunciation. B inherits a legitime of P90.000.00
(Article 887, Civil Code) as the nearest
and only legitimate descendant, inheriting in his
Yes, I would approve the compromise because it is no by representation because of A's renunciation. W
longer considered future inheritance. What the law gets a
prohibits is a compromise with respect to future legitime. legitime equivalent to one-half (1 / 2) that of B
In this case, the father is already dead so the amounting to
compromise is considered valid. P45.000. C and D each gets a legitime equivalent
to one-half
Legitimes; Compulsory Heirs (2012) (1/2) that of B amounting to P45.000.00 each.
No.VIII.b) How can RJP distribute his estate by But since the
will, if his heirs are JCP, his wife; HBR and RVC, total exceeds the entire estate, their legitimes
his parents; and an illegitimate child, SGO? would have to be
reduced corresponding to P22.500.00 each (Art.
A testator may dispose of by will the free portion of The total of all of these amounts to P180.000.00.
his estate. Since the legitime of JCP is 1/8 of the
estate, SGO is ¼ of the estate and that of HBR and ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
RVC is ½ of the hereditary estate under Art 889 of INTESTATE SUCCESSION
the NCC, the remaining 1/8 of the estate is the free ESTATE: P180,000.00
portion which the testator may dispose of by will. W- (widow gets 1/2 share) P90.000.00 (Art. 998)
A- (son who repudiated his inheritance) None
Legitime; Compulsory Heirs (2008) Art. 977)
No. XII. Ernesto, an overseas Filipino worker, was B - (Granddaughter) None
coming home to the Philippines after working for C - (Acknowledged illegitimate child) P45.000.00
so many years in the Middle East. He had saved (Art.998)
P100.000 in his saving account in Manila which D - (Acknowledged illegitimate child) P45,000.00
intended to use to start a business in his home (Art. 998)
country. On his flight home, Ernesto had a fatal The acknowledged illegitimate child gets 1/2 of
heart attack. He left behind his widowed mother, the share of each legitimate child.
his common-law wife and their twins sons. He left
no will, no debts, no other relatives and no other Legitime; Compulsory Heirs (2003)
properties except the money in his saving account. Luis was survived by two legitimate children,
Who are the heirs entitled to inherint from him and two illegitimate
how much should each receive?(3%) children, his parents, and two brothers. He left
an estate of P1
SUGGESTED ANSWER: million. Who are the compulsory heirs of Luis,
The mother and twin sons are entitled to inherit how much is
from Ernesto. Art. 991 of the Civil Code, provides the legitime of each, and how much is the free
that if legitimate ascendants are left, the twin sons portion of his
shall divide the inheritance with them taking one- estate, if any?
half of the estate. Thus, the widowed mother gets
P50,000.00 while the twin sons shall receive SUGGESTED ANSWER:
P25,000.00 each. The common-law wife cannot The compulsory heirs are the two legitimate
inherit from him because when the law speaks children and the
"widow or widower" as a compulsory heir, the law two illegitimate children. The parents are
refers to a legitimate spouse (Art. 887, par 3, Civil excluded by the
Code). legitimate children, while the brothers are not
Legitime (1997) heirs at all. Their respective legitimate are: a)
The legitime of
the two (2) legitimate children is one a) For purposes of succession, when is death
half (1/2) of the estate (P500,000.00) to be deemed to
divided occur or take place? b) May succession be
between them equally, or P250,000.00 each. b) conferred by
The legitimate contracts or acts inter vivos? Illustrate. c) Is
of each illegitimate child is one-half there any law which allows the delivery to
(1/2) the legitime of each legitimate child or compulsory heirs of their presumptive legitimes
P125,000.00. c) Since the total legitime of the during the lifetime of their parents? If so, in what
compulsory heirs is legitime of the legitimate instances?
children and it follows that the
P750,000.00, the balance of P250,000.00 is the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
free A. Death as a fact is deemed to occur when it
portion. actually takes
place. Death is presumed to take place in the
Legitime; Compulsory Heirs vs. Secondary Compulsory Heirs circumstances
(2005) under Arts. 390-391 of the Civil Code. The time
Emil, the testator, has three legitimate children, of death is
Tom, Henry presumed to be at the expiration of the 10year
and Warlito; a wife named Adette; parents period as
named Pepe and prescribed by Article 390 and at the moment of
Pilar; an illegitimate child, Ramon; brother, disappearance
Mark; and a sister, under Article 391.
Nanette. Since his wife Adette is well-off, he B. Under Art. 84 of the Family Code amending
wants to leave to Art 130 of
his illegitimate child as much of his estate as he the Civil Code, contractual succession is no
can legally do. longer possible
His estate has an aggregate net amount of since the law now requires that donations of
Pl,200,000.00, and future property
all the above-named relatives are still living. be governed by the provisions on the
Emil now comes testamentary succession
to you for advice in making a will. How will you and formalities of wills.
distribute his
estate according to his wishes without violating ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
the law on B. In the case of Coronado vs.CA(l91
testamentary succession? (5%) SCRA81), it was ruled
that no property passes under a will without its
P600,000.00 — legitime to be divided equally probated, but may under Article 1058 of the Civil
between Tom, Code of
Henry and Warlito as the legitimate children. 1898, be sustained as a partition by an act inter
Each will be vivos
entitled to P200,000.00. (Art. 888, Civil Code) [Many-Oy vs. CA 144SCRA33).
P100,000.00 -- And in the case of Chavez vs, IAC 1191
share of Ramon the illegitimate child. Equivalent SCRA211), it was ruled that while the law
to 1/2 of prohibits contracts upon future inheritance, the
the share of each legitimate child. (Art. 176, partition by the parent, as provided in Art. 1080
Family Code) is a case expressly authorized by law. A person
P200,000.00 — Adette the wife. Her share is has two options in making a partition of his
equivalent to the estate: either by an act inter vivos or by will. If
share of one legitimate child. (Art. 892, par. 2, the partition is by will, it is imperative that such
Civil Code) partition must be executed in accordance with
Pepe and Pilar, the parents are only secondary the provisions of the law on wills; if by an act
compulsory inter vivos, such partition may even be oral or
heirs and they cannot inherit if the primary written, and need not be in the form of a will,
compulsory heirs provided the legitime is not prejudiced. "Where
(legitimate children) are alive. (Art. 887, par. 2, several sisters execute deeds of sale over their
Civil Code) 1 /6 undivided share of the paraphernal property
Brother Mark and sister Nanette are not of their only giving her authority thereto but
compulsory heirs even signing said deeds,
since they are not included in the enumeration there is a valid partition inter vivos between the
under Article mother and
887 of the Civil Code. her children which cannot be revoked by the
The remaining balance of P300,000.00 is the free mother. Said
portion deeds of sale are not contracts entered into with
which can be given to the illegitimate child respect to
Ramon as an future inheritance.
instituted heir. (Art. 914, Civil Code) If so given "It would be unjust for the mother to revoke the
by the sales to a
decedent, Ramon would receive a total of son and to execute a simulated sale in favor of a
P400,000.00. daughter
who already benefited by the partition."
Succession; Death; Presumptive Legitime (1991)
C. Yes, under Arts. 51 and 52 of the New Family that only Marian and Pietro were hacked with
Code. In bolos. There was no showing that the baby was
case of legal separation, annulment of marriage, also hacked to death. The baby's death could have
declaration been due to lack of nutrition.
of nullity of marriage and the automatic
termination of a ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
subsequent marriage by the reappearance of the The baby is presumed to have died ahead of
absent Marian. Under Par. 5, rule 131, Sec. 5 (KK) of the
spouse, the common or community property of Rules of Court, if one is under 15 or above 60 and
the spouses the age of the other is in between 15 and 60, the
shall be dissolved and liquidated. latter is presumed to have survived. In the instant
Art, 51. In said partition, the value of the case, Marian was already 18 when she found out
presumptive that she was pregnant. She could be of the same
legitimes of all common children, computed as of age or maybe 19 years of age when she gave birth.
the date of
the final judgment of the trial court, shall be (C). Will Pietro, as surviving biological father of the
delivered in baby, be entitled to claim the proceeds of the life
cash, property or sound securities, unless the insurance on the life of Marian? (2%)
parties, by
mutual agreement, judicially approved, had SUGGESTED ANSWER:
already provided Pietro, as the biological father of the baby, shall be
for such matters. entitled to claim the proceeds of life insurance of
The children of their guardian, or the trustee of the Marian because he is a compulsory heir of his
their child.
property, may ask for the enforcement of the
judgment. Succession; Rule on Survivorship (2009)
The delivery of the presumptive legitimes herein No. II. Dr. Lopez, a 70-year old widower, and his
prescribed son Roberto both died in a fire that gutted their
shall in no way prejudice the ultimate home while they were sleeping in their air-
successional rights of conditioned rooms. Roberto’s wife, Marilyn, and
the children accruing upon the death of either or their two children were spared because they were
both of the in the province at the time. Dr. Lopez left an estate
parents; but the value of the properties already worth P20M and a life insurance policy in the
received amount of P1M with his three children --- one of
under the decree of annulment or absolute whom is Roberto --- as beneficiaries. Marilyn is
nullity shall be now claiming for herself and her children her
considered as advances on their legitime. husband’s share in the estate left by Dr. Lopez,
Art. 52. The judgment of annulment or of and her husband’s share in the proceeds of Dr.
absolute nullity of Lopez’s life insurance policy. Rule on the validity of
the marriage, the partition and distribution of Marilyn’s claims with reasons. (4%)
the properties
of the spouses, and the delivery of the children's SUGGESTED ANSWER :
presumptive As to the Estate of Dr. Lopez:
legitimes shall be recorded in the appropriate Marilyn is not entitled to a share in the estate of
civil registry and Dr. Lopez. For purpose of succession, Dr. Lopez
registries of property; otherwise, the same shall and his son Roberto are presumed to have died at
not affect the same time, there being no evidence to prove
third persons. otherwise, and there shall be no transmission of
rights from one to the other (Article 43, NCC).
Succession; Proof of Death between persons Hence, Roberto, inherited nothing from his father
called to succeed each other (2008) that Marilyn would in turn inherit from Roberto
No. II. At age 18, Marian found out that she was .The children of Roberto, however, will succeed
pregnant. She insured her own life and named her their grandfather, Dr. Lopez ,in representation of
unborn child as her sole beneficiary. When she their father Roberto and together Roberto will
was already due to give birth, she and her receive 1/3 of the estate of Dr. Lopez since their
boyfriend Pietro, the father of her unboarn child, father Roberto was one of the three children of Dr.
were kidnapped in a resort in Bataan where they Lopez . Marilyn cannot represent her husband
were vacationing. The military gave chase and after Roberto because the right is not given by the law to
one week, they were found in an abandoned hut in a surviving spouse. As to the proceeds of the
Cavite. Marian and Pietro were hacked with bolos. insurance on the life of Dr. Lopez:
Marian and the baby delivered were both found Since succession is not involved as regards the
dead, with the baby's umbilical cord already cut. insurance contract, the provisions of the Rules of
Pietro survived. Court (Rule 131, Sec. 3 , [jj] [5] ) on survivorship
(B). Between Marian and the baby, who is shall apply. Under the Rules, Dr. Lopez, who was
presumed to have died ahead? (1%) 70 years old, is presumed to have died ahead of
Roberto who is presumably between the ages 15
SUGGESTED ANSWER: and 60. Having survived the insured, Roberto's
Marian is presumed to have died ahead of the right as a beneficiary became vestedupon the death
baby. Art. 43 applies to persons who are called to of Dr. Lopez. When Roberto died after Dr. Lopez,
succeed each other. The proof of death must be his right to receive the insurance became part of
established by positive or circumstantial evidence his hereditary estate, which in turn was inherited
derived from facts. It can never be established from in equal shares by his legal heirs, namely, his
mere inference. In the present case, it is very clear
spouse and children. Therefore, Roberto's children amount of P300,000.00, When the deed was
and his spouse are entitled to Roberto's onethird about to be
share in the insurance proceeds. prepared Joaquin told Julio that it be drawn in
the name of
Barrier between illegitimate & legitimate relatives (1993) Joaquina Roxas, his acknowledged natural child.
A is the acknowledged natural child of B who Thus, the
died when A deed was so prepared and executed by Julio.
was already 22 years old. When B's full blood Joaquina then
brother, C, built a house on the lot where she, her husband
died he (C) was survived by his widow and four and children
children of resided. Upon Joaquin's death, his legitimate
his other brother D. Claiming that he is entitled children sought
to inherit to recover possession and ownership of the lot,
from his father's brother C. A brought suit to claiming that
obtain his Joaquina Roxas was but a trustee of their father.
share in the estate of C. Will his action prosper? Will the
action against Joaquina Roxas prosper?
No, the action of A will not prosper. On the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
premise that B, Yes, because there is a presumed donation in
C and D are legitimate brothers, as an favor of
illegitimate child of B, Joaquina under Art. 1448 of the Civil Code (De
A cannot inherit in intestacy from C who is a los Santos
legitimate v. Reyes, 27 January 1992, 206 SCRA 437).
brother of B. Only the wife of C in her own right However, the
and the legitimate relatives of C (i.e. the children donation should be collated to the hereditary
of D as C's How will you rule on Jorge's estate and the
opposition to the probate of legitime of the other heirs should be preserved.
legitimate nephews inheriting as collateral
relatives) can ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
inherit in intestacy. (Arts. 992, 1001, 1OO5 and Yes, the action against Joaquina Roxas will
975, Civil prosper, but only
Code) to the extent of the aliquot hereditary rights of
the legitimate
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: children as heirs. Joaquina will be entitled to
The action of A will not prosper. Being an retain her own
illegitimate, he is share as an illegitimate child, (Arts. 1440 and
barred by Article 992 of the Civil Code from 1453. Civil
inheriting ab Code; Art. 176, F. C.)
intestato from the legitimate relatives of his
father. Inheritance; illegitimate child (2015)
NO. III. Julie had a relationship with a married man who
Barrier between illegitimate & legitimate relatives (1996) had legitimate children. A son was born out of that illicit
Cristina the illegitimate daughter of Jose and relationship in 1981. Although the putative father did not
Maria, died recognize the child in his certificate of birth, he
intestate, without any descendant or ascendant. nevertheless provided the with child all the support he
Her valuable needed and spent time regularly with the child and his
estate is being claimed by Ana, the legitimate mother. When the man died in 2000, the child was
daughter of already 18 years old so he filed a petition to be
Jose, and Eduardo, the legitimate son of Maria. recognized as an illegitimate child of the putative father
Is either, and sought to be given a share in his putative father's
both, or neither of them entitled to inherit? estate. The legitimate family opposed, saying that under
Explain. the Family Code his action cannot prosper because he
did not bring the action for recognition during the lifetime
SUGGESTED ANSWER: of his putative father.
Neither Ana nor Eduardo is entitled to inherit of b) Wishing to keep the peace, the child during
ab intestato the pendency of the case decides to compromise
from Cristina. Both are legitimate relatives of with his putative father's family by abandoning his
Cristina's petition in exchange for Yi of what he would have
illegitimate parents and therefore they fall under received as inheritance if he were recognized as
the an illegitimate child. As the judge, would you
prohibition prescribed by Art. 992, NCC approve such a compromise? (2%)
(Manuel v. Ferrer,
242 SCRA 477; Diaz v. Court of Appeals, 182 SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SCRA b) No, I will not approve the compromise agreement
427). because filiation is a matter to be decided by law. It is
not for the parties to stipulate whether a person is a
Collation (1993) legitimate or illegitimate child of another. (De Jesus v.
Joaquin Reyes bought from Julio Cruz a Estate of Dizon 366 SCRA 499) In all cases of
residential lot of 300 illegitimate children, their filiation must be duly proved.
square meters in Quezon City for which Joaquin (Article 887, Civil Code)
paid Julio the
Yes, I would approve the compromise because it is no Yes, the disinheritance was valid. Art. 919, par 7,
longer considered future inheritance. What the law Civil Code provides that "when a child or
prohibits is a compromise with respect to future legitime. descendant leads a dishonorable or disgraceful life,
In this case, the father is already dead so the like running off with a married man, there is
compromise is considered valid. sufficient cause for disinheritance."

Preterition (2014) Disinheritance vs. Preterition (1993)

