CIVIL LAW

EXAMINATION NO. 4

I.

A. Differentiate possession and occupation. (5%)

Possession is the holding of the thing or the enjoyment of a right. It may be the real
right of possession or jus possessiones or it can be merely the right to possess or jus
possedendi, which are among the basic rights of ownership.

Occupation, on the other hand, is an original mode of acquiring ownership. It is a

mode of acquiring dominion by the seizure of corporeal things which have no owner,
or acquiring ownership upon seizure of a res nullius by the occupant who has the
intention to become the owner thereof.

B. Differentiate easement from usufruct. (4%)

The distinctions between usufruct and easement are:

An easement or servitude is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the

benefit of another immovable belonging to a different owner while usufruct gives a
right to enjoy the property of another with the obligation of preserving its form and
substance, unless the title constituting it or the law otherwise provides.

Easement is limited to a specific use while usufruct includes all uses of the property
and for all purposes, including jus fruendi.

Easement may be constituted only on an immovable property while usufruct may be

constituted on immovable or movable property.

Easement is not extinguished by the death of the owner of the dominant estate while
usufruct is extinguished by the death of the usufructuary unless a contrary intention
appears.

An easement contemplates two (2) estates belonging to two (2) different owners while
a usufruct contemplates only one property (real or personal) whereby the
usufructuary uses and enjoys the property as well as its fruits, while another owns the
naked title during the period of the usufruct.

1
An easement cannot be alienated separately from the property to which it attaches
while a usufruct may be alienated separately from the property to which it attaches.

C. What are the specific rights of a builder in bad faith in case the landowner is also
in bad faith? (6%)

Pursuant to the basic principle that the bad faith of one party neutralizes the bad
faith of the other so both should be considered