V.What is the effect of preterition ? (1%) Maria, to spite her husband Jorge, whom she
suspected was
(A) It annuls the devise and legacy having an affair with another woman, executed a
(B) It annuls the institution of heir unknown to him, bequeathing all the properties
she inherited
(C) It reduces the devise and legacy from her parents, to her sister Miguela. Upon
her death, the
(D) It partially annuls the institution of heir will was presented for probate. Jorge opposed
probate of the
Answer is letter B (preterition annuls the institution will on the ground that the will was executed by
of heirs) his wife
Preterition; Disinheritance (2008) without his knowledge, much less consent, and
No.X. Arthur executed a will which contained only: that it
(i) a provision disinheriting his daughter Bernica deprived him of his legitime. After all, he had
for running off with a married man, and (ii) a given her no
provision disposing of his share in the family house cause for disinheritance, added Jorge in his
and lot in favor of his other children Connie and opposition.
Dora. He did not make any provisions in favor of Maria's will. If you were the Judge?
his wife Erica, because as the will stated, she
would anyway get ½ of the house and lot as her SUGGESTED ANSWER:
conjugal share. The will was very brief and As Judge, I shall rule as follows: Jorge's
straightforward and both the above provisions were opposition should be
contained in page 1, which Arthur and his sustained in part and denied in part. Jorge's
instrumental witness, signed at the bottom. Page 2 omission as
contained the attestation clause and the spouse of Maria is not preterition of a
signatures, at the bottom thereof, of the 3 compulsory heir in the
instrumental witnesses which included Lambert, direct line. Hence, Art. 854 of the Civil Code
the driver of Arthur; Yoly, the family cook, and does not apply,
Attorney Zorba, the lawyer who prepared the will. and the institution of Miguela as heir is valid, but
There was a 3rd page, but this only contained the only to the
notarial acknowledgement. The attestation clause extent of the free portion of one-half. Jorge is still
stated the will was signed on the same occasion by entitled to
Arthur and his instrumental witnesses who all one-half of the estate as his legitime. (Art. 1001,
signed in the presence of each other, and the Civil Code)
notary public who notarized the will. There are no
marginal signatures or pagination appearing on ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
any of the 3 pages. Upon his death, it was a) As Judge, I shall rule as follows: Jorge's
discovered that apart from the house and lot, he opposition should
had a P 1 million account deposited with ABC be sustained in part and denied in part. This is a
bank. (A). Was Erica preterited? (1%) case of
ineffective disinheritance under Art, 918 of the
Erica cannot be preterited. Art. 854 of the Civil because the omission of the compulsory heir
Code provides that only compulsory heirs in the Jorge by Maria
direct line can be preterited. was intentional. Consequently, the institution of
Miguela as
(B). What other defects of the will, if any, can cause heir is void only insofar as the legitime of Jorge
denial of probate? (2%) is prejudiced.
Accordingly, Jorge is entitled to his legitime of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: one-half of the
The other defects of the will that can cause its estate, and Miguela gets the other half.
denial are as follows: (a) Atty. Zorba, the one who b) As Judge, I shall rule as follows: Jorge's
prepared the will was one of the three witnesses, opposition should
violating the three-witnesses rule; (b) no marginal be sustained. This is a case of preterition under
signature at the last page; (c ) the attestation did Article 854
not state the number of pages upon which the will Civil Code, the result of the omission of Jorge as
is written; and, (d) no pagination appearing compulsory
correlatively in letters on the upper part of the heir having the same right equivalent to a
three pages (Azuela v. C.A., G.R. No. 122880, 12 legitimate child "in
Apr 2006 and cited cases therein, Art 805 and 806, the direct line" is that total intestacy will arise,
Civil Code). and Jorge will
inherit the entire estate.
(C). Was the disinheritance valid? (1%) c) As Judge, I shall rule as follows: the opposition
be denied since it is predicated upon causes not Disinheritance; Ineffective; Preterition (2000)
recognized In his last will and testament, Lamberto 1)
by law as grounds for disallowance of a wll, to disinherits his
wit: daughter Wilma because "she is disrespectful
1 that the will was made without his knowledge; towards me and
2 that the will was made without his consent; raises her voice talking to me", 2) omits entirely
and his spouse
3 that it has the effect of depriving him of his Elvira, 3) leaves a legacy of P100,000.00 to his
legitime, which is a ground that goes into the mistress Rosa
intrinsic and P50,000.00 to his driver Ernie and 4)
validity of the will and need not be resolved institutes his son
during the Baldo as his sole heir. How will you distribute his
probate proceedings. However, the opposition estate of
may be P1,000,000.00? (5%)
entertained for, the purpose of securing to the
his right to the legitime on the theory that the The disinheritance of Wilma was ineffective
will because the
constitutes an ineffective disinheritance under ground relied upon by the testator does not
Art. 918 constitute
of the Civil Code, maltreatment under Article 919(6) of the New
d) As Judge, I shall rule as follows: Jorge is Civil Code.
entitled to Hence, the testamentary provisions in the will
receive his legitime from the estate of his wife. shall be
He was not annulled but only to the extent that her legitime
disinherited in the will even assuming that he was impaired.
gave ground for The total omission of Elvira does not constitute
disinheritance, hence, he is still entitled to his preterition
legitime. Jorge, because she is not a compulsory heir in the
however, cannot receive anything from the free direct line. Only
portion. He compulsory heirs in the direct line may be the
cannot claim preterition as he is not a subject of
compulsory heir in the preterition. Not having been preterited, she will
direct line. There being no preterition, the be entitled
institution of the only to her legitime.
sister was valid and the only right of Jorge is to The legacy in favor of Rosa is void under Article
claim his 1028 for
legitime. being in consideration of her adulterous relation
with the
Disinheritance; Ineffective (1999) testator. She is, therefore, disqualified to receive
Mr. Palma, widower, has three daughters D, D-l the legacy of
and D-2. He executes a Will disinheriting D 100,000 pesos. The legacy of 50,000 pesos in
because she married a man he did not like, and favor of Ernie is
instituting daughters D-1 and D-2 as his heirs to not inofficious not having exceeded the free
his entire estate of P 1,000,000.00, Upon Mr, portion. Hence,
Palma's death, how should his estate be divided? he shall be entitled to receive it.
Explain. (5%) The institution of Baldo, which applies only to
the free
SUGGESTED ANSWER: portion, shall be respected. In sum, the estate of
This is a case of ineffective disinheritance Lamberto
because marrying 1028 for being in will be distributed as follows:
consideration of her adulterous relation Baldo-----------------450,000
a man that the father did not approve of is not a Wilma---------------250,000
ground for Elvira-----------------250,000
disinheriting D. Therefore, the institution of D-l Ernie-----------------50,000
and D-2 1,000,000
shall be annulled insofar as it prejudices the
and the institution of D-l and D-2 shall only apply The disinheritance of Wilma was effective because
on the disrespect of,
free portion in the amount of P500,000.00. and raising of voice to, her father constitute
Therefore, D, D-l maltreatment under
and D-2 will get their legitimes of P500.000.00 Article 919(6) of the New Civil Code. She is, therefore,
divided into not entitled to
three equal parts and D-l and D-2 will get a inherit anything. Her inheritance will go to the other legal
reduced heirs. The
testamentary disposition of P250,000.00 each. total omission of Elvira is not preterition because she is
Hence, the not a
shares will be: compulsory heir in the direct line. She will receive only
D P166,666.66 her legitime.
D-l P166,666.66 + P250.000.00 The legacy in favor of Rosa is void under Article with the
D-2 P166,666.66 + P250,000.00 testator. She is, therefore, disqualified to receive the

legacy. Ernie will receive the legacy in his favor because Assuming that the donation is valid as to form
it is not and substance,
inofficious. The institution of Baldo, which applies only to Juan cannot invoke preterition because he
the free actually had received a donation inter vivos from
portion, will be respected. In sum, the estate of Lamberto the testatrix (III Tolentino 188,1992 ed.). He
shall be would only have a right to a completion of his
distributed as follows: legitime under Art. 906 of the Civil Code. The
Distribut estate should be divided equally among the five
Legiti ion Legacy TOTA children who will each receive P225,000.00
Heir me Of Institut L because the total hereditary estate, after
Wilma’s ion collating the donation to Juan (Art. 1061, CC),
Legitime would be P1 million. In the actual distribution of
Bald 250,000 125,000 200,000 575,00 the net estate, Juan gets nothing while his
o 0 0 siblings will get P225,000.00 each.
Wilm (250.00
a 0) Preterition; Compulsory Heir (1999)
(a) Mr, Cruz, widower, has three legitimate
Elvir 250,000 125.000 375.00 children, A, B
a 0 and C. He executed a Will instituting as his heirs
to his estate
of One Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos his two
Preterition (2001) children A and
Because her eldest son Juan had been pestering B, and his friend F. Upon his death, how should
her for Mr. Cruz's
capital to start a business, Josefa gave him estate be divided? Explain. (3%)
P100,000. Five (b) In the preceding question, suppose Mr. Cruz
years later, Josefa died, leaving a last will and instituted his
testament in two children A and B as his heirs in his Will, but
which she instituted only her four younger gave a legacy
children as her of P 100,000.00 to his friend F. How should the
sole heirs. At the time of her death, her only estate of Mr,
properly left was Cruz be divided upon his death? Explain, (2%)
P900,000.00 in a bank. Juan opposed the will on
of preterition. How should Josefa's estate be (a) Assuming that the institution of A, B and F
divided among were to the
her heirs? State briefly the reason(s) for your entire estate, there was preterition of C since C
answer. (5%) is a
compulsory heir in the direct line. The
SUGGESTED ANSWER: preterition will result
There was no preterition of the oldest son in the total annulment of the institution of heirs.
because the Therefore,
testatrix donated 100,000 pesos to him. This the institution of A, B and F will be set aside and
donation is Mr. Cuz's
considered an advance on the son's inheritance. estate will be divided, as in intestacy, equally
There being among A, B and
no preterition, the institutions in the will shall be C as follows: A - P333,333.33; B - P333.333.33;
respected and C -
but the legitime of the oldest son has to be P333,333.33.
completed if he (b) On the same assumption as letter (a), there
received less. was preterition
After collating the donation of P100.000 to the of C. Therefore, the institution of A and B is
remaining annulled but the
property of P900,000, the estate of the testatrix legacy of P100.000.00 to F shall be respected for
is P1,000,000. not being
Of this amount, one-half or P500,000, is the inofficious. Therefore, the remainder of
legitime of one legitimate child is P100,000. The P900.000.00 will be
legitime, divided equally among A, B and C.
therefore, of the oldest son is P100,000.
However, since the
donation given him was P100,000, he has
already received in
full his legitime and he will not receive anything
from the decedent. The remaining P900,000,
therefore, shall
go to the four younger children by institution in
the will, to
be divided equally among them. Each will
receive P225,000.


Donation of the Picasso painting, Brad cannot validly
bequeath the same to Angie (Art. 930, NCC). Even
Donation (2013) assuming that the painting was impliedly given or
QUESTION V. Josefa executed a deed of donation donated by Jennifer to Brad, the donation is
covering a one-hectare rice land in favor of her daughter, nevertheless void for not being in writing. The
Jennifer. The deed specifically provides that: Picasso painting must be worth more than 5,000
pesos. Under Art. 748, NCC, the donation and
"For and in consideration of he love and acceptance of a movable worth more than 5,000
service Jennifer has shown and given to pesos must be in writing, otherwise the donation is
me, I hereby freely, voluntarily and void. The donation being void, Jennifer remained
irrevocably donate to her my one- the owner of the Picasso painting and Brad could
hectare rice land covered by TCT No. not have validly disposed of said painting in favor
11550, located in San Fernando, of Angie in his will.
Pampanga. This donation shall take
effect upon my death." ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
YES. Angie is correct. Even assuming that there
The deed also contained Jennifer's signed acceptance, was void donation because the same was not in
and an attached notarized declaration by Josefa and writing, Brad was in uninterrupted possession of
Jennifer that the land will remain in Josefa's possession the Picasso painting from 1989 to 1995, lasting for
and cannot be alienated, encumbered, sold or disposed six (6) years prior to his death. Brad has already
of while Josefa is still alive. acquired ownership of the painting through
acquisitive prescription. Under Art. 1132, NCC,
Advise Jennifer on whether the deed is a donation inter ownership of movables prescribes through
vivos or mortis causa and explain the reasons
continuous possession for four (4) years in good
supporting your advice. (8%)
faith and for eight (8) years without need of other
conditions. A void donation may be the basis of
possession in the concept of owner and of just title
I will advise Jennifer that the deed of donation executed
for purposes of acquisitive prescription.
in her favor by Josefa is a donation inter vivos. An inter
vivos donation is generally irrevocable once accepted,
and the law requires that if it involves immovable Donations; Illegal & Impossible Conditions
property, it must be in a public document and there must (2007)
be a deed of acceptance which must be in the same No.I. Distinguish the following concepts: (B). Illegal
deed of donation. If the acceptance is in a separate and impossible conditions in a simple donation v.
instrument, it has to be noted in both instruments. (Art. illegal and impossible conditions in an onerous
749) In this case, the deed of acceptance clearly donation. (5%)
signifies that it is a donation inter vivos because a
donation mortis causa need not be accepted by the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
donee during the lifetime of the donor although the Illegal and impossible conditions in a simple donation are
donee in the case of mortis causa donation is free to considered as not written. Such conditions, shall therefore,
accept or repudiate it after the death of the donor. be disregarded but the donation remains valid (Art. 727,
NCC). On the other hand, illegal and impossible donations
Also, the prohibition on alienation during Josefa’s lifetime imposed in an onerous donation shall annul the donation
all the more indicates that the donation is inter vivos (Art. 1183, NCC). This is so, because onerous donations are
because the fact that Josefa reserved the lifetime governed by the law on contracts (Art. 733, NCC).
usufruct of the land shows that her intent is to transfer
the ownership of the donated property to Jennifer or else Donation; Inter Vivos (2013)
there would have been no need for her to reserve the No.V. Josefa executed a deed of donation covering a one-
lifetime usufruct thereof if it were a donation mortis hectare rice land in favor of her daughter, Jennifer. The deed
causa. (Gestopa v. CA 342 SCRA 105 citing Reyes vs.
specifically provides that: "For and in consideration of her
Mosqueda, 187 SCRA 661, 671 (1990); Concepcion vs.
love and service Jennifer has shown and given to me, I hereby
Concepcion, 91 Phil. 823, 827 (1952).)
freely, voluntarily and irrevocably donate to her my one-
Donations; Formalities; In Writing (2007) hectare rice land covered by TCT No. 11550, located in San
No. VIII. In 1986, Jennifer and Brad were madly in Fernando, Pampanga. This donation shall take effect upon my
love. In 1989, because a certain Picasso painting death." The deed also contained Jennifer's signed acceptance,
reminded Brad of her, Jennifer acquired it and and an attached notarized declaration by Josefa and Jennifer
placed it in his bedroom. In 1990, Brad and that the land will remain in Josefa's possession and cannot be
Jennifer broke up. While Brad was mending his alienated, encumbered, sold or disposed of while Josefa is still
broken heart, he met Angie and fell in love. alive. Advise Jennifer on whether the deed is a donation inter
Because the Picasso painting reminded Angie of vivos or mortis causa and explain the reasons supporting your
him, Brad in his will bequeathed the painting to advice. (8%)
Angie. Brad died in 1995. Saddened by Brad's
death, Jennifer asked for the Picasso painting as a SUGGESTED ANSWER:
remembrance of him. Angie refused and claimed The donation is a donation inter vivos. When the
that Brad, in his will, bequeathed the painting to donor intends that the donation shall take effect
her. Is Angie correct? Why or why not? (10%) during the lifetime of the donor, though the
property shall not be delivered till after the donor’s
SUGGESTED ANSWER: death, this shall be a donation inter vivos (Art. 729,
NO. Angie is not correct. The Picasso painting is Civil Code). The Civil Code prefers inter vivos
not given or donated by Jennifer to Brad. She transmissions. Moreover, mortis causa donations
merely "placed it in his bedroom." Hence, she is should follow the formalities of a will (Art. 728,
still the owner of the painting. Not being the owner Civil Code). Here there is no showing that such
formalities were followed. Thus, it is favorable to thereof were evidenced by a Deed of Donation. Maria
Jennifer that the deed is a donation inter vivos. then lived in the house and lot donated to her, religiously
paying real estate taxes thereon. Twelve years later,
Furthermore, what is most significant in determining the when Jose had already passed away, a woman claiming
type of donation is the absence of stipulation that the donor to be an illegitimate daughter of Jose filed a complaint
could revoke the donation; on the contrary, the deeds
against Maria. Claiming rights as an heir, the woman
expressly declare them to be “irrevocable,” a quality
prayed that Maria be ordered to reconvey the house and
absolutely incompatible with the idea of conveyances
mortis causa where revocability is the essence of the act, to lot to Jose's estate. In her complaint she alleged that the
the extent that a testator cannot lawfully waive or restrict notary public who notarized the Deed of Donation had
his right of revocation. The provisions of the deed of an expired notarial commission when the Deed of
donation which state that the same will only take effect Donation was executed by Jose. Can Maria be made to
upon the death of the donor and that there is a prohibition reconvey the property? What can she put up as a
to alienate, encumber, dispose, or sell the same should be defense? (4%)
harmonized with its express irrevocability (Austria-Magat v.
The donation is donation mortis causa. The deed clearly No. Maria cannot be compelled to reconvey the property.
states that the donation shall take effect upon the death of The Deed of Donation was void because it was not
the donor, Josefa. The donor, moreover, retained ownership considered a public document. However, a void donation
of the subject property as it was declared that the property can trigger acquisitive prescription. (Solis v. CA 176
cannot be alienated, encumbered, sold or disposed of while SCRA 678; Doliendo v. Biarnesa 7 Phil. 232) The void
donation has a quality of titulo colorado enough for
the donor is still alive. As the donation is in the nature of a
acquisitive prescription especially since 12 years had
mortis causa disposition, the formalities of a will should
lapsed from the deed of donation.
have been complied with under Art. 728 of the Civil Code,
otherwise, the donation is void and would produce no effect ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Yes, Maria can be made to
(The National Treasure of the Philippines v. Vda. de reconvey the property. The law provides that no person
Meimban, G.R. No. L-61023, Aug 22, 1984). may give or receive by way of donation more than what
he may give or receive by will. On the assumption that
Donation (2014) the property donated to Maria is the only property of
III. The Roman Catholic Church accepted a donation of Jose, the legitime of his illegitimate child would be
a real property located in Lipa City. A deed of donation impaired if Maria would be allowed to keep the entire
was executed, signed by the donor, Don Mariano, and property. After taking into account the value of the
the donee, the Church, as represented by Fr. Damian. property, Maria can be made to reconvey the property to
Before the deed could be notarized, Don Mariano died. the extent necessary to satisfy the legitime of Jose’s
Is the donation valid? (4%) illegitimate daughter provided that the woman claiming
to be Jose’s child can prove her filiation to the deceased.
The donation is void. The donation of an immovable Maria can set up the defense that the action has
property must be in a public instrument in order for it to prescribed. An action for revocation of the donation on
be valid. In this case, the donor died even before the the ground that it impaired the legitime of a compulsory
notarization of the deed of donation. Hence, it does not heir may only be filed within ten (10) years from the time
satisfy the requirement of being in a public instrument for the cause of action accrues which is at the time of the
the donation to be valid. death of Jose. The facts are not clear as to when Jose
died but on the assumption that he died ten years prior
Donation Mortis Causa (2014) to the filing of the action, the same has clearly
XXV. Mario executed his last will and testament where he prescribed.
acknowledges the child being conceived by his live-in
partner Josie as his own child; and that his house and lot Donation vs. Sale (2003)
in Baguio City be given to his unborn conceived child. Are a) May a person sell something that does not
the acknowledgment and the donation mortis causa belong to
valid? Why? (4%) him? Explain. b) May a person donate something
that does
Yes, the acknowledgment is considered valid because a to him? Explain. 5%
will (although not required to be filed by the notary
public) may still constitute a document which contains an SUGGESTED ANSWER:
admission of illegitimate filiation. Article 834 also (a) Yes, a person may sell something which does
provides that the recognition of an illegitimate child does not belong
not lose its legal effect even though the will wherein it to him. For the sale to be valid, the law does not
was made should be revoked. This provision by itself require the
warrants a conclusion that a will may be considered as seller to be the owner of the property at the time
proof of filiation. The donation mortis causa may be of the sale.
considered valid because although unborn, a fetus has a (Article 1434, NCC). If the seller cannot transfer
presumptive personality for all purposes favorable to it ownership
provided it be born under the conditions specified in over the thing sold at the time of delivery
Article 41. because he was not
the owner thereof, he shall be liable for breach
Donation (2015) of contact.
(b) As a general rule, a person cannot donate
NO. IX. Jose, single, donated a house and lot to his only something which
niece, Maria, who was of legal age and who accepted he cannot dispose of at the time of the donation
the donation. The donation and Maria's acceptance (Article 751,
New Civil Code). a condition imposed by a donor gives rise to an
action to
Donations; Condition; Capacity to Sue (1996) revoke the donation under Art. 764, NCC.
Sometime in 1955, Tomas donated a parcel of However, the right
land to his of action belongs to the donor. Is transmissible to
stepdaughter Irene, subject to the condition that his heirs,
she may not and may be exercised against the donee's heirs.
sell, transfer or cede the same for twenty years. Since
Shortly Armando is an heir of the donee, not of the
thereafter, he died. In 1965, because she needed donor, he has no
money for legal capacity to sue for revocation of the
medical expenses, Irene sold the land to donation. Although
Conrado. The he is not seeking such revocation but an
following year, Irene died, leaving as her sole annulment of the sale
heir a son by which his mother, the donee, had executed in
the name of Armando. When Armando learned violation of the
that the land condition imposed by the donor, an action for
which he expected to inherit had been sold by annulment of a
Irene to contract may be brought only by those who are
Conrado, he filed an action against the latter for principally or
annulment subsidiarily obliged thereby (Art. 1397, NCC). As
of the sale, on the ground that it violated the an exception
restriction to the rule, it has been held that a person not so
imposed by Tomas. Conrado filed a motion to obliged may
dismiss, on nevertheless ask for annulment if he is
the ground that Armando did not have the legal prejudiced in his rights
capacity to regarding one of the contracting parties (DBP
sue. If you were the Judge, how will you rule on us. CA. 96
this motion SCRA 342 and other cases) and can show the
to dismiss? Explain. detriment which would result to him from the
contract in which he had no
SUGGESTED ANSWER: intervention, (Teves vs. PHHC, 23 SCRA
As judge, I will grant the motion to dismiss. 1141).
Armando has no Such detriment or prejudice cannot be shown by
personality to bring the action for annulment of Armando.
the sale to As a forced heir, Armando's interest in the
Conrado. Only an aggrieved party to the contract property was, at
may bring best, a mere expectancy. The sale of the land by
the action for annulment thereof (Art. 1397. his mother
NCC). While did not impair any vested right. The fact remains
Armando is heir and successor-in-interest of his that the
mother (Art. premature sale made by his mother (premature
1311, NCC), he [standing in place of his mother) because only
has no half of the period of the ban had elapsed) was
personality to annul the contract. Both are not not voidable at
aggrieved all, none of the vices of consent under Art. 139 of
parties on account of their own violation of the the NCC
condition of, being present. Hence, the motion to dismiss
or restriction on, their ownership imposed by the should be
donation. granted.
Only the donor or his heirs would have the
personality to Donations; Conditions; Revocation (1991)
bring an action to revoke a donation for violation Spouses Michael and Linda donated a 3-hectare
of a residential
condition thereof or a restriction thereon. land to the City of Baguio on the condition that
(Garrido u. CA, 236 the city
SCRA 450). Consequently, while the donor or government would build thereon a public park
his heirs were with a boxing
not parties to the sale, they have the right to arena, the construction of which shall commence
annul the within six
contract of sale because their rights are (6) months from the date the parties ratify the
prejudiced by one of donation. The
the contracting parties thereof [DBP v. CA, 96 donee accepted the donation and the title to the
SCRA 342; property was
Teves vs. PHHC. 23 SCRA 114]. Since transferred in its name. Five years elapsed but
Armando is neither the the public park
donor nor heir of the donor, he has no with the boxing arena was never started.
personality to bring Considering the failure of the donee to comply
the action for annulment. with the condition of the donation, the donor-
spouses sold the property to Ferdinand who then
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: sued to recover the land from the city
As judge, I will grant the motion to dismiss. government. Will the suit prosper?
Compliance with
SUGGESTED ANSWER: donation will be considered as simple or pure.
Ferdinand has no right to recover the land. It is The condition
true that the or mode is merely an accessory disposition, and
donation was revocable because of breach of the its nullity
conditions. does not affect the donation, unless it clearly
But until and unless the donation was revoked, it appears that the
remained donor would not have made the donation without
valid. Hence, Spouses Michael and Linda had no the mode
right to sell or condition.
the land to Ferdinand. One cannot give what he Donations con causa onerosa is governed by law
does not on
have. What the donors should have done first obligations and contracts, under which an
was to have the impossible or Illicit
donation annulled or revoked. And after that was condition annuls the obligation dependent upon
done, they the condition where the condition is positive and
could validly have disposed of the land in favor of suspensive. If the impossible or illicit condition is
Ferdinand. negative, it is simply considered as not written,
and the obligation is converted into a pure and
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: simple one. However, in order that an illegal
A. Until the contract of donation has been condition may annul a contract, the impossibility
resolved or must exist at the time of the creation of the
rescinded under Article 1191 of the Civil Code or obligation; a supervening impossibility does not
revoked affect the existence of the obligation.
under Art. 764 of the Civil Code, the donation
effective and valid. Accordingly, the sale made by No. In simple or pure donation, only the illegal or
the donor irrevocable, the latter is revocable. In the
to Ferdinand cannot be said to have conveyed problem given, all impossible condition is
title to Ferdinand, who, thereby, has no cause of considered not written but the donation remains
action for recovery of the land acting for and in valid and becomes free from conditions. The
his behalf. condition or mode being a mere accessory
B. The donation is onerous, And being onerous, disposition. Its nullity does not affect the
what applies donation unless it clearly appears that the donor
is the law on contracts, and not the law on would not have made the donation without the
donation (De mode or condition. On the other hand, onerous
Luna us. Abrigo, 81 SCRA 150). Accordingly, the donation is governed by the rules on contracts.
prescriptive period for the filing of such an Under Article 1183, Impossible or illegal
action would be conditions shall annul the obligation which
the ordinary prescriptive period for contacts depends upon them. In these cases, both the
which may obligation and the condition are void.
either be six or ten depending upon whether it is
verbal or Donations; Formalities; Mortis Causa (1990)
written. The filing of the case five years later is B donated to M a parcel of land in 1980. B made
within the the deed of
prescriptive period and, therefore, the action can donation, entitled ―Donation Inter Vivos,‖ in a
prosper, public
instrument and M accepted the donation in the
Alternative Answer: same
The law on donation lays down a special document. It was provided in the deed that the
prescriptive period land donated
in the case of breach of condition, which is four shall be immediately delivered to M and that M
years from shall have the
non-compliance thereof (Article 764 Civil Code). right to enjoy the fruits fully. The deed also
Since the provided that B
action has prescribed, the suit will not prosper, was reserving the right to dispose of said land
during his (B’s)
Donations; Effect; illegal & immoral conditions (1997) lifetime, and that M shall not register the deed of
Are the effects of illegal and immoral conditions donation
on simple until after B’s death. Upon B’s death, W, B’s
donations the same as those effects that would widow and sole
follow when heir, filed an action for the recovery of the
such conditions are imposed on donations con donated land,
causa contending that the donation made by B is a
onerosa? donation mortis
causa and not a donation inter vivos. Will said
SUGGESTED ANSWER: action prosper?
No, they don't have the same effect. Illegal or Explain your answer.
conditions in simple and remuneratory donations Yes, the action will prosper. The donation is a
shall be donation
considered as not imposed. Hence the donation mortis causa because the reservation is to
is valid. The dispose of all the

property donated and, therefore, the donation is mortis causa (Puig vs. Penqflorida, 15 SCRA
revocable at 276, at p. 286).
will. Accordingly, the donation requires the That the right was not exercised is immaterial;
execution of a its reservation
valid will, either notarial or holographic (Arts was an implied recognition of the donor's power
755, 728 NCC). to nullify the
donation anytime he wished to do so.
Donations; Formalities; Mortis Causa (1998) Consequently, it should
Ernesto donated in a public instrument a parcel have been embodied in a last will and testament.
of land to The suit for
Demetrio, who accepted it in the same nullity will thus prosper.
document. It is there
declared that the donation shall take effect Donations; Inter Vivos; Acceptance (1993)
immediately, with On January 21, 1986, A executed a deed of
the donee having the right to take possession of donation inter
the land and vivos of a parcel of land to Dr. B who had earlier
receive its fruits but not to dispose of the land constructed
while Ernesto thereon a building in which researches on the
is alive as well as for ten years following his dreaded disease
death. Moreover, AIDS were being conducted. The deed,
Ernesto also reserved in the same deed his right acknowledged before
to sell the a notary public, was handed over by A to Dr. B
property should he decide to dispose of it at any who received
time - a right it. A few days after, A flew to Davao City.
which he did not exercise at all. After his death, Unfortunately, the
Ernesto's airplane he was riding crashed on landing killing
heirs seasonably brought an action to recover him. Two
the property, days after the unfortunate accident. Dr. B, upon
alleging that the donation was void as it did not advice of a
comply with lawyer, executed a deed acknowledged before a
the formalities of a will. Will the suit prosper? notary public
[5%] accepting the donation. Is the donation effective?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: your answer.
Yes, the suit will prosper as the donation did not
the formalities of a will. In this instance, the fact No, the donation is not effective. The law
that the requires that the
donor did not intend to transfer ownership or separate acceptance of the donee of an
possession of immovable must be
the donated property to the donee until the done in a public document during the lifetime of
donor's death, the donor
would result in a donation mortis causa and in (Art. 746 & 749, Civil Code) In this case, B
this kind of executed the
disposition, the formalities of a will should be deed of acceptance before a notary public after
complied with, the donor
otherwise, the donation is void. In this Instance, had already died.
mortis causa embodied only in a public Donations; Perfection (1998)
instrument without On July 27, 1997, Pedro mailed in Manila a letter
the formalities of a will could not have to his
transferred ownership brother, Jose, a resident of Ilollo City, offering to
of disputed property to another. donate a
vintage sports car which the latter had long been
One of the essential distinctions between a donation buy from the former. On August 5, 1997, Jose
inter vivos called Pedro
and a donation mortis causa is that while the former is by cellular phone to thank him for his generosity
the clauses or conditions mentioned in the deed and to
of donation, inform him that he was sending by mail his letter
except one, are consistent with the rule of of
irrevocability and acceptance. Pedro never received that letter
would have sustained the view that the donation because it was
is inter vivos never mailed. On August 14, 1997, Pedro
and therefore valid. The lone exception is the received a telegram
clause which from Iloilo informing him that Jose had been
reserves the donor's right to sell the property at killed in a road
any time accident the day before (August 13, 1997)
before his death. Such a reservation has been 1. Is there a perfected donation? [2%]
held to render 2. Will your answer be the same if Jose did mail
the donation revocable and, therefore, becomes his
a donation acceptance letter but it was received by Pedro in
Manila days
after Jose's death? [3%] give her consent in the deed of donation or in a
SUGGESTED ANSWER: public instrument. Amanda replied that the
1. None. There is no perfected donation. Under donation was an
Article 748 onerous one because she had to pay unpaid
of the Civil Code, the donation of a movable may installments and
be made taxes; hence her acceptance may be implied.
orally or in writing. If the value of the personal Who is correct?
property (2%)
donated exceeds five thousand pesos, the
donation and the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
acceptance shall be made in writing. Assuming Rosa is correct because the donation is void. The
that the value property
of the thing donated, a vintage sports car, donated was an immovable. For such donation to
exceeds P5,000.00 be valid,
then the donation and the acceptance must be in Article 749 of the New Civil Code requires both
writing. In the donation
this instance, the acceptance of Jose was not in and the acceptance to be in a public instrument.
writing, There being
therefore, the donation is void. Upon the other no showing that Amanda's acceptance was made
hand, assuming that the sports car costs less in a public
than P5,000.00 Code which requires the instrument, the donation is void. The contention
donation and the acceptance that the
then the donation maybe oral, but still, the donation is onerous and, therefore, need not
simultaneous comply with
delivery of the car is needed and there being Article 749 for validity is without merit. The
none, the donation is not
donation was never perfected. onerous because it did not impose on Amanda
the obligation
SUGGESTED ANSWER: to pay the balance on the purchase price or the
2. Yes, the answer is the same. If Jose's mail arrears in real
containing his estate taxes. Amanda took it upon herself to pay
acceptance of the donation was received by those
Pedro after the amounts voluntarily. For a donation to be
former's death, then the donation is still void onerous, the
because under burden must be imposed by the donor on the
Article 734 of the Civil Code, the donation is donee. In the
perfected the problem, there is no such burden imposed by the
moment the donor knows of the acceptance by donor on
the donee. the donee. The donation not being onerous, it
The death of Jose before Pedro could receive the must comply
acceptance with the formalities of Article 749.
indicates that the donation was never perfected.
746 acceptance must be made during the Neither Rosa nor Amanda is correct. The
lifetime of both the donation is onerous
donor and the donee. only as to the portion of the property
corresponding to the
Donations; Requisites; Immovable Property value of the installments and taxes paid by
Anastacia purchased a house and lot on Amanda.
installments at a The portion in excess thereof is not onerous. The
housing project in Quezon City. Subsequently, onerous
she was portion is governed by the rules on contracts
employed in California and a year later, she which do not
executed a deed of require the acceptance by the donee to be in any
donation, duly authenticated by the Philippine form. The
Consulate in onerous part, therefore, is valid. The portion
Los Angeles, California, donating the house and which is not
lot to her onerous must comply with Article 749 of the
friend Amanda. The latter brought the deed of New Civil thereof to be in a public instrument in
donation to order to be valid. The
the owner of the project and discovered that acceptance not being in a public instrument, the
Anastacia left part which is
unpaid installments and real estate taxes. not onerous is void and Rosa may recover it from
Amanda paid these Amanda.
so that the donation in her favor can be
registered in the Donations; Unregistered; Effects; Non-Compliance;
project owner's office. Two months later, Resolutory Condition (2006)
Anastacia died, Spouses Alfredo and Racquel were active
leaving her mother Rosa as her sole heir. Rosa members of a religious congregation. They
filed an action donated a parcel of land in favor of that
to annul the donation on the ground that Amanda congregation in a duly notarized Deed of
did not Donation, subject to the condition that the
Minister shall construct thereon a place of
worship within 1 year from the acceptance of the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
donation. In an affidavit he executed on behalf of The donation is valid and binding, being an act
the congregation, the Minister accepted the favorable to
donation. The Deed of Donation was not the unborn child, but only if the baby had an
registered with the Registry of Deeds. intra-uterine life
However, instead of constructing a place of of not less than seven months and provided there
worship, the Minister constructed a bungalow on was due
the property he used as his residence. acceptance of the donation by the proper person
Disappointed with the Minister, the spouses representing
revoked the donation and demanded that he said child. If the child had less than seven
vacate the premises immediately. But the months of
Minister refused to leave, claiming that aside intra-uterine life, it is not deemed born since it
from using the bungalow as his residence, he is died less than
also using it as a place for worship on special 24 hours following its delivery, in which ease the
occasions. Under the circumstances, can donation
Alfredo and Racquel evict the Minister and never became effective since the donee never
recover possession of the property? If you became a
were the couple's counsel, what action you person, birth being determinative of personality.
take to protect the interest of your clients?
Even if the baby had an intra-uterine life of more
Yes, Alfredo and Racquel can bring an action for months and the donation was properly accepted,
ejectment against the Minister for recovery of it would be
possession of the property evict the Minister and void for not having conformed with the proper
recover possession of the property. An action for form. In
annulment of the donation, reconveyance and order to be valid, the donation and acceptance of
damages should be filed to protect the interests personal
of my client. The donation is an onerous donation property exceeding five thousand pesos should
and therefore shall be governed by the rules on be in writing.
contracts. Because there was no fulfillment or (Article 748, par. 3)
compliance with the condition which is
resolutory in character, the donation may now be Donations; with Resolutory Condition (2003)
revoked and all rights which the donee may have In 1950, Dr. Alba donated a parcel of land to
acquired under it shall be deemed lost and Central
extinguished (Central Philippine University, G.R. University on condition that the latter must
No. 112127, July 17,1995). establish a
medical college on the land to be named after
No, an action for ejectment will not prosper. I year 2000, the heirs of Dr. Alba filed an action to
would advice annul the
Alfredo and Racquel that the Minister, by donation and for the reconveyance of the
constructing a property donated
structure which also serves as a place of to them for the failure, after 50 years, of the
worship, has pursued University to
the objective of the donation. His taking up established on the property a medical school
residence in the named after
bungalow may be regarded as a casual breach their father. The University opposed the action
and will not on the
warrant revocation of the donation. Similarily, ground of prescription and also because it had
therefore, an not used the
action for revocation of the donation will be property for some purpose other than that stated
denied (C. J. Yulo in the
& Sons, Inc. v. Roman Catholic Bishop, G.R. No. donation. Should the opposition of the University
133705, to the
March 31, 2005; Heirs of Rozendo Sevilla v. De action of Dr. Alba’s heirs be sustained? Explain.
Leon, G.R. No. 149570, March 12, 2004).
Donations; Validity; Effectivity; for Unborn Child (1999) The donation may be revoked. The non-
Elated that her sister who had been married for established of the medical college on the
five years donated property was a resolutory condition
was pregnant for the first time, Alma donated imposednon the donation by the donor. Although
P100,000.00 to the Deed of Donation did not fix the time for the
the unborn child. Unfortunately, the baby died established of the medical college, the failure of
one hour the donee to establish the medical college after
after delivery. May Alma recover the fifty (50) years from the making of the donation
P100.000.00 that she had donated to said baby should be considered as occurrence of the
before it was born considering not been fixed in resolutory condition, and the donation may now
the Deed of Donation, the donee is not be revoked.
that the baby died? Stated otherwise, is the While the general rule is that in case the period
donation valid is not fixed in the agreement of the parties, the
and binding? Explain. (5%) period must be fixed first by the court before the
obligation may be demanded, the period of fifty
(50) years was more than enough time for the
donee to comply with the condition. Hence, in
this case, there is no more need for the court to
fix the period because such procedure with the
condition. (Central Philippine University v. CA.
246 SCRA 511).


The donation may not as yet revoked. The
establishment of
a medical college is not a resolutory or
suspensive condition
but a ―charge‖, obligation‖, or a ―mode‖. The
with the charge or mode will give the donor the
right to revoke the donation within four (4) years
from the
time the charge was supposed to have been
complied with, or
to enforce the charge by specific performance
within ten
(10) years from the time the cause of action
Inasmuch as the time to established the medical
college has yet default in his obligation until the
period is fixed by order
of the court under Article 1197 of the New Civil
Code. Since
the period has not been fixed as yet, the donee is
not yet
default, and therefore the donor has no cause of
action to
revoke the donation. (Dissenting opinion of
Davide, CJ,
Central Philippine University v. Court of
Appeals, 246 SCRA 511 [1995])

Property agent that it is the property they purchased. Only
upon the completion of their house did the spouses
TITLE I. Dela Cruz discovered that they had built on Lot B
CLSSIFICATION OF PROPERTY owned by the spouses Rodriguez, not on Lot A that
they purchased. They spent P 1 000,000 for the
TITLE II. house.
OWNERHIP As their lawyer, advise the spouses Dela Cruz on
their rights and obligations under the given
Builder in Good Faith (2013) circumstances, and the recourses and options
QUESTION IV. Anselmo is the registered owner of a open to them to protect their interests. (8%)
land and a house that his friend Boboy occupied for a
nominal rental and on the condition that Boboy would SUGGESTED ANSWER:
vacate the property on demand. With Anselmo's Based on the fact as stated, the spouses Dela Cruz
knowledge, Boboy introduced renovations consisting of as builders and the spouses Rodriguez as land
an additional bedroom, a covered veranda, and a owners, are both in good faith. The spouses Dela
concrete block fence, at his own expense. Cruz are builder in good faith because before
constructing the house they exercised due
Subsequently, Anselmo needed the property as his diligence by asking the Agent of CRC the location
residence and thus asked Boboy to vacate and turn it of the lot A, and they relied on the information
over to him. Boboy, despite an extension, failed to given by the agent who is presumed to know the
vacate the property, forcing Anselmo to send him a identity of the lot purchased by the Dela Cruz
written demand to vacate. spouses (Pleasantville v. CA, 253 SCRA 10, 1996).
On the other hand, there is no showing that the
In his own written reply, Boboy signified that he was land owners, spouse Rodriguez acted in bad faith.
ready to leave but Anselmo must first reimburse him the The facts do not show that the building was done
value of the improvements he introduced on the property with their knowledge and without opposition on
as he is a builder in good faith. Anselmo refused, their part (Art 453, Civil Code). The good faith is
insisting that Boboy cannot ask for reimbursement as he always presumed (Art. 527, Civil Code). The owner
is a mere lessee. Boboy responded by removing the of the land on which anything has been built,
improvements and leaving the building in its original sown, or planted in good faith shall have the right:
state. (1) to appropriate as his own the works after
payment of the indemnity provided for in Art 546
(A) Resolve Boboy's claim that as a builder in good faith,
and 548, or
he should be reimbursed the value of the improvements
(2) to oblige the one who built to pay the price of
he introduced. (4%)
the land. However, the builder cannot be obliged to
(B) Can Boboy be held liable for damages for removing
buy the land if its value is considerable more than
the improvements over Anselmo's objection? (4%)
that of the building.. In such case, he shall pay
SUGGESTED ANSWER: reasonable rent of the owner of the land does not
A) Boboy’s claim that he is a builder in good faith is choose to appropriate the building or trees after
without merit. The contract between the parties remains proper indemnity (Art 448, Civil Code). The house
to be a lease despite the nominal rentals paid by Boboy. constructed by the spouses Dela Cruz is
As such, Boboy’s right with regard to the improvements considered as a useful expense, since it increased
he introduced on the property should not be resolved on the value of the lot. As such, should the spouses
the basis of the provisions of the Civil Code on builder in Rodriguez decides to appropriate the house, the
good faith under Article 448 but by the provision on spouses Dela Cruz are entitled to the right of
lease, particularly Article 1678. A lessee who makes retention pending reimbursement of the expenses
improvements on the property cannot be considered a they incurred or the increase in value which the
builder in good faith for he knows that he does not own thing may have acquired by reason of the
the property and his possession is merely temporary. improvement (Art 546, Civil Code). Thus, the
Boboy may only claim one-half of the value of the spouses Dela Cruz may demand P1,000,000.00 as
improvements from Anselmo but if the latter refuses to payment of the expenses in building the house or
reimburse him, Boboy may remove the improvements increase in value of the land because of the house
even if it may cause damage to the property. as a useful improvement, as may be determined by
the court form the evidence presented during the
B) No, Boboy cannot be held liable for damages except trial (Depra v. Dumlao, 136 SCRA 475, 1985;
if he caused unnecessary impairment to the property Technogas Phils v. CA, 268 SCRA 5, 1997).
leased. Since Anselmo refused to appropriate the
improvements and to reimburse Boboy, the latter may ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
exercise his right to remove the improvements provided I will advise Spouses Dela Cruz that they have the right
he shall not cause any more impairment to the property to retain possession of the premises until Rodriguez
leased than is necessary. exercises any of the options under Article 448 of the Civil
Code. (Tecnogas Manufacturing vs. CA February 10,
Builder; Good Faith; Requisites (2013) 1997) Spouses Dela Cruz are builders in good faith
No.VIII. Ciriaco Realty Corporation (CRC) sold to because before constructing the house, they exercised
the spouses Del a Cruz a500-square meter land due diligence by asking the agent of CRC the location of
(Lot A) in Paranaque. The land now has a fair Lot A and they relied on the information given by the
market value of Pl,200,000. CRC likewise sold to agent who is presumed to know the identity of the lot
the spouses Rodriguez, a 700-square meter land purchased by the Dela Cruz. (Pleasantville vs. CA 253
(Lot B) which is adjacent to Lot A. Lot B has a SCRA 10) The owner of the land on which anything has
present fair market value of P1,500,000. The been built in good faith by another has the right to
spouses Dela Cruz constructed a house on Lot B, appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting
relying on their presentation of the CRC sales after payment of the indemnity or to oblige the builder to
pay the price of the land if its value is not considerably
higher than the building or trees, or to ask the sower to faith. a) May A acquire the house built by B? If
pay proper rent. I will also advise my clients that so, how? b) If
Rodriguez may not compel them to remove the the land increased in value to P500,000.00 by
improvements because it is not one of the options reason
granted to the landowner if the builder is in good faith. of the building of the house thereon, what
Builder in Good Faith (2015) should be paid by A in order to acquire the house
NO. VII. Mr. and Mrs. X migrated to the US with all their from
children. As they had no intention of coming back, they B?
offered their house and lot for sale to their neighbors, Mr. c) Assuming that the cost of the house was
and Mrs. A (the buyers) who agreed to buy the property P90,000.00
and not P100,000.00, may A require B to buy the
for 128 Million. Because Mr. and Mrs. A needed to obtain
a loan from a bank first, and since the sellers were in a d) If B voluntarily buys the land as desired by A,
hurry to migrate, the latter told the buyers that they could under
already occupy the house, renovate it as it was already what circumstances may A nevertheless be
in a state of disrepair, and pay only when their loan is entitled to have
approved and released. While waiting for the loan the house removed?
approval, the buyers spent .Pl Million in repairing the e) In what situation may a "forced lease" arise
house. A month later, a person carrying an authenticated between
A and B. and what terms and conditions would
special power of attorney from the sellers demanded that
govern the
the buyers either immediately pay for the property in full lease?
now or vacate it and pay damages for having made Give reasons for your answers.
improvements on the property without a sale having SUGGESTED ANSWER:
been perfected. (a) Yes, A may acquire the house build by B by
a) What are the buyers' options or legal indemnity to B. Article 448 of the Civil Code
rights with respect to the they expenses incurred provides that
in improving the property under circumstances? the owner of the land on which anything has
been built, sown
or planted in good faith, shall have the right to
b) Can the buyers be made to immediately appropriate as
his own the works, sowing or planting, after
vacate on the ground that the sale was not
payment of the
perfected? Explain briefly. (3%) indemnity provided for in Articles 546 and 546 of
the Civil
a) The buyers here may be deemed possessors or builders (b) A should pay B the sum of P50,000. Article
in good faith because they were made to believe that 548 of the
they were allowed to make repairs or renovation by the Civil Code provides that useful expenses shall be
sellers themselves. As builders in good faith, they have refunded to
the right to seek reimbursement for the value of the the possessor in good faith with the right of
improvements in case the owner decides to appropriate retention, the
them. They cannot be asked to remove the person who has defeated him in the possession
improvements because that is not one of the options having the
given by law to the landowner in case the builder is in option of refunding the amount of the expenses
good faith. or of paying
the increase in value which the thing may have
acquired by
No, the buyers cannot be made to vacate on the ground reason thereof. The increase in value amounts to
that the sale was not perfected for the fact of the matter P50,000.00.
is that a contract of sale is consensual and is perfected (c) Yes, A may require B to buy the land. Article
by mere consent. (Article 1315, Civil Code) In this case, 448 of the
there was an agreement to deliver a determinate thing Civil Code provides that the owner of the land on
for a price certain in money. When the owners made an which
offer to sell their property to Mr. and Mrs. A and the latter anything has been built in good faith shall have
accepted the offer, there was already a meeting of the the right to
minds between the parties resulting in the perfection of oblige the one who built to pay the price of the
the contract of sale. land if its
value is not considerably more than that of the
Builder; Good Faith (1992) building,
A owns a parcel of residential land worth (d) If B agrees to buy land but fails to pay, A can
P500,000.00 have the
unknown to A, a residential house costing P house removed ( Depra vs. Dumlao, 136 SCRA
100,000.00 is 475).
built on the entire parcel by B who claims (e) Article 448 of the Civil Code provides that the
ownership of the builder
land. Answer all the following questions based on cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is
the premise considerably
that B is a builder in good faith and A is a more than that of the building. In such case, he
landowner in good shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the

land does not choose to appropriate the building When Pablo discovered the construction, he
after proper indemnity. The parties opted to
shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in appropriate the building by paying Pedro the
case of cost thereof.
disagreement, the court fix the terms thereof. However, Pedro insists that he should be paid the
Builder; Good Faith vs. Bad Faith (1999) market value of the building, which was much
(a) Because of confusion as to the boundaries of higher because
the of inflation. 1) Who is correct Pedro or Pablo?
adjoining lots that they bought from the same (1%) 2) In the
subdivision meantime that Pedro is not yet paid, who is
company, X constructed a house on the adjoining entitled to the
lot of Y in rentals of the building, Pedro or Pablo? (1%)
the honest belief that it is the land that he
bought from the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
subdivision company. What are the respective Pablo is correct. Under Article 448 of the New
rights of X Civil Code in
and Y with respect to X's house? (3%) relation to Article 546, the builder in good faith
(b) Suppose X was in good faith but Y knew that is entitled to
X was a refund of the necessary and useful expenses
constructing on his (Y's) land but simply kept incurred by
quiet about it, him, or the increase in value which the land may
thinking perhaps that he could get X's house have
later. What are acquired by reason of the improvement, at the
the respective rights of the parties over X's option of the
house in this landowner. The builder is entitled to a refund of
case? (2%) the expenses
he incurred, and not to the market value of the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: improvement The case of Pecson v. CA, 244
(a) The rights of Y, as owner of the lot, and of X, SCRA 407, is not applicable to
as builder the problem. In the Pecson case, the builder was
of a house thereon, are governed by Art. 448 of the owner
the Civil of the land who later lost the property at a public
Code which grants to Y the right to choose sale due to
between two non-payment of taxes. The Court ruled that
remedies: (a) appropriate the house by Article 448 does
indemnifying X for its not apply to the case where the owner of the
value plus whatever necessary expenses the land is the
latter may have builder but who later lost the land; not being
incurred for the preservation of the land, or (b) applicable, the
compel X to indemnity that should be paid to the buyer must
buy the land if the price of the land is not be the fair
considerably more market value of the building and not just the cost
than the value of the house. If it is, then X cannot of
be obliged construction thereof. The Court opined in that
to buy the land but he shall pay reasonable rent, case that to
and in case do otherwise would unjustly enrich the new
of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms of owner of the
the lease. land.


(b) Since the lot owner Y is deemed to be in bad Pedro is correct. In Pecson vs. CA, it was held
faith (Art that Article
453), X as the party in good faith may (a) remove 546 of the New Civil Code does not specifically
the house state how the
and demand indemnification for damages value of useful improvements should be
suffered by him, or determined in fixing
(b) demand payment of the value of the house the amount of indemnity that the owner of the
plus land should
reparation for damages (Art 447, in relation to pay to the builder in good faith. Since the
Art 454). Y objective of the law
continues as owner of the lot and becomes, is to adjust the rights of the parties in such
under the second manner as "to
option, owner of the house as well, after he pays administer complete justice to both of them in
the sums such a way as
demanded. neither one nor the other may enrich himself of
that which
Builder; Good Faith vs. Bad Faith (2000) does not belong to him", the Court ruled that the
In good faith, Pedro constructed a five-door basis of
commercial reimbursement should be the fair market value
building on the land of Pablo who was also in of the
good faith. building.

2) Pablo is entitled to the rentals of the building. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As the 1) Yes, Mike is a builder in good faith. There is
owner of the land, Pablo is also the owner of the no showing
building that when he built his house, he knew that a
being an accession thereto. However, Pedro who portion thereof
is entitled to encroached on Jose's lot. Unless one is versed in
retain the building is also entitled to retain the the science
rentals. He, of surveying, he cannot determine the precise
however, shall apply the rentals to the indemnity boundaries or
payable to location of his property by merely examining his
him after deducting reasonable cost of repair title. In the
and absence of contrary proof, the law presumes that
maintenance. the
encroachment was done in good faith
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: [Technogas Phils, v.
Pablo is entitled to the rentals. Pedro became a CA, 268 SCRA 5, 15 (1997)].
possessor in
bad faith from the time he learned that the land 2} None of the preferences shall be followed.
belongs to The preference
Pablo. As such, he loses his right to the building, of Mike cannot prevail because under Article 448
including of the Civil
the fruits thereof, except the right of retention. Code, it is the owner of the land who has the
option or
Builder; Good Faith vs. Bad Faith; Accession (2000) choice, not the builder. On the other hand, the
a) Demetrio knew that a piece of land bordering option
the beach belongs to Jose, he cannot demand that the
belonged to Ernesto. However, since the latter portion of the
was studying house encroaching on his land be destroyed or
in Europe and no one was taking care of the removed
land, Demetrio because this is not one of the options given by
occupied the same and constructed thereon nipa law to the
sheds with owner of the land. The owner may choose
tables and benches which he rented out to between the
people who want appropriation of what was built after payment of
to have a picnic by the beach. When Ernesto indemnity,
returned, he or to compel the builder to pay for the land if the
demanded the return of the land. Demetrio value of the
agreed to do so land is not considerably more than that of the
after he has removed the nipa sheds. Ernesto building.
refused to let Otherwise, the builder shall pay rent for the
Demetrio remove the nipa sheds on the ground portion of the
that these land encroached.
already belonged to him by right of accession.
Who is Accretion; Alluvium (2008)
correct? (3%) No. IX. The properties of Jessica and Jenny, who
are neighbors, lie along the banks of the Marikina
SUGGESTED ANSWER: River. At certain times of the year, the river would
Ernesto is correct, Demetrio is a builder in bad swell and as the water recedes, soil, rocks and
faith because other materials are deposited on Jessica's and
he knew beforehand that the land belonged to Jenny's properties. This pattern of the river
Ernesto, under swelling, receding and depositing soil and other
Article 449 of the New Civil Code, one who materials being deposited on the neighbors'
builds on the properties have gone on for many years. Knowing
land of another loses what is built without right his pattern, Jessica constructed a concrete barrier
to indemnity. about 2 meters from her property line and
Ernesto becomes the owner of the nipa sheds by extending towards the river, so that when the
right of water recedes, soil and other materials are trapped
accession. Hence, Ernesto is well within his right within this barrier. After several years, the area
in refusing between Jessica's property line to the concrete
to allow the removal of the nipa sheds. barrier was completely filled with soil, effectively
increasing Jessica's property by 2 meters. Jenny's
Builder; Good Faith vs. Bad Faith; Presumption (2001) property, where no barrier was constructed, also
Mike built a house on his lot in Pasay City. Two years later, a increased by one meter along the side of the river.
survey disclosed that a portion of the building actually stood on (A). Can Jessica and Jenny legally claim ownership
the neighboring land of Jose, to the extent of 40 square meters. over the additional 2 meters and one meter,
Jose claims that Mike is a builder in bad faith respectively, of land deposited along their
because he should know the boundaries of his lot, and demands properties?(2%)
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 SUGGESTED ANSWER:
faith and offers to buy the land occupied by the building instead. Only Jenny can claim ownership over the
1) Is Mike a builder in good faith or bad faith? Why? (3%)
additional one meter of land deposited along her
2) Whose preference should be followed? Why? (2%)
property. Art. 457 of the Civil Code provides that
"to the owners of lands adjoining the banks of river whose land the accretion attaches, and that his
belong the accretion which they gradually receive right is enforceable against the whole world. (A). Is
from the effects of the current of the water." Where Marciano correct? Explain. (3%)
the land is not formed solely by the natural effect
of the water current of the river bordering land but SUGGESTED ANSWER:
is also the consequences of the direct and Marciano’s contention is correct. Since that
deliberate intervention of man, it is man-made accretion was deposited on his land by the action
accretion and a part of the public domain (Tiongco of the waters of the river and he did not construct
v. Director of Lands, 16 C.A. Rep 211, cited in any structure to increase the deposition of soil and
Nazareno v. C.A., G.R. No. 98045, 26 June 1996). silt, Marciano automatically owns the accretion.
Thus, Jessica cannot legally claim ownership of the His real right of ownership is enforceable against
additional 2 meters of land along her property the whole world including Ulpiano and his two
because she constructed a concrete barrier about 2 married children. Although Marciano’s land is
meters from her property causing deposits of soil registered, the three (3) hectares land deposited
and other materials when the water recedes. In through accretion was not automatically
other words, the increase in her property was not registered. As an unregistered land, it is subject to
caused by nature but was man-made. acquisitive prescription by third persons. Although
Ulpiano and his children live in the three (3)
(B). If Jessica's and Jenny's properties are hectare unregistered land owned by Marciano, they
registered, will the benefit of such registration are farm workers; therefore, they are possessors
extend to the increased area of their properties? not in the concept of owners but in the concept of
(2%) mere holders. Even if they possess the land for
more than 30 years, they cannot become the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: owners thereof through extraordinary acquisitive
If the properties of Jessica and Jenny are prescription, because the law requires possession
registered, the benefit of such registration does not in the concept of the owner. Payment of taxes and
extend to the increased area of their properties. tax declaration are not enough to make their
Accretion does not automatically become registered possession one in the concept of owner. They must
land because there is a specific technical repudiate the possession in the concept of holder
description of the lot in its Torrens title. There by executing unequivocal acts of repudiation
must be a separate application for registration of amounting to ouster of Marciano, known to
the alluvial deposits under the Torrens System Marciano and must be proven by clear and
(Grande v. CA, G.R. No. L-17652, 30 June, 1962). convincing evidence. Only then would his
possession become adverse.
(C). Assume the two properties are on a cliff
adjoining the shore of Laguna Lake. Jessica and (B). What rights, if any, does Ulpiano have against
Jenny had a hotel built on the properties. They Marciano? Explain. (3%)
had the erath and rocks excavated from the
properties dumped on the adjoining shore, giving SUGGESTED ANSWER:
rise to a new patch of dry land. Can they validly lay Although Ulpiano is a possessor in bad faith,
claim to the patch of land? (2%) because he knew he does not own the land, he will
lose the three huts he built in bad faith and make
SUGGESTED ANSWER: an accounting of the fruits he has gathered, he has
No. Jessica and Jenny cannot validly lay claim to the right to deduct from the value of the fruits the
the patch of land because in order to acquire land expenses for production, gathering and
by accretion, there should be a natural and actual preservation of the fruits (Art 443, NCC).
continuity of the accretion to the land of the He may also ask for reimbursement of the taxes he
riparian owner caused by natural ebb and flow of has paid, as these are charges on the land owned
the current of the river (Delgado v. Samonte, CA- by Marciano. This obligation is based on a quasi-
G.R. No. 34979-R, 10 Aug 1966). contract (Art 2175, NCC).

Accretion; Rights of the Riparian Owner (2009) Avulsion (2014)

No.XVI. Marciano is the owner of a parcel of land XXI. A delayed accession is: (1%)
through which a river runs out into the sea. The
land had been brought under the Torrens System, (A) formation of an island
and is cultivated by Ulpiano and his family as
farmworkers therein. Over the years, the river has (B) avulsion
brought silt and sediment from its sources up in
the mountains and forests so that gradually the (C) alluvium
land owned by Marciano increased in area by three
hectares. Ulpiano built three huts on this (D) change in the course of the riverbed
additional area, where he and his two married
children live. On this same area, Ulpiano and his Correct answer is letter B (Article 459 Civil Code)
family planted peanuts, monggo beans and
vegetables. Ulpiano also regularly paid taxes on the Accretion; Alluvium (2001)
land, as shown by tax declarations, for over thirty For many years, the Rio Grande river deposited
years. When Marciano learned of the increase in soil along its
the size of the land, he ordered Ulpiano to bank, beside the titled land of Jose. In time, such
demolish the huts, and demanded that he be paid deposit
his share in the proceeds of the harvest. Marciano reached an area of one thousand square meters.
claims that under the Civil Code, the alluvium With the
belongs to him as a registered riparian owner to permission of Jose, Vicente cultivated the said
area. Ten years
later, a big flood occurred in the river and can no longer claim ownership of the portion of
transferred the his registered
1000 square meters to the opposite bank, beside land which was gradually and naturally eroded
the land of due to the
Agustin. The land transferred is now contested current of the river, because he had lost it by
by Jose and operation of law. That portion of the land has
Agustin as riparian owners and by Vicente who become part of the public domain.
ownership by prescription. Who should prevail,? SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Why? (5%) b. Yes, a third party may acquire by prescription
the 200
SUGGESTED ANSWER: square meters, increase in area, because it is not
Jose should prevail. The disputed area, which is included in
an alluvion, the Torrens Title of the riparian owner. Hence,
belongs by right of accretion to Jose, the riparian this does not
owner (Art. involve the imprescriptibility conferred by
457 CC). When, as given in the problem, the very Section 47,
same area" P.D. No. 1529. The fact that the riparian land is
was "transferred" by flood waters to the opposite registered
bank, it does not automatically make the accretion
became an avulsion and ownership thereof is thereto a registered
retained by Jose land. (Grande v. CA, 115 521 (1962);
who has two years to remove it (Art. 459, CC). Jagualing v. CA, 194 SCRA 607 (1991).
Vicente's claim
based on prescription is baseless since his
possession was by TITLE III.
mere tolerance of Jose and, therefore, did not CO-OWNERSHIP
adversely affect
Jose's possession and ownership (Art. 537, CC). Co-Ownership (2015)
Inasmuch as NO. VIII. X, Y, Z are siblings who inherited a 10-storey
his possession is merely that of a holder, he building from their parents. They agreed in writing to
cannot acquire the maintain it as a co-owned property for leasing out and to
disputed area by prescription. divide the net profits among themselves equally for a
period of 20 years. On the gthyear, X wanted to get out
Accretion; Avulsion (2003) of the co-ownership so he could get his 1/3 share in the
Andres is a riparian owner of a parcel of property. Y and Z refused, saying X is bound by their
registered land. His agreement to keep the co-ownership for 20 years. Are Y
land, however, has gradually diminished in area and Z correct? Explain. (3%)
due to the
current of the river, while the registered land of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Mario on the Y and Z are partly correct. The law provides that none of
opposite bank has gradually increased in area by the co-owners shall be obliged to remain in the co-
200square ownership and it is the right of a co-owner to ask for
meters. partition of the co-ownership anytime. One exception to
(a) Who has the better right over the 200-square the rule is if the co-owners agree to keep the thing
meter area undivided which period shall not exceed ten years. In
that has been added to Mario’s registered land, this case, the agreement to keep the thing undivided
Mario or shall be valid at the most for ten years. (Article 494, Civil
Andres? Code)
(b) May a third person acquire said 200-square
meter land by Co-Ownership (2014)
prescription? XXVII. Fe, Esperanza, and Caridad inherited from their
parents a 500 sq. m. lot which they leased to Maria for
SUGGESTED ANSWER: three (3) years. One year after, Fe, claiming to have the
a. Mario has a better right over the 200 square authority to represent her siblings Esperanza and
meters increase Caridad, offered to sell the leased property to Maria
in area by reason of accretion, applying Article which the latter accepted. The sale was not reduced into
457 of the writing, but Maria started to make partial payments to
New Civil Code, which provides that ―to the Fe, which the latter received and acknowledged. After
owners of lands giving the full payment, Maria demanded for the
adjoining the banks of rivers belong the execution of a deed of absolute sale which Esperanza
accretion which they and Caridad refused to do. Worst, Maria learned that the
gradually received from the effects of the current siblings sold the same property to Manuel. This
of the compelled Maria to file a complaint for the annulment of
waters‖. the sale with specific performance and damages.
Andres cannot claim that the increase in Mario’s
land is his If you are the judge, how will you decide the case? (4%)
own, because such is an accretion and not result
sudden detachment of a known portion of his I will dismiss the case for annulment of the sale and
specific performance filed by Maria with respect to the
land and its
shares pertaining to Esperanza and Caridad. Since the
attachment to Mario’s land, a process called
object of the sale is a co-owned property, a co-owner
―avulsion‖. He
may sell his undivided share or interest in the property present case, of Alex is the real owner of the
owned in common but the sale will be subject to the undeveloped and untitled lot in Taguig, co-
result of the partition among the co-owners. In a co- ownership is created among his wife and four
ownership there is no mutual agency except as provided children over said property upon his death. Since
under Article 487. Thus, Fe cannot sell the shares of the construction of the house by Bobby was done
Esperanza and Caridad without a special power of without obtaining the consent of his siblings, the
attorney from them and the sale with respect to the alteration effected is illegal. Bobby is considered to
shares of the latter without their written authority is void be in bad faith and as a sanction for his conduct,
under Article 1874. Hence, the sale of the property to he can be compelled by Cathy to demolish or
Manuel is not valid with respect to the shares of remove the structure at his own expense.
Esperanza and Caridad. Maria can only assail the
portion pertaining to Fe as the same has been validly (B). Can Bobby legally insist on purchasing the land? (2%)
sold to her by Fe.
Ownership; Co-Ownership (2009) No. Bobby cannot legally insist on purchasing the
No. XI. TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the land. Being in bad faith, he has no option to pay
statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is for the price of the lot (Art. 450, Civil Code).
false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2)
sentences. (D). The renunciation by a co-owner of Hidden Treasures (2014)
his undivided share in the co-owned property in XVI.A congregation for religious women, by way of
lieu of the performance of his obligation to commodatum, is using the real property owned and
contribute to taxes and expenses for the registered in the name of Spouses Manuel as a retreat
preservation of the property constitutes dacion en house.
pago. (1%)
Maria, a helper of the congregation discovered a chest in
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the backyard. When she opened the chest, it contained
True, Under the Civil Code, a coowner may several pieces of jewelry and money. (4%)
renounce his share in the coowned property in lieu
of paying for his share in the taxes and expenses (A) Can the chest containing the pieces of jewelry
for the preservation of the coowned property. In and money be considered as hidden treasure?
effect, there is dacion en pago because the co-
owner is discharging his monetary obligation by (B) Who has the right to claim ownership of it?
paying it with his non-monetary interest in the co-
owned property. The fact that he is giving up his SUGGESTED ANSWER:
entire interest simply means that he is accepting a) No, for property to be considered hidden treasure it
the value of his interest as equivalent to his share must consist of money, jewelry or other precious objects,
in the taxes and expenses of preservation. the lawful ownership of which does not appear. In the
case at bar, the chest was just lay in the backyard and the
Ownership; Co-Ownership (2008) real property where it was found belongs to the Spouses
No. VI. Alex died without a will, leaving only an Manuel. They are thus presumed the owner of the chest
undeveloped and untitled lot in Tagiug City. He is where the jewelry was found.
survived by his wife and 4 children. His wife told
the children that she is waiving her share in the b) Since it does not come within the purview of hidden
property, and allowed Bobby, the eldest son who treasure, the spouses Manuel have the right to claim
was about to get married, to construct his house ownership over the chest as well as its contents.
on ¼ of the lot, without however obtaining the
consent of his siblings. After settlement of Alex's Hidden Treasure (2008)
estate and partition among the heirs, it was No. VIII. Adam, a building contractor, was engaged
discovered that Bobby's house was constructed on by Blas to construct a house on a lot which he
the portion allocated to his sister, Cathy asked (Blas) owns. While digging on the lot in order to lay
Bobby to demolish his house and vacate the down the foudation of the house, Adam hit a very
portion alloted to her. In leiu of demolition, Bobby hard object. It turned out to be the vault of the old
offered to purchase from Cathy the lot portion on Banco de las Islas Filipinas. Using a detonation
which his house was constructed. At that time, the device, Adam was able to open the vault containing
house constructed was valued at P350.000. old notes and coins which were in circulation
(A). Can Cathy lawfully ask for demolition of during the Spanish era. While the notes and coins
Bobby's house? (3%) are no longer legal tender, they were valued at
P100 million because of their historical value and
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the coins silver nickel content. The following filed
Yes, Cathy can lawfully ask for the demolition of legal claims over the notes and coins: (i). Adam, as
Bobby's house. Where there are two or more heirs, finder; (ii). Blas, as owner of the property where
the whole estate of the decedent, is, before they were found; (iii). Bank of the Philippine
partition, owned in common by such heirs, subject Islands, as successor-in-interest of the owner of
to the payment of debts of the deceased (Art. 1078, the vault; and (iv). The Philippine Government
Civil Code), Under the rules on co-ownership, because of their historical value. (A). Who owns the
"none of the co-owners shall, without the consent notes and coins? (4%)
of the others make alterations in the thing owned
in common, even though benefits for all would SUGGESTED ANSWER:
results therefrom." In Cruz v. Catapang, G.R. No. The notes and coins are no longer owned by the
164110, 12 Feb., 2008, the Court held that Bank of the Philippine Islands, which has either
"alterations include any act of strict dominion or lost or abandoned the vault and its contents, and it
ownership such as construction of a house." In the has not taken any effort to search, locate or recover
the vault. In any case, since the vault is in actual
possession of Adam, BPI may attempt, in a judicial look for it. By chance in the law does not mean
action to recover, to rebut the presumption of sheer luck
ownership in favor of Adam and Blas (Art. 433, such that the finder should have no intention at
Civil Code). Hidden treasure is any hidden and all to look
unknown deposit of money, jewelry, or other for the treasure. By chance means good luck,
precious objects, the lawful ownership of which implying that
does not appear. Given the age and importance of one who intentionally looks for the treasure is
the items found, it would be safe to consider the embraced in
vault, notes and coins abandoned by BPI and its the provision. The reason is that it is extremely
predecessor (Art. 439, Civil Code). It belongs to the difficult to
owner of the land on which it is found. When the find hidden treasure without looking for it
discovery is made on the property of another, or of deliberately.
the State and by chance, one-half of it shall belong Marcelino is not a trespasser since there is no
to the finder who is not a trespasser (Art. 438, Civil prohibition for
Code). In the present case, Adam, as finder, and him to enter the premises, hence, he is entitled
Blas, as owner of the land, are entitled to share 50- to half of the
50 in the treasure. The government can only claim treasure.
if it can establish that the notes and coins are of
interest to science or the arts, then it must pay ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
just price of the things found, to be divided equally 1. Marcelino did not find the treasure by chance
between Adam and Blas (Art. 438, Civil Code). because he
had a map, he knew the location of the hidden
(B). Assuming that either or both Adam and Blas treasure and
are adjudged as owners, will the notes and coins he intentionally looked for the treasure, hence,
be deemed part of their absolute community or he is not
conjugal partnership of gains with their respective entitled to any part of the treasure.
spouses? (2%) 2. Marcelino appears to be a trespasser and
although there
SUGGESTED ANSWER: may be a question of whether he found it by
If either or both Adam and Blas are adjudged as chance or not,
owners, the notes and coins shall be deemed part as he has found the hidden treasure by means of
of their absolute community or conjugal a treasure
partnership of gains with their respective spouses map, he will not be entitled to a finder's share.
(Art. 117, par 4, FC). The hidden
treasure shall belong to the owner.
Hidden Treasures (1997) 3. The main rule is that hidden treasure belongs
Marcelino, a treasure hunter as just a hobby, has to the
found a map owner of the land, building or other property on
which appears to indicate the location of hidden which it is
treasure. He found. If it is found by chance by a third person
has an idea of the land where the treasure might and he is not
possibly be a trespasser, he is entitled to one-half (1/2). If he
found. Upon inquiry, Marcelino learns that the is a
owner of the trespasser, he loses everything.
land, Leopoldo, is a permanent resident of
Canada, Nobody, Hidden Treasure (1995)
however, could give him Leopoldo's exact Tim came into possession of an old map showing
address. where a
Ultimately, anyway, he enters the land and purported cache of gold bullion was hidden.
conducts a search. Without any
He succeeds. authority from the government Tim conducted a
Leopoldo learning of Marcelino's "find", seeks to relentless
recover the search and finally found the treasure buried in a
treasure from Marcelino but the latter is not new river
willing to part bed formerly part of a parcel of land owned by
with it. Failing to reach an agreement, Leopoldo spouses Tirso
sues and Tessie. The old river which used to cut
Marcelino for the recovery of the property. through the land
Marcelino of spouses Ursula and Urbito changed its course
contests the action. How would you decide the through
case? natural causes. To whom shall the treasure
belong? Explain.
I would decide in favor of Marcelino since he is SUGGESTED ANSWER:
considered a The treasure was found in a property of public
finder by chance of the hidden treasure, hence, dominion, the
he is entitled new river bed. Since Tim did not have authority
to one-half (1/2) of the hidden treasure. While from the
Marcelino government and, therefore, was a trespasser, he
may have had the intention to look for the hidden is not
treasure, entitled to the one-half share allotted to a finder
still he is a finder by chance since it is enough of hidden
that he tried to
treasure. All of it will go to the State. In addition, satisfies the first and second requisites, he cannot
under Art. however, directly claim legal support from his
438 of the NCC in order that the finder be grandmother, Leonora because the person primarily
entitled to the obliged to give support to Lucas is his father, Carlito.
1/2 share, the treasure must be found by chance, Thus, partition may be successfully claimed by Leonora
that is by and Danilo.
sheer luck. In this case, since Tim found the
treasure not by TITLE IV.
chance but because he relentlessly searched for SOME SPECIAL PROPERTIES
it, he is not
entitled to any share in the hidden treasure. TITLE V.
The law grants a one-half share to a finder of hidden Possession (2014)
treasure XVIII. Spouses Magtanggol managed and operated a
provided he is not a trespasser and the finding is by gasoline station on a 1,000 sq.m. lot which they leased
chance. It is from Francisco Bigla-awa. The contract was for a period
submitted that Tim is not a trespasser despite his not of three (3) years. When the contract expired, Francisco
getting asked the spouses to peacefully vacate the premises.
authority from the government, because the new river The spouses ignored the demand and continued with the
bed where he operation of the gasoline station.
found the treasure is property for public use (Art. 420
NCC), to One month after, Francisco, with the aid of a group of
which the public has legitimate access. The question, armed men, caused the closure of the gasoline station by
therefore, constructing fences around it.
boils down to whether or not the finding was by chance Was the act of Francisco and his men lawful? Why? (4%)
in view of
the fact that Tim "conducted a relentless search" before SUGGESTED ANSWER:
finding the No, the act was not lawful. Even if the lessee’s right to
treasure. The strict or literal view holds that deliberate or occupy the premises has expired, the lessor cannot
intentional physically oust the lessee from the leased premises if
search precludes entitlement to the one-half share the latter refuses to vacate. The lessor must go through
allotted by law to the finder since the phrase "by the proper channels by filing an appropriate case for
chance" means "by accident", meaning an unexpected unlawful detainer or recovery of possession. Every
discovery. possessor has a right to be respected in his possession
The liberal view, however, would sustain Tim's right to (Article 539) and in no case my possession be acquired
the allocated through force or intimidation as long as there is a
share interpreting the phrase in question as meaning "by possessor who objects thereto. (Article 536) The act of
a stroke of Francisco is an abuse of rights because even if he has
good fortune", which does not rule out deliberate or the right to recover possession of his property, he must
intentional act with justice and give the lessees their day in court
search. It is submitted that the liberal view should prevail and observe honesty and good faith.
since in
practical reality, hidden treasure is hardly ever found
without TITLE VI
conscious effort to find it, and the strict view would tend Usufruct (1997)
to render On 1 January 1980, Minerva, the owner of a
the codal provision in question illusory. building, granted
Petronila a usufruct over the property until 01
Partition (2014) June 1998
XVII. On March 30, 2000, Mariano died intestate and was when Manuel, a son of Petronila, would have
survived by his wife, Leonora, and children, Danilo and reached his
Carlito. One of the properties he left was a piece of land 30th birthday. Manuel, however, died on 1 June
in Alabang where he built his residential house. 1990 when
After his burial, Leonora and Mariano’s children he was only 26 years old.
extrajudicially settled his estate. Thereafter, Leonora and Minerva notified Petronila that the usufruct had
Danilo advised Carlito of their intention to partition the been
property. Carlito opposed invoking Article 159 of the extinguished by the death of Manuel and
Family Code. Carlito alleged that since his minor child demanded that the latter vacate the premises
Lucas still resides in the premises, the family home and deliver the same to the former. Petronila
continues until that minor beneficiary becomes of age. refused to vacate the place on the ground
that the usufruct in her favor would expire only
Is the contention of Carlito tenable? (4%) on 1 June
1998 when Manuel would have reached his 30th
SUGGESTED ANSWER: birthday and
No, the contention of Carlito is not tenable. In the case that the death of Manuel before his 30th
of Patricio v. Dario,2 with similar facts to the case at bar, birthday did not
the court ruled that to qualify as beneficiary of the family extinguish the usufruct. Whose contention
home the person must be among those mentioned in should be
Article 154, he/she must be actually living in the family accepted?
home and must be dependent for legal support upon the
head of the family. While Lucas, the son of Carlito SUGGESTED ANSWER:
G.R. No. 170829 November 20, 2006
Petronila's contention is correct. Under Article Oliveros May 29, 1996)In this case, to establish the
606 of the easement on the property of Brando would significantly
Civil Code, a usufruct granted for the time that affect his use of his property whereas while Pathway B
may elapse may prove to be the longer route, it will cause least
before a third person reaches a certain age shall prejudice to Brando. Andres’ argument that Pathway B
subsist for is circuitous and inconvenient to use should not be given
the number of years specified even if the third weight because the true test of the establishment of an
person should easement is adequacy. Convenience of the dominant
die unless there is an express stipulation in the estate has neverbeen the gauge for the establishment of
contract that the easement.(Costabella Corporation v. CA 193 SCRA
states otherwise. In the case at bar, there is no 333; Cristobal vs. Ledesma 291 SCRA 122)
stipulation that the consideration for the Easement (2014)
usufruct is the XI.An easement that can be acquired by prescription:
existence of Petronila's son. Thus, the general (1%)
rule and not
the exception should apply in this case. (A) Right of way

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: (B) Watering of an animal

This is a usufruct which is clearly intended for
the benefit of (C) Lateral and subjacent support
Manuel until he reaches 30 yrs. of age with
Petronila serving (D) Light and view
only as a conduit, holding the property in trust
for his Correct answer – letter D – only continuous and
benefit. The death of Manuel at the age of 26 apparent easements may be acquired by
therefore, prescription
terminated the usufruct.
Voluntary Easement (2014)
XV. Mr. Bong owns several properties in Pasig City. He
TITLE VII. decided to build a condominium named Flores de Manila
EASEMENTS AND SERVITUDES 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
Easements (2013)
QUESTION VII. In 2005, Andres built a residential house
on a lot whose only access to the national highway was
During construction, he built three (3) pumps on the
a pathway crossing Brando's property. Andres and
mortgaged property to supply water to the condominium.
others have been using this pathway (pathway A) since
After one (1) year, the project was completed and the
condominium was turned over to the buyers. However,
In 2006, Brand0 fenced off his property, thereby blocking
Mr. Bong failed to pay his loan obligation to NB. Thus,
Andres' access to the national highway. Andres
NB foreclosed the mortgaged property where the pumps
demanded that part of the fence be removed to maintain
were installed. During the sale on public auction of the
his old access route to the highway (pathway A), but
mortgaged property, Mr. Simon won in the bidding.
Brando refused, claiming that there was another
When Mr. Simon attempted to take possession of the
available pathway (pathway B) for ingress and egress to
property, the condominium owners, who in the meantime
the highway. Andres countered that pathway B has
constituted themselves into Flores de Manila Inc. (FMI),
defects, is circuitous, and is extremely inconvenient to
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
To settle their dispute, Andres and Brando hired Damian,
the easement be annotated in the title of the property
a geodetic and civil engineer, to survey and examine the
foreclosed by NB. FMI further claimed that when Mr.
two pathways and the surrounding areas, and to
Bong installed the pumps in his adjoining property, a
determine the shortest and the least prejudicial way
voluntary easement was constituted in favor of FMI.
through the servient estates. After the survey, the
Will the action prosper? (4%)
engineer concluded that pathway B is the longer route
and will need improvements and repairs, but will not
significantly affect the use of Brando's property. On the
No, the action will not prosper. The essence of a
other hand, pathway A that had long been in place, is the
mortgage is that it immediately subjects the property
shorter route but would significantly affect the use of
upon which it is imposed, and whoever the possessor
Brando's property.
may be, to the fulfillment of the obligation for whose
security it was constituted.3There was no voluntary
In light of the engineer's findings and the circumstances
easement in this case because at the time the water
of the case, resolve the parties' right of way dispute.
pumps were constructed, the subject lot where the water
pumps were constructed and the condominium belong to
the same person. No one can have an easement over
his own property. (Bogo- Medellin vs. CA G.R. 124699,
I will rule in favor of Brando. The easement of right of
July 31, 2003.) Even of the assumption that an
way should be established at a point least prejudicial to
easement was created in favor of FMI that alone will not
the servient estate where the distance from the dominant
defeat the right of the mortgagee to enforce the security
estate to the public highway may be the shortest. (Art.
if the debtor defaults.
650) If these two conditions do not concur in one estate,
the criterion of least prejudice prevails over shortest
distance. (Anastacia Quimen vs. CA and Yolanda 3
Article 2126
Easement; Prescription; Acquisitive Prescription (2009) No. there is already an existing adequate outlet from the
XI. TRUE or FALSE. dominant estate to the public highway, even if the said
outlet, for one reason or another, be inconvenient, the need
Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the to open up another servitude is entirely unjustified
statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (Costabella Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. 80511, Jan 25, 1991).
(2) sentences. (C). Acquisitive prescription of a negative The rule that the easement of right of way shall be
easement runs from the time the owner of the dominant established at the point least prejudicial to the servient
estate forbids, in a notarized document, the owner of the estate is controlling (Quimen v. Quimen and CA, G.R. No.
servient estate from executing an act which would be lawful 112331, May 29, 1996). (Note: It is not clear from the
without the easement. (1%) problem if there exists an easement in favor of the lot
belonging to Andres and if Brando’s lot is burdened as a
SUGGESTED ANSWER: servient estate by a right of way as a servient estate. If there
True. In negative easements, acquisitive prescription runs is such an easement burdening Brando’s lot, was it created as
from the moment the owner of the dominant estate legal easement or as a voluntary easement. If the used
forbade, by an instrument acknowledged before notary pathway was only a tolerance, then Brando may close it.
public, the owner of the servient estate from executing an Andres must ask for the constitution of a legal easement
act which would be lawful without the easement (Art. 621, through Brando’s lot by proving the four requisites required
NCC). by Art 649 and 65, Civil Code).

Easement; Right of Way (2013) Easement; Right of Way (2010)

No.VII.In 2005, Andres built a residential house on a lot whose No.XIII. Franz was the owner of Lot E which was
only access to the national highway was a pathway crossing surrounded by four (4) lots one of which – Lot C –
Brando's property. Andres and others have been using this he also owned. He promised Ava that if she bought
pathway (pathway A) since 1980. In 2006, Brand0 fenced off Lot E, he would give her a right of way in Lot C.
his property, thereby blocking Andres' access to the national Convinced, Ava bought Lot E and, as promised,
highway. Andres demanded that part of the fence be Franz gave her a right of way in Lot C. Ava
removed to maintain his old access route to the highway cultivated Lot E and used the right of way granted
(pathway A), but Brando refused, claiming that there was by Franz. Ava later found gainful employment
another available pathway (pathway B) for ingress and egress abroad. On her return after more than 10 years,
to the highway. Andres countered that pathway B has defects, the right of way was no longer available to her
because Franz had in the meantime sold Lot C to
is circuitous, and is extremely inconvenient to use. To settle
Julia who had it fenced. (A). Does Ava have a right
their dispute, Andres and Brando hired Damian, a geodetic
to demand from Julia the activation of her right of
and civil engineer, to survey and examine the two pathways
way? Explain. (2.5%)
and the surrounding areas, and to determine the shortest and
the least prejudicial way through the servient estates. After SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the survey, the engineer concluded that pathway B is the Yes. Ava has the right to demand from Julia the
longer route and will need improvements and repairs, but will activation of the right of way, for the following
not significantly affect the use of Brando's property. On the reasons: (1) The easement of the right of way is a
other hand, pathway A that had long been in place, is the real right which attaches to, and is inseperable
shorter route but would significantly affect the use of from, the estate to which it belongs.
Brando's property. In light of the engineer's findings and the (2) The sale of the property includes the easement
circumstances of the case, resolve the parties' right of way or servitude, even if the deed of sale is silent on the
dispute. (6%) matter.
(3) The vendee of the property in which a servitude
SUGGESTED ANSWER: or easement exists cannot close or put
Andres is not entitled to the easement of right obstructions thereon to prevent the dominant
of way for Pathway A. Pathway B must be used. estate from using it. (4) Ava’s working abroad for
The owner of a dominant estate may validly more than ten (10) years should not be construed
obtain a compulsory right of way only after he as non-user, because it cannot be implied from the
has established the existence of four requisites, fact that she or those she left behind to cultivate
to wit: (1) The (dominant) estate is surrounded the lot no longer use the right of way. Note: Since a
by other immovables and is without adequate right of way is a discontinuous easement, the
outlet to a public highway; (2) After payment of period of ten years of non-user, shall be computed
the proper indemnity; (3) The isolation was not from the day it ceased to be used under Act 6341
due to the proprietor’s own acts; and (4) The (2) CC. (5) Renunciation or waiver of an easement
right of way claimed is at a point least must be specific, clear, express and made in a
prejudicial to the servient estate, and insofar as public instrument in accordance of Art 1358 of the
consistent with this rule, where the distance New Civil Code.
from the dominant estate to the public highway
maybe the shortest (Art 650, civil Code). ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
However, the Supreme Court has consistently Yes. Ava has the right to demand from Julia the
ruled that in case both criteria cannot be activation of the right of way. A voluntary easement
complied with, the right of way shall be of right of way, like any other contract, could be
established at the point least prejudicial to the extinguished only by mutual agreement or by
servient estate. renunciation of the owner of the dominant estate.
The first and fourth requisites are not complied with. First, Also, like any other contract, an easement is
there is another available outlet to the national highway generally effective between parties, their heirs and
(Pathway B). Second, the right of way obtained (Pathway A) assignees, except in case where the rights and
is not the least prejudicial to Brando’s property, as evidence obligations arising from the contract are not
by the reports of the geodetic and civil engineer. When transmissible by their nature, or by stipulations or

by provision of law (Unisource Commercial v. movable property. Easement may be constituted
Chung, 593 SCRA 530 [2009]). only on an
immovable property.
(B). Assuming Ava opts to demand a right of way c) Easement is not extinguished by the death of
from any of the owners of Lots A, B, and D, can the
she do that? Explain. (2.5%) owner of the dominant estate while usufruct is
SUGGESTED ANSWER: by the death of the usufructuary unless a
Yes. Ava has the option to demand a right of way contrary intention
on any of the remaining lots of Franz more so after appears.
Franz sold lot C to Julia. The essential elements of d) An easement contemplates two (2) estates
a legal right of way under Art 649 and 650 of the belonging
New Civil Code are complied with. to two (2) different owners; a usufruct
contemplates only one
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: property (real or personal) whereby the
Yes. Ava has the option to demand a right of way usufructuary uses and
from the other lots. The law provides that whenever enjoys the property as well as its fruits, while
a piece of land acquired by sale, exchange or another owns the
partition is surrounded by other estates of the naked title during the period of the usufruct.
vendor, exchanger, or co-owner, he shall be obliged e) A usufruct may be alienated separately from
to grant a right of way without indemnity (Art 652, the
NCC). property to which it attaches, while an easement
cannot be
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: alienated separately from the property to which
No. There was merely a promise to Ava that a right of way it attaches.
shall be granted to her in lot C if Ava purchase lot E. The NOTE: It is recommended by the Committee that
promise was not reduced to writing (Obra v. Baldria, 529 SCRA any
621 [2007]). Hence, it was not or could not have been two (2) distinctions should be given full credit.
registered as to warn buyers of lot C about the existence of
the easement on the property. Not having been annotated on
2. (a) There can be no easement over a usufruct.
the TCT to lot C, the buyer acquired lot C free from such right
Since an easement may be constituted only on a
of way granted to Ava. corporeal immovable
property, no easement may be constituted on a
Easement vs. Usufruct (1995) usufruct which
1. What is easement? Distinguish easement from is not a corporeal right
usufruct. (b) There can be no usufruct over an easement.
2. Can there be (a) an easement over a usufruct? While a
(b) a usufruct over an easement? (c) an easement usufruct maybe created over a right, such right
over another easement? Explain. must have an
existence of its own independent of the property.
1. An EASEMENT or servitude is an cannot be the object of a usufruct because it has
encumbrance imposed no existence
upon an immovable for the benefit of another independent of the property to which It attaches.
belonging to a different owner. (Art. 613, NCC) ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
USUFRUCT gives a right to enjoy the property of There cannot be a usufruct over an easement
another since an
with the obligation of preserving its form and easement presupposes two (2) tenements
substance, belonging to
unless the title constituting it or the law different persons and the right attaches to the
otherwise provides. tenement and
(Art. 562, NCC). not to the owner. While a usufruct gives the
usufructuary a
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: right to use, right to enjoy, right to the fruits, and
Easement is an encumbrance imposed upon an right to
immovable possess, an easement gives only a limited use of
for the benefit of another immovable belonging the servient
to a different estate.
owner in which case it is called real or predial However, a usufruct can be constituted over a
easement, or property that
for the benefit of a community or group of has in its favor an easement or one burdened
persons in which with servitude.
case it is known as a personal easement. The usufructuary will exercise the easement
The distinctions between usufruct and easement during the period
are: of usufruct.
a) Usufruct includes all uses of the property and (c) There can be no easement over another
for all easement for the
purposes, including jus fruendi. Easement is same reason as in (a). An easement, although it
limited to a is a real right
specific use. over an immovable, is not a corporeal right.
b) Usufruct may be constituted on immovable or There is a
Roman maxim which says that: There can be no which under Article 429 of the Civil Code may be
servitude repelled or
over another servitude. prevented. Ernie has the right to exclude any
person from the
Easement; Effects; Discontinuous Easements; Permissive Use enjoyment and disposal of the land. This is an
(2005) attribute of
Don was the owner of an agricultural land with ownership that Ernie enjoys.
no access to a
public road. He had been passing through the ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
land of Ernie Yes, Ernie may close the pathway, subject
with the latter's acquiescence for over 20 years. however, to the
Subsequently, rights of the lot buyers. Since there is no access
Don subdivided his property into 20 residential to the public
lots and sold road, this results in the creation of a legal
them to different persons. Ernie blocked the easement. The lot
pathway and buyers have the right to demand that Ernie grant
refused to let the buyers pass through his land. them a right
a) Did Don acquire an easement of right of of way. In turn, they have the obligation to pay
way? Explain. (2%) the value of
the portion used as a right of way, plus damages.
No, Don did not acquire an easement of right of c) What are the rights of the lot buyers, if
way. An any? Explain. (2%)
easement of right of way is discontinuous in
nature — it is SUGGESTED ANSWER:
exercised only if a man passes over somebody's Prior to the grant of an easement, the buyers of
land. Under the dominant
Article 622 of the Civil Code, discontinuous estate have no other right than to compel grant
easements, of easement of
whether apparent or not, may only be acquired right of way. Since the properties of the buyers
by virtue of a are surrounded
title. The Supreme Court, in Abellana, Sr. v. by other immovables and has no adequate outlet
Court of Appeals to a public
(G.R. No. 97039, April 24, 1992), ruled that highway and the isolation is not due to their acts,
an easement of buyers may
right of way being discontinuous in nature is not demand an easement of a right of way provided
acquirable by proper
prescription. Further, possession of the easement indemnity is paid and the right of way demanded
by Don is only is the
permissive, tolerated or with the acquiescence of shortest and least prejudicial to Ernie.
Ernie. It is (Villanueva v. Velasco,
settled in the case of Cuaycong v. Benedicto G.R. No. 130845, November 27, 2000).
(G.R. No. 9989,
March 13, 1918) that a permissive use of a Easement; Nuisance; Abatement (2002)
road over the land Lauro owns an agricultural land planted mostly
of another, no matter how long continued, will with fruit
not create an trees. Hernando owns an adjacent land devoted
easement of way by prescription. to his piggery
business, which is two (2) meters higher in
Yes, Don acquired an easement of right of way. An Although Hernando has constructed a waste
easement that disposal lagoon
is continuous and apparent can be acquired by for his piggery, it is inadequate to contain the
prescription and waste water
title. According to Professor Tolentino, an easement of containing pig manure, and it often overflows
right of way and inundates
may have a continuous nature if there is a degree of Lauro’s plantation. This has increased the acidity
regularity to indicate continuity of possession and of the soil in
that if coupled with an apparent sign, such the plantation, causing the trees to wither and
easement of way may be acquired by prescription. die. Lauro sues
for damages caused to his plantation. Hernando
Yes, Ernie could close the pathway on his land. right to the benefit of a natural easement in
Don has not favor of his
acquired an easement of right of way either by higher estate, which imposes upon the lower
agreement or estate of Lauro
by judicial grant. Neither did the buyers. Thus, the obligation to receive the waters descending
establishment from the
of a road or unlawful use of the land of Ernie higher estate. Is Hernando correct? (5%)
constitute an invasion of possessory rights of the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
owner, Hernando is wrong. It is true that Lauro’s land is
with the natural easement to accept or receive could lawfully do if the easement did not exist.
the water (Art. 615.
which naturally and without interruption of man Civil Code)
from a higher estate to a lower estate. However, Easements; Right of Way (1993)
Hernando Tomas Encarnacion's 3,000 square meter parcel
has constructed a waste disposal lagoon for his of land,
piggery and it where he has a plant nursery, is located just
is this waste water that flows downward to behind Aniceta
Lauro’s land. Magsino's two hectare parcel land. To enable
Hernando has, thus, interrupted the flow of Tomas to have
water and has access to the highway, Aniceta agreed to grant
created and is maintaining a nuisance. Under him a road
Act. 697 NCC, right of way a meter wide through which he
abatement of a nuisance does not preclude could pass.
recovery of Through the years Tomas' business flourished
damages by Lauro even for the past existence of which enabled
a nuisance. The claim for damages may also be him to buy another portion which enlarged the
premised in Art. 2191 (4) NCC. area of his
plant nursery. But he was still landlocked. He
ANOTHER ANSWER: could not bring
Hernando is not correct. Article 637 of the New in and out of his plant nursery a jeep or delivery
Civil Code panel much
provides that the owner of the higher estate less a truck that he needed to transport his
cannot make seedlings. He now
works which will increase the burden on the asked Aniceta to grant him a wider portion of her
servient estate. property,
(Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. CA, 330 SCRA the price of which he was willing to pay, to
145 [2000]). The owner of the higher estate enable him to
may be compelled to pay damages to the owner construct a road to have access to his plant
of the lower estate. nursery. Aniceta
refused claiming that she had already allowed
Easements; Classification (1998) him a previous
Distinguish between: road right of way. Is Tomas entitled to the
1. Continuous and discontinuous easements; | easement he now
2%] demands from Aniceta?
2. Apparent and non-apparent easements; and
3. Positive and negative easements. [1%] Art. 651 of the Civil Code provides that the width of the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: must be sufficient to meet the needs of the dominant
1. CONTINUOUS EASEMENTS are those the use estate, and
of may accordingly change from time to time. It is the need
which is or may be incessant, without the of the
intervention of any dominant estate which determines the width of the
act of man, while DISCONTINUOUS passage. These
EASEMENTS are needs may vary from time to time. As Tomas'
those which are used at intervals and depend business grows, the need for use of modern
upon the acts conveyances requires widening of the easement.
of man. (Art. 615, Civil Code)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The facts show that the need for a wider right of
2. APPARENT EASEMENTS are those which are way arose
made from the increased production owing to the
known and are continually kept in view by acquisition by
external signs that Tomas of an additional area. Under Art. 626 of
reveal the use and enjoyment of the same, while the Civil
NONAPPARENT Code, the easement can be used only for the
EASEMENTS are those which show no immovable
external indication of their existence. (Art. 615, originally contemplated. Hence, the increase in
Civil Code) width is
justified and should have been granted.
3. POSITIVE EASEMENTS are those which Easements; Right of Way (2000)
impose upon The coconut farm of Federico is surrounded by
the owner of the servient estate the obligation of the lands of
allowing Romulo. Federico seeks a right of way through a
something to be done or of doing it himself, portion of
while the land of Romulo to bring his coconut products
NEGATIVE EASEMENTS are those which to the
prohibit the market. He has chosen a point where he will
owner of the servient estate from doing pass through a
something which he
housing project of Romulo. The latter wants him those noted on said certificate. This rule,
to pass however, admits of
another way which is one kilometer longer. Who exceptions.
should Under Act 496, as amended by Act No. 2011, and
prevail? (5%) Section 4,
Act 3621, an easement if not registered shall
SUGGESTED ANSWER: remain and shall
Romulo will prevail. Under Article 650 of the be held to pass with the land until cutoff or
New Civil extinguished by the registration of the servient
Code, the easement of right of way shall be estate. However, this provision has been
established at the suppressed in Section 44,
point least prejudicial to the servient estate and PD No. 1529. In other words, the registration of
where the the servient
distance from the dominant estate to a public estate did not operate to cut-off or extinguish the
highway is the right of
shortest. In case of conflict, the criterion of least way. Therefore, the complaint for the
prejudice prevails over the criterion of shortest cancellation of the right
distance. Since the route chosen by Federico will of way should be dismissed.
prejudice the housing project of Romulo, Romulo
has the right to demand that Federico pass Easements; Right of Way; Requisites (1996)
another way even though it will be longer. David is the owner of the subdivision in Sta.
Rosa, Laguna,
Easements; Right of Way; Inseparability (2001) without an access to the highway. When he
Emma bought a parcel of land from Equitable- applied for a
PCI Bank, license to establish the subdivision, David
which acquired the same from Felisa, the represented that he
original owner. will purchase a rice field located between his
Thereafter, Emma discovered that Felisa had land and the
granted a right highway, and develop it into an access road. But.
of way over the land in favor of the land of when the
Georgina, which license was already granted, he did not bother to
had no outlet to a public highway, but the buy the rice
easement was not field, which remains unutilized until the present.
annotated when the servient estate was Instead, he
registered under the chose to connect his subdivision with the
Torrens system. Emma then filed a complaint for neighboring
cancellation of the right of way, on the ground subdivision of Nestor, which has an access to the
that it had highway.
been extinguished by such failure to annotate. Nestor allowed him to do this, pending
How would negotiations on the
you decide the controversy? (5%) compensation to be paid. When they failed to
arrive at an
SUGGESTED ANSWER: agreement, Nestor built a wall across the road
The complaint for cancellation of easement of connecting
right of way with David's subdivision. David filed a complaint
must fail. The failure to annotate the easement in court, for
upon the title the establishment of an easement of right of way
of the servient estate is not among the grounds through the
for subdivision of Nestor which he claims to be the
extinguishing an easement under Art. 631 of the most
Civil Code. adequate and practical outlet to the highway. 1)
Under Article 617, easements are inseparable What are the
from the estate requisites for the establishment of a compulsory
to which they actively or passively belong. Once easement of
it attaches, it a right of way?
can only be extinguished under Art. 631, and
they exist even SUGGESTED ANSWER:
if they are not stated or annotated as an Art, 649, NCC. The owner, or any person who by
encumbrance on the virtue of a
Torrens title of the servient estate. (II Tolentino real right may cultivate or use any immovable
326, 1987 which is
ed.) surrounded by other immovables pertaining to
other persons
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: and without adequate outlet to a public highway,
Under Section 44, PD No. 1529, every registered is entitled to
owner demand a right of way through the neighboring
receiving a certificate of title pursuant to a estates, after
decree of payment of the property indemnity.
registration, and every subsequent innocent Should this easement be established in such a
purchaser for manner that its
value, shall hold the same free from all use may be continuous for all the needs of the
encumbrances except dominant

estate, establishing a permanent passage, the issue involved is one of possession de facto, the
indemnity shall purpose of
consist of the value of the land occupied and the which is merely to protect the owner from any
amount of physical
the damage caused to the servient estate. encroachment from without. The title of the land
In case the right of way is limited to the or its
necessary passage for ownership is not involved, for if a person is in
the cultivation of the estate surrounded by actual possession
others and for the thereof, he is entitled to be maintained and
gathering of its crops through the servient estate respected in it even
without a against the owner himself. (Garcia v. Anas, G.R.
permanent way, the indemnity shall consist in No. L-20617, May 31, 1965)
the payment of Since the case filed by Don against Cesar is an
the damage cause by such encumbrance. ejectment case,
This easement is not compulsory if the isolation the latter cannot ask for the cancellation of Don's
of the title. He
immovable is due to the proprietor's own acts. has to file the proper action where the issue of
(564a). The ownership
easement of right of way shall be established at over the property can be raised.
the point least
prejudicial to the servient estate, and insofar as Mortgage; Public or Private Instrument (2013)
consistent No.VI. Lito obtained a loan of P1,000,000 from
with this rule, where the distance from the Ferdie, payable within one year. To secure
dominant estate to payment, Lito executed a chattel mortgage on a
a public highway may be the shortest (Art. 650, Toyota Avanza and a real estate mortgage on a
NCC: Vda. de 200-square meter piece of property. (A) Would it be
Baltazar v. CA. 245 SCRA 333} legally significant - from the point of view of validity
and enforceability - if the loan and the mortgages
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: were in public or private instruments? (6%)
The requisites for a compulsory easement of right of way
the dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables From the point of view of validity and
and is enforceability, there would be legal significance if
without an adequate outlet to a public street or highway; the mortgage was in a public or private
(b) proper instrument. As for the loan, there is no legal
indemnity must be paid; (c) the isolation must not be due significance except of interest were charged on the
to the acts loan, in which case, the charging of interest must
of the owner of the dominant estate; and (d) the right of be in writing. A contract of loan is a real contract
way and is perfected upon delivery of the object of the
claimed is at a point least prejudicial to the servient obligation (Art 1934, Civil Code). Thus, a contract
estate and, of loan is valid and enforceable even if it is neither
insofar as is consistent with this rule, where the in a private nor in a public document. As a rule,
distance to the street or highway is shortest. contracts shall be obligatory in whatever form they
2) Is David entitled to a right of way in this case? may have been entered into provided all the
Why or essential requisites for their validity are present.
why not? With regards to its enforceability, a contact of loan
is not among those enumerated under Art. 1403 (2)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: of the Civil Code, which are covered by the Statute
No, David is not entitled to the right of way of Frauds.
being claimed. It is important to note that under Art. 1358 of the
The isolation of his subdivision was due to his
Civil Code, all the other contracts where the
own act or
amount involved exceeds Five Hundred pesos
omission because he did not develop into an
(P500.00) must appear in writing, even in private
access road the
one. However, the requirement is not for validity of
rice field which he was supposed to purchase
the contract, but only for its greater efficacy. With
according to
regard to the chattel mortgage, Art. 1508, the
his own representation when he applied for a
Chattel Mortgage Law, requires an affidavit of good
license to
faith stating that the chattel mortgage is supposed
establish the subdivision (Floro us. Llenado,
to stand as security of the loan; thus, for the
244 SCRA713).
validity of the chattel mortgage, it must be in a
Ejectment Suit vs. Cancellation of Title (2005)
public document and recorded in the Chattel
In an ejectment case filed by Don against Cesar,
Mortgage Register in the Register of Deeds. A real
can the
estate mortgage, under the provisions of Art. 2125
latter ask for the cancellation of Don's title
of the Civil Code, requires that in order that a
considering that
mortgage may be validly constituted the document
he (Cesar) is the rightful owner of the lot?
in which it appears be recorded. If the instrument
Explain. (2%)
is not recorded, the mortgage is nevertheless valid
SUGGESTED ANSWER: and binding between the parties. Hence, for
Cesar cannot ask for the cancellation of Don's validity of both chattel and real estate mortgages,
title even if he is they must appear in a public instrument. But the
the rightful owner of the lot. In an action for purpose of enforceability, it is submitted that the
ejectment, the only form of the contract, whether in a public or private
document, would be immaterial (Mobil Oil v. which was merely anchored to the seabed. The fact
Diocaresa, 29 SCRA 656, 1969). that the vessel is merely anchored to the sea bed
Also, under Art 1358, acts and contracts which only shows that it is not intended to remain at a
have for their object the creation or transmission of fixed place; hence, it remains a movable property.
real rights over immovable property must be in a If the intention was to make the platform stay
public document for greater efficacy and a real permanent where it was moored, it would not have
estate mortgage is a real right over immovable been simply tethered to a vessel but itself anchored
property. to the seabed.

Occupation vs. Possession (2007) (B). Are the equipment and living quarters movable
No.I. Distinguish the following concepts: (A). or immovable property?
Occupation v. possession. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The thing and living quarters of the crew are immovable
Occupation is an original mode of acquiring property under Art. 415 (3) NCC, classifies as an immovable
ownership (Art. 712, NCC). Things appropriable by "everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in
nature which are without an owner, such as such a way that it cannot be separated therefrom without
animals that are the object of hunting and fishing, breaking the material or deterioration of the object." Both
hidden treasure and abandoned movables, are the equipment and the living quarters are permanently
acquired by occupation (Art. 713, NCC). However, attached to the platform which is also an immovable. The
ownership of a piece of land cannot be acquired by equipment can also be classified as an immovable property
occupation (Art. 714, NCC). under Art. 415 (5) NCC because such equipment are
"machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or
Occupation is a mode of acquiring dominion by the
works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of
seizure of corporeal things which have no owner,
land and which tend directly to meet the needs of the
with the intention of acquiring the ownership
industry or works." It is logically assumed that the
thereof. It is an original mode of acquiring
petroleum industry may be carried on in a building or on a
ownership upon seizure of a res nullius by the
occupant who has the intention to become the piece of land and the platform is analogous to a building.
owner thereof. Possession, on the other hand, is
the holding of the thing or an enjoyment of a right. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Possession may be the real right of possession or The equipment and living quarters of the crew are movable
jus possessiones or it can be merely the right to properties since they are attached to a platform which is
possess or jus possedendi, which are among the also a movable property, because it is simply attached to a
basic rights of ownership. If the real right of vessel is likewise a movable property since it was merely
possession is possession in the concept of owner, anchored on the seabed only shows that it is not intended to
but subject to certain limitations, it may ripen into remain at a fixed place; hence, it remains a movable
full ownership of the thing or property right property.
through acquisitive prescription depending on
whether it is a case of ordinary or extraordinary (C). Are the trees, plants and flowers immovable or movable
prescription and whether the property is movable property?
or immovable.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The trees, plants and flowers planted
Property; Movable or Immovable (2007) in the garden area of the platform are immovable property
No.II. Manila Petroleum Co. owned and operated a under Art. 415 (2) NCC which classifies as an immovable
petroleum operation facility off the coast of Manila. property "trees, plants and growing fruits, while they are
The facility was located on a floating platform made attached to the land or form an integral part of an
of wood and metal, upon which was permanently immovable, the petroleum operation facility.
attached the heavy equipment for the petroleum
operations and living quarters of the crew. The ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
floating platform likewise contained a garden area,
The trees, plants and flowers planted in the garden area of
where trees, plants and flowers were planted. The
the platform are movable property because they are not
platform was tethered to a ship, the MV 101, which
permanently attached t the land and do not form an integral
was anchored to the seabed. Please briefly give the
part of an immovable. The platform is not an immovable
reason for your answers. (10%) (A).Is the platform
movable or immovable property? property for the same reason already given in the
Alternative Answer to Item (a) above.
The platform is an immovable property under Art.
415 (9) NCC, which provides that "docks and
structures which, though floating, are intended by ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
their nature and object to remain at a fixed place 1) Mike cannot be considered a builder in good
on a river, lake or coast." Since the floating faith
platform is a petroleum operation facility, it is because he built his house without first
intended to remain permanently where it is determining the
situated, even if it is tethered to a ship which is corners and boundaries of his lot to make sure
anchored to the seabed. that his
construction was within the perimeter of his
property. He
could have done this with the help of a geodetic
The platform is a movable property because it is
engineer as
attached to a movable property, i.e. the vessel
an ordinary prudent and reasonable man would was not the owner of the land.
do under the If what was mortgaged as a chattel is the
circumstances. building, the chattel
2) Jose's preference should be followed. He may mortgage is valid as between the parties only, on
have grounds of
the building removed at the expense of Mike, estoppel which would preclude the mortgagor
appropriate the from assailing
building as his own, oblige Mike to buy the land the contract on the ground that its subject-
and ask for matter is an
damages in addition to any of the three options. immovable. Therefore Vini's defense is
(Articles untenable, and Felicia
449, 450, 451, CC) can foreclose the mortgage over the building,
Chattel Mortgage vs. Pledge (1999) however, the procedure prescribed for the
Distinguish a contract of chattel mortgage from execution of sale
a contract of of a judgment debtor's immovable under Rule 39,
pledge. (2%) Rules of
Court, specifically, that the notice of auction sale
In a contract of CHATTEL MORTGAGE published in a newspaper of general circulation.
possession d) The problem that Vini mortgaged the land by
belongs to the creditor, while in a contract of way of a
PLEDGE chattel mortgage is untenable. Land can only be
possession belongs to the debtor. the subject
A chattel mortgage is a formal contract while a matter of a real estate mortgage and only an
pledge is a absolute owner
real contract. of real property may mortgage a parcel of land.
A contract of chattel mortgage must be recorded (Article 2085
in a public (2) Civil Code). Hence, there can be no
instrument to bind third persons while a contract foreclosure.
of pledge But on the assumption that what was mortgaged
must be in a public instrument containing by way of
description of the chattel mortgage was the building on leased
thing pledged and the date thereof to bind third land, then the
persons. parties are treating the building as chattel. A
building that is
Chattel Mortgage; Immovables (1994) not merely superimposed on the ground is an
Vini constructed a building on a parcel of land he immovable
leased from property and a chattel mortgage on said building
Andrea. He chattel mortgaged the land to is legally
Felicia. When he void but the parties cannot be allowed to
could not pay Felicia. Felicia initiated foreclosure disavow their
proceedings. contract on account of estoppel by deed.
Vini claimed that the building he had constructed However, if third
on the parties are involved such chattel mortgage is
leased land cannot be validly foreclosed because void and has no
the building effect.
was, by law, an immovable. Is Vini correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWERS: Chattel Mortgage; Immovables (2003)
a) The Chattel Mortgage is void and cannot be X constructed a house on a lot which he was
foreclosed leasing from
because the building is an immovable and cannot Y. Later, X executed a chattel mortgage over said
be an house in
object of a chattel mortgage. favor of Z as security for a loan obtained from
b) It depends. If the building was intended and is the latter. Still
built of later, X acquired ownership of the land where his
light materials, the chattel mortgage may be house was
considered as constructed, after which he mortgaged both
valid as between the parties and it may be house and land
considered in in favor of a bank, which mortgage was
respect to them as movable property, since it can annotated on the
be removed Torrens Certificate of Title. When X failed to pay
from one place to another. But if the building is his loan to
of strong the bank, the latter, being the highest bidder at
material and is not capable of being removed or the foreclosure sale, foreclosed the mortgage
transferred and acquired X’s house and lot. Learning of the
without being destroyed, the chattel mortgage is proceedings conducted by the
void and bank, Z is now demanding that the bank
cannot be foreclosed. reconvey to him X’s
c) If it was the land which Vini chattel house or pay X’s loan to him plus interests. Is Z’s
mortgaged, such demand
mortgage would be void, or at least against the bank valid and sustainable? Why? 5%
unenforceable, since he
SUGGESTED ANSWER: him to look behind or beyond the certificate in
No, Z’s demand is not valid. A building is order to
immovable or real determine the condition of the title. He is not
property whether it is erected by the owner of bound by
the land, by a anything not annotated or reflected in the
usufructuary, or by a lessee. It may be treated as certificate. If he
a movable by proceeds to buy the land or accept it as a
the parties to chattel mortgage but such is collateral relying on
binding only the certificate, he is considered a buyer or a
between them and not on third parties mortgagee in
(Evangelista v. Alto good faith. On this ground, the Bank acquires a
Surety Col, inc. 103 Phil. 401 [1958]). In this clean title to
case, since the the land and the house.
bank is not a party to the chattel mortgage, it is However, a bank is not an ordinary mortgagee.
not bound by Unlike private
it, as far as the Bank is concerned, the chattel individuals, a bank is expected to exercise
mortgage, does greater care and
not exist. Moreover, the chattel mortgage does prudence in its dealings. The ascertainment of
not exist. the condition of a
Moreover, the chattel mortgage is void because property offered as collateral for a loan must be
it was not a standard and
registered. Assuming that it is valid, it does not indispensable part of its operation. The bank
bind the Bank should have conducted further inquiry regarding
because it was not annotated on the title of the the house standing on the standing there before
land X acquired the title to the land. The bank cannot
mortgaged to the bank. Z cannot demand that be considered as a mortgagee in good faith. On
the Bank pay this ground, Z’s demand against the Bank is valid
him the loan Z extended to X, because the Bank and sustainable.
was not
privy to such loan transaction. Chattel Mortgage; Possession (1993)
A, about to leave the country on a foreign
No, Z’s demand against the bank is not valid. His entrusted to B his brand new car and its
demand certificate of
that the bank reconvey to him X’s house registration. Falsifying A's signature. B sold A's
presupposes that he car to C for
has a real right over the house. All that Z has is a P200,000.00. C then registered the car in his
personal name. To
right against X for damages for breach of the complete the needed amount, C borrowed
contract of P100.000.00 from
loan. the savings and loan association in his office,
The treatment of a house, even if built on rented constituting a
land, as chattel mortgage on the car. For failure of C to
movable property is void insofar as third pay the
persons, such as the amount owed, the savings and loan association
bank, are concerned. On the other hand, the filed in the
Bank already RTC a complaint for collection with application
had a real right over the house and lot when the for issuance
mortgage of a writ of replevin to obtain possession of the
was annotated at the back of the Torrens title. vehicle so
The bank later that the chattel mortgage could be foreclosed.
became the owner in the foreclosure sale. Z The RTC
cannot ask the issued the writ of replevin. The car was then
bank to pay for X’s loan plus interest. There is no seized from C
privity of and sold by the sheriff at public auction at which
contract between Z and the bank. the savings
and loan association was the lone bidder.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Accordingly, the car
The answer hinges on whether or not the bank is was sold to it. A few days later, A arrived from
an innocent his foreign
mortgagee in good faith or a mortgagee in bad assignment. Learning of what happened to his
faith. In the car, A sought
former case, Z’s demand is not valid. In the latter to recover possession and ownership of it from
case, Z’s the savings
demand against the bank is valid and and loan association. Can A recover his car from
sustainable. the savings
Under the Torrens system of land registration, and loan association? Explain your answer.
every person
dealing with registered land may rely on the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
correctness of Under the prevailing rulings of the Supreme
the certificate of title and the law will not in any Court, A can
way oblige to recover the car from the Savings and Loan
provided he pays the price at which the
Association bought Ejectment Suit; Commodatum (2006)
the car at a public auction. Under that doctrine, Alberto and Janine migrated to the United States
there has of America,
been an unlawful deprivation by B of A of his car leaving behind their 4 children, one of whom is
and, Manny. They
therefore, A can recover it from any person in own a duplex apartment and allowed Manny to
possession live in one of
thereof. But since it was bought at a public the units. While in the United States, Alberto
auction in good died. His widow
faith by the Savings and Loan Association, he and all his children executed an Extrajudicial
must reimburse Settlement of
the Association at the price for which the car Alberto's estate wherein the 2door apartment
was bought. was assigned by
all the children to their mother, Janine.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Subsequently, she sold
Yes, A can recover his car from the Savings and the property to George. The latter required
Loan Manny to sign a
Association. In a Chattel Mortgage, the prepared Lease Contract so that he and his
mortgagor must be family could
the absolute owner of the thing mortgaged. continue occupying the unit. Manny refused to
Furthermore, the sign the
person constituting the mortgage must have the contract alleging that his parents allowed him
free disposal and his family
of the property, and in the absence thereof, must to continue occupying the premises.
be legally If you were George's counsel, what legal
authorized for the purpose. In the case at bar, steps will you take? Explain. (5%)
these essential
requisites did not apply to the mortgagor B, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
hence the Chattel If I were George's counsel, I would first demand
Mortgage was not valid. that Manny
vacate the apartment. If Manny refuses, I will file
Chattel Mortgage; Preference of Creditors (1995) an
Lawrence, a retired air force captain, decided to ejectment suit. When Manny was allowed by his
go into the parents to
air transport business. He purchased an aircraft occupy the premises, without compensation, the
in cash except contract of
for an outstanding balance of P500,000.00. He commodatum was created. Upon the death of the
incurred an father, the
indebtedness of P300,000.00 for repairs with an contract was extinguished as it is a purely
aircraft repair personal contract.
company. He also borrowed P1 Million from a As the new owner of the apartment George is
bank for entitled to
additional capital and constituted a chattel exercise his right of possession over the same.
mortgage on the
aircraft to secure the loan. Extra-Judicial Partition; Fraud (1990)
While on a test flight the aircraft crashed X was the owner of a 10,000 square meter
causing physical injuries to a third party who property. X
was awarded damages of P200,000.00. married Y and out of their union. A, B and C
Lawrence's insurance claim for damage to the were born. After the death of Y, X married Z and
aircraft was they begot as children, D, E and F. After the
denied thus leaving him nothing else but the death of X, the children of the first and second
aircraft which was then valued only at P1 marriages executed an extrajudicial partition of
Million. Lawrence was declared insolvent. the aforestated property on May 1, 1970. D, E
Assuming that the aircraft was sold for Pl and F were given a one thousand square meter
Million, give the portion of the property. They were minors at the
order of preference of the creditors of Lawrence time of the execution of the document. D was 17
and years old, E was 14 and F was 12; and they were
distribute the amount of P1 Million. made to believe by A, B and C that unless they
sign the document they will not get any share. Z
SUGGESTED ANSWER: was not present then. In January 1974, D, E and
Assuming that the aircraft was sold for P1 F filed an action in court to nullify the suit
Million, there is no alleging they discovered the fraud only in 1973.
order of preference. The P1 Million will all go to (a) Can the minority of D, E and F be a basis to
the bank as nullify the
a chattel mortgagee because a chattel mortgage partition? Explain your answer.
under Art. (b) How about fraud? Explain your answer.
2241 (4) NCC defeats Art. 2244 (12) and (14}.
and (5) are not applicable because the aircraft is (a) Yes, minority can be a basis to nullify the
no longer in partition
the possession of the creditor. because D, E and F were not properly
represented by their
parents or guardians at the time they contracted attorney-in-fact, and to apply the proceeds to the
the extrajudicial payment of
partition. (Articles 1327. 1391, Civil Code). the loan. 1) Was the assignment of leasehold
(b) In the case of fraud, when through insidious rights a
words or mortgage or a cession? Why? (3%)
machinations of one party the other is induced to 2) Assuming the assignment to be a mortgage,
enter into does
the contract without which he would not have the provision giving the bank the power to sell
agreed to, the Purita's rights
action still prosper because under Art, 1391 of constitute pactum commissorium or not? Why?
the Civil (2%)
Code, in case of fraud, the action for annulment
brought within four years from the discovery of 1) The assignment was a mortgage, not a
the fraud. cession, of the
leasehold rights. A cession would have
Mortgage; Pactum Commissorium (1999) transferred ownership
(a) X borrowed money from Y and gave a piece of to the bank. However, the grant of authority to
land as security by way of mortgage. It was the bank to
expressly agreed sell the leasehold rights in case of default is
between the parties in the mortgage contract proof that no such
that upon ownership was transferred and that a mere
nonpayment of the debt on time by X, the encumbrance was
mortgaged constituted. There would have been no need for
land would already belong to Y. If X defaulted in such
paying, would Y now become the owner of the authority had there been a cession.
mortgaged land? Why? (3%)
(b) Suppose in the preceding question, the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
agreement 2) No, the clause in question is not a pactum
between X and Y was that if X failed to pay the commissorium.
mortgage It is pactum commissorium when default in the
debt on time, the debt shall be paid with the land payment of the loan automatically vests
mortgaged ownership of the encumbered property in the
by X to Y. Would your answer be the same as in bank. In the problem given, the bank does not
the automatically become owner of the property
preceding question? Explain. (3%) upon default of the mortgagor. The bank has to
sell the property and apply the proceeds to the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: indebtedness.
(a) No, Y would not become the owner of the
land. The Mortgage; Right of Redemption vs. Equity of Redemption
stipulation is in the nature of pactum (1999)
commissorium which is Are the right of redemption and the equity of
prohibited by law. The property should be sold at redemption given by law to a mortgagor the
public same? Explain. (2%)
auction and the proceeds thereof applied to the
indebtedness. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Any excess shall be given to the mortgagor. The equity of redemption is different from the
right of
(d) No, the answer would not be the same. This right of
is a valid the mortgagor after judgment in a judicial
stipulation and does not constitute pactum foreclosure to
commissorium. In redeem the property by paying to the court the
pactum commissorium, the acquisition is amount of the
automatic without judgment debt before the sale or confirmation of
need of any further action. In the instant the sale. On
problem another act the other hand, RIGHT OF REDEMPTION is the
is required to be performed, namely, the right of
conveyance of the the mortgagor to redeem the property sold at an
property as payment (dacion en pago). extra-judicial
foreclosure by paying to the buyer in the
Mortgage; Pactum Commissorium (2001) foreclosure sale the
To secure a loan obtained from a rural bank, amount paid by the buyer within one year from
Purita assigned such sale.
her leasehold rights over a stall in the public
market in favor Nuisance; Family House; Not Nuisance per se (2006)
of the bank. The deed of assignment provides A drug lord and his family reside in a small
that in case of bungalow where
default in the payment of the loan, the bank shall they sell shabu and other prohibited drugs.
have the When the police
right to sell Purita's rights over the market stall found the illegal trade, they immediately
as her demolished the

house because according to them, it was a
nuisance per se c) A house of prostitution (1%)
that should be abated. Can this demolition be Irrespective of its location and how its business
sustained? is conducted,
Explain. (5%) it is a nuisance since it defies, shocks and
disregards decency
SUGGESTED ANSWER: and morality. It is a public nuisance because of
No, the demolition cannot be sustained. The its injury to the
house is not a public.
nuisance per se or at law as it is not an act,
occupation, or d) A noisy or dangerous factory in a private
structure which is a nuisance at all times and land (1%)
under any If the noise injuriously affects the health and
circumstances, regardless of location or comfort of
surroundings. A ordinary people in the vicinity to an
nuisance per se is a nuisance in and of itself, unreasonable extent, it is
without regard to a nuisance. It is a public nuisance because there
circumstances [Tolentino, p. 695, citing is a tendency
Wheeler v. River Falls Power Co., 215 Ala. to annoy the public. (Velasco v. Manila Electric
655, 111 So. 907]. Co., G.R. No.
L-18390, August 6, 1971)
Nuisance; Public Nuisance vs. Private Nuisance (2005)
State with reason whether each of the following e) Uncollected garbage (1%)
is a nuisance, It will become a nuisance if it substantially
and if so, give its classification, whether public impairs the
or private: comfort and enjoyment of the adjacent
Article 694 of the Civil Code defines nuisance as occupants. The
any act, annoyance and the smell must be substantial as
omission, establishment, business, condition or to interfere
property, or sensibly with the use and enjoyment by persons
anything else which injures or endangers the of ordinary
health or safety sensibilities. It is a public nuisance because of its
of others, or annoys or offends the senses, or injury to the
shocks, defies public.
or disregards decency or morality or obstructs or
interferes Ownership; Co-Ownership (1992)
with the free passage of any public highway or A, B and C are the co-owners in equal shares of a
street or any residential
body of water or hinders or impairs the use of house and lot. During their co-ownership, the
property. following acts
It is a public nuisance if it affects a community or were respectively done by the co-owners: 1) A
neighborhood or any considerable number of undertook the
persons. It is a repair of the foundation of the house,
direct encroachment upon public rights or then tilting to one side, to prevent the house
property which from
results injuriously to the public. It is a private collapsing. 2) B and C mortgaged the house and
nuisance, if it lot to secure
affects only a person or small number of persons. a loan. 3) B engaged a contractor to build a
It violates concrete fence all
only private rights. around the lot. 4) C built a beautiful grotto in the
garden. 5) A and C sold the land to X for a very
a) A squatter's hut (1%) good
If constructed on public streets or riverbeds, it is price.
a public (a) Is A's sole decision to repair the foundation of
nuisance because it obstructs the free use by the the house binding on B and C? May A require B
public of said and
places. (City of Manila v. Garcia, G.R. No. L- C to contribute their 2/3 share of the expense?
26053, February Reasons.
21,1967) If constructed on private land, it is a (b) What is the legal effect of the mortgage
private nuisance contract executed by B and C? Reasons.
because it hinders or impairs the use of the (c) Is B's sole decision to build the fence binding
property by the upon A and C? May B require A and C to
owner. contribute
their 2/ 3 share of the expense? Reasons.
b) A swimming pool (1%) (d) Is C's sole decision to build the grotto binding
This is not a nuisance in the absence of any upon A and B? May C require A and B to
unusual condition contribute
or artificial feature other than the mere water. In their 2/ 3 share of the expense? Reasons.
Hidalgo Enterprises v. Balandan (G.R. No. L- (e) What are the legal effects of the contract of
3422, June 13, 1952), the Supreme Court ruled sale executed by A. C and X? Reasons.
that a swimming pool is but a duplication of
nature — thus, could not be considered as a SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Yes. A's sole decision to repair the foundation that the remaining half of the land be given to
is binding her as her
upon B and C. B and C must contribute 2/3 of the share. Ramon opposed, asserting that he has
expense. already acquired
Each co-owner has the right to compel the other ownership of the land by prescription, and that
co-owners Rosario is
to contribute to the expense of preservation of barred by laches from demanding partition and
the thing (the reconveyance.
house) owned in common in proportion to their Decide the conflicting claims. (5%)
interests (Arts. 485 and 488, Civil Code). SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ramon is wrong on both counts: prescription and
(b) The mortgage shall not bind the 1/3 right and interest possession as co-owner did not give rise to
of A and shall be deemed to cover only the rights acquisitive
and prescription. Possession by a co-owner is deemed
interests of B and C in the house and lot. The not adverse
mortgage shall to the other co-owners but is, on the contrary,
be limited to the portion (2/3) which may be deemed
allotted to B beneficial to them (Pongon v. GA, 166 SCRA
and C in the partition (Art. 493, Civil Code). 375). Ramon's
SUGGESTED ANSWER: possession will become adverse only when he
(c) B's sole decision to build the concrete fence is has repudiated
not binding the co-ownership and such repudiation was made
upon A and C. Expenses to improve the thing known to
owned in Rosario. Assuming that the sale in 1985 where
common must be decided upon by a majority of Ramon
the claimed he was the sole heir of his parents
co-owners who represent the controlling interest amounted to a
(Arts. 489 repudiation of the co-ownership, the prescriptive
and 492. Civil Code). period
began to run only from that time. Not more than
(d) C's sole decision to build the grotto is not having lapsed since then, the claim of Rosario
binding upon A has not as yet
and B who cannot be required to contribute to prescribed. The claim of laches is not also
the expenses meritorious. Until
for the embellishment of the thing owned in the repudiation of the co-ownership was made
common if not known to the
decided upon by the majority of the coowners other co-owners, no right has been violated for
who represent the said
the controlling interest (Arts. 489 and 492, Civil co-owners to vindicate. Mere delay in vindicating
Code). the right,
standing alone, does not constitute laches.
(e) The sale to X shall not bind the 1/3 share of B ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
and shall Ramon has acquired the land by acquisitive
be deemed to cover only the 2/3 share of A and C prescription, and
in the because of laches on the part of Rosario.
land (Art. 493, Civil Code). B shall have the right Ramon's possession
to redeem of the land was adverse because he asserted sole
the 2/3 share sold to X by A and C since X is a ownership
third person thereof and never shared the harvest therefrom.
(Art. 1620, Civil Code). His adverse
possession having been continuous and
Ownership; Co-Ownership; Prescription (2000) uninterrupted for
In 1955, Ramon and his sister Rosario inherited more than 30 years, Ramon has acquired the
a parcel of land by
land in Albay from their parents. Since Rosario prescription. Rosario is also guilty of laches not
was gainfully having
employed in Manila, she left Ramon alone to asserted her right to the harvest for more than
possess and 40 years.
cultivate the land. However, Ramon never shared
the harvest Ownership; Co-Ownership; Prescription (2002)
with Rosario and was even able to sell one-half of Senen and Peter are brothers. Senen migrated to
the land in Canada early
1985 by claiming to be the sole heir of his while still a teenager. Peter stayed in Bulacan to
parents. Having take care of
reached retirement age in 1990 Rosario returned their widowed mother and continued to work on
to the the Family
province and upon learning what had transpired, farm even after her death. Returning to the
demanded country some

thirty years after he had left, Senen seeks a A's three children who appropriated for
partition of the themselves the
farm to get his share as the only co-heir of Peter. income from it. In 1948, B bought the property
Peter from the
interposes his opposition, contending that bank using the money he received as back pay
acquisitive from the U.
prescription has already set in and that estoppel S. Government, and utilized the same in
lies to bar the agribusiness. In
action for partition, citing his continuous 1960, as B's business flourished, C and D sued B
possession of the for partition
property for at least 10 years, for almost 30 and accounting of the income of the property,
years in fact. It claiming that
is undisputed that Peter has never openly as heirs of their father they were co-owners
claimed sole thereof and offering to reimburse B for whatever
ownership of the property. If he ever had the he had paid in purchasing the property from the
intention to do bank. In brief, how
so, Senen was completely ignorant of it. Will will you answer the complaint of C and D, if you
Senen’s action were
prosper? Explain. (5%). engaged by D as his counsel?


Senen’s action will prosper. Article 494 of the As counsel of B, I shall answer the complaint as
New Civil follows:
Code provides that ―no prescription shall run in When B bought the property, it was not by a
favor of a right of
co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co- redemption since the period therefore had
heirs so long already expired.
as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the Hence, B bought the property in an independent
coownership nor unconditional sale. C and D are not co-owners
notified Senen of his having repudiated the with B of the
same. property. Therefore, the suit of C and D cannot
Senen’s action will prosper. This is a case of ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
implied trust. As counsel of B, I shall answer the complaint as
(Art 1441, NCC) For purposes of prescription follows:
under the From the facts described, it would appear that
concept of an owner (Art. 540, NCC). There is no the Certificate
such of sale has not been registered. The one-year
concept here. Peter was a co-owner, he never period of
claimed sole redemption begins to run from registration. In
ownership of the property. He is therefore this case, it has
estopped under not yet even commenced. Under the Rules of
Art. 1431, NCC. Court, the
property may be released by the Judgment
Ownership; Co-Ownership; Redemption (1993) debtor or his
In 1937, A obtained a loan of P20,000.00 from successor in interest. (Sec. 29, Rule 27). It has
the National been held that
City Bank of New York, an American-owned bank this includes a joint owner. (Ref. Magno
doing vs.Ciola, 61 Phil. 80).
business in the Philippines. To guarantee
payment of his Ownership; Co-Ownership; Redemption (2000)
obligation, A constituted a real estate mortgage Ambrosio died, leaving his three daughters,
on his 30- Belen, Rosario
hectare parcel of agricultural land. In 1939, and Sylvia a hacienda which was mortgaged to
before he could the Philippine
pay his obligation. A died intestate leaving three National Bank due to the failure of the daughters
children. B, a to pay the
son by a first marriage, and C and D, daughters bank, the latter foreclosed the mortgage and the
by a second hacienda was
marriage. In 1940, the bank foreclosed the sold to it as the highest bidder. Six months later,
mortgage for Sylvia won
non-payment of the principal obligation. As the the grand prize at the lotto and used part of it to
only bidder redeem the
at the extrajudicial foreclosure sale, the bank hacienda from the bank. Thereafter, she took
bought the possession of
property and was later issued a certificate of the hacienda and refused to share its fruits with
sale. The war her sisters,
supervened in 1941 without the bank having contending that it was owned exclusively by her,
been able to having
obtain actual possession of the property which bought it from the bank with her own money. Is
remained with she correct
or not? (3%)
them. The situation is the same as in the case Si
SUGGESTED ANSWER: v. Court of Appeals, (342 SCRA 653 [2000]).
Sylvia is not correct. The 3 daughters are the co-
owners of Possession (1998)
the hacienda being the only heirs of Ambrosio. Using a falsified manager's check, Justine, as the
When the buyer, was
property was foreclosed, the right of redemption able to take delivery of a second hand car which
belongs she had just
also to the 3 daughters. When Sylvia redeemed bought from United Car Sales Inc. The sale was
the entire registered
property before the lapse of the redemption with the Land Transportation Office. A week
period, she also later, the seller
exercised the right of redemption of her co- learned that the check had been dishonored, but
owners on their by that time,
behalf. As such she is holding the shares of her Justine was nowhere to be seen. It turned out
two sisters in that Justine had
the property, and all the fruits corresponding sold the car to Jerico, the present possessor who
thereto, in trust knew
for them. Redemption by one co-owner inures to nothing about the falsified check. In a suit by
the benefit United Car
of all (Adille v. CA.157 SCRA 455). Sylvia, Sales, Inc. against Jerico for recovery of the car,
however, is entitled plaintiff
to be reimbursed the shares of her two sisters in alleges it had been unlawfully deprived of its
the property
redemption price. through fraud and should, consequently, be
allowed to
Ownership; Co-Ownership; Redemption (2002) recover it without having to reimburse the
Antonio, Bart, and Carlos are brothers. They defendant for the
purchased from price the latter had paid. Should the suit
their parents specific portions of a parcel of land prosper? [5%]
as evidenced
by three separates deeds of sale, each deed SUGGESTED ANSWER:
referring to a The suit should prosper as to the recovery of the
particular lot in meter and bounds. When the car.
deeds were However, since Jerico was not guilty of any fraud
presented for registration, the Register of Deeds and appears
could not to be an innocent purchaser for value, he should
issue separate certificates of Title had to be be
issued, therefore, reimbursed for the price he paid. This is without
in the names of three brothers as coowners of prejudice to
the entire United Car Sales, Inc. right of action against
property. The situation has not changed up to Justine. As
now, but each between two innocent parties, the party causing
of the brothers has been receiving rentals the injury
exclusively from the should suffer the loss. Therefore, United Car
lot actually purchased by him. Antonio sells his Sales, Inc.
lot to a third should suffer the loss.
person, with notice to his brothers. To enable the
secure a new title in his name, the deed of sale Yes, the suit will prosper because the criminal
was made to refer to undivided interest in the act of estafa
property of the seller (Antonio), with the metes should be deemed to come within the meaning of
and bounds of the lot sold being stated. Bart and unlawful
Carlos reacted by signifying their exercise of deprivation under Art. 559, Civil Code, as
their right of without it plaintiff
redemption as co owners. Antonio in his behalf would not have parted with the possession of its
and in behalf car.
of his buyer, contends that they are no longer
although the title covering the property has No, the suit will not prosper. The sale is valid and
remained in their Jerico is a
names as such. May Bart and Carlos still redeem buyer in good faith.
the lot sold
by Antonio? Explain. (5%) ANOTHER ANSWER:
Under the law on Sales, when the thing sold is
SUGGESTED ANSWER: delivered by
No, they may not redeem because there was no the seller to the buyer without reservation of
Coownership ownership, the
among Antonio, Bart, and Carlos to start with. ownership is transferred to the buyer. Therefore
Their parents in the suit of
already partitioned the land in selling separate United Car Sales, Inc. against Jerico for the
portions to recovery of the

car, the plaintiff should not be allowed to recover
the car Property; Real vs. Personal Property (1997)
without reimbursing the defendant for the price Pedro is the registered owner of a parcel of land
that the latter situated in
paid. (EDCA Publishing and Distributing Malolos, Bulacan. In 1973, he mortgaged the
Corp. vs. Santos, 184 SCRA 614, April 26, land to the
1990) Philippine National Bank (PNB) to secure a loan
Property; Real vs. Personal Property (1995) P100.000.00. For Pedro's failure to pay the loan,
Salvador, a timber concessionaire, built on his lot the PNB
a warehouse where he processes and stores his foreclosed on the mortgage in 1980, and the land
timber for was sold at
shipment. Adjoining the warehouse is a furniture public auction to PNB for being the highest
factory bidder. PNB
owned by NARRAMIX of which Salvador is a secured title thereto in 1987.
majority In the meanwhile, Pedro, who was still in
stockholder. NARRAMIX leased space in the possession of the
warehouse land, constructed a warehouse on the property.
where it placed its furniture-making machinery. In 1988, the
1. How would you classify the furniture-making PNB sold the land to Pablo, the Deed of Sale was
machinery amended
as property under the Civil Code? Explain. in 1989 to include the warehouse.
2. Suppose the lease contract between Salvador Pedro, claiming ownership of the warehouse,
and files a complaint
NARRAMIX stipulates that at the end of the to annul the amended Deed of Sale before the
lease the Regional Trial
machinery shall become the property of the Court of Quezon City, where he resides, against
lessor, will your both the
answer be the same? Explain. PNB and Pablo. The PNB filed a motion to
dismiss the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: complaint for improper venue contending that
1. The furniture-making machinery is movable the warehouse
property is real property under Article 415(1) of the Civil
because it was not installed by the owner of the Code and
tenement. therefore the action should have instead been
To become immovable under Art. 415 (5) of the filed in Malolos,
NCC, the Bulacan. Pedro claims otherwise. The question
machinery must be installed by the owner of the arose as to
tenement. whether the warehouse should be considered as
real or as
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: personal property. If consulted, what would your
It depends on the circumstances of the case. If legal advice be?
the machinery
was attached in a fixed manner, in such a way SUGGESTED ANSWER:
that it cannot The warehouse which is a construction adhered
be separated from the tenement without to the soil is
breaking the material an immovable by nature under Art. 415 (1) and
or causing deterioration thereof, it is immovable the proper
property venue of any case to recover ownership of the
[Art. 415 (3), NCC]. However, if the machinery same, which is
can be what the purpose of the complaint to annul the
transported from place to place without amended
impairment of the Deed of Sale amounts to, should be the place
tenement to which they were fixed, then it is where the
movable property is located, or the RTC of Bulacan.
property. [Art. 416 (4), NCC]
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. Buildings are always immovable property, and
2. It is immovable property. When there is a even in the
provision in the instances where the parties to a contract seem to
lease contract making the lessor, at the end of have dealt with
the lease, it separate and apart from the land on which it
owner of the machinery installed by the lessee, stood in no wise
the said does it change its character as immovable
machinery is considered to have been installed property. A building is
by the lessor an immovable even if not erected by the owner of
through the lessee who acted merely as his the land. The
agent. Having only criterion is union or incorporation with the
been installed by the owner of the tenement, the soil. (Ladera vs.
machinery Hodges (CA) 48 O.G. 4374) (Reyes and Puno,
became immovable .under Art. 415 of the NCC. Outline of Philippine Civil Law, Vol. 2. p.7)
(Davao 2. The warehouse built by Pedro on the
Sawmill v. Castillo 61 Phil. 709) mortgaged property
is real property within the context of Article 415
of the New
Civil Code, although it was built by Pedro after
foreclosure sale without the knowledge and
consent of the
new owner which makes him a builder in bad
faith, this does
not alter the character of the warehouse as a
real property by
incorporation. It is a structure which cannot be
without causing injury to the land. So, my advice
to Pedro is
to file the case with the RTC of Bulacan, the situs
of the
(Note: If the examinee does not mention that the
structure was built by a builder in bad faith, it
should be given full credit).

Sower; Good Faith/ Bad Faith (2000)

Felix cultivated a parcel of land and planted it to
sugar cane,
believing it to be his own. When the crop was
eight months
old, and harvestable after two more months, a
resurvey of
the land showed that it really belonged to Fred.
What are the
options available to Fred? (2%)

As to the pending crops planted by Felix in good
faith, Fred
has the option of allowing Felix to continue the
and to harvest the crops, or to continue the
cultivation and
harvest the crops himself. In the latter option,
however, Felix
shall have the right to a part of the expenses of
and to a part of the net harvest, both in
proportion to the
time of possession. (Art. 545 NCC),

Since sugarcane is not a perennial crop. Felix is
considered a
sower in good faith. Being so, Art. 448 applies.
The options
available to Fred are: (a) to appropriate the crop
after paying
Felix the indemnity under Art. 546, or (b) to
require Felix to
pay rent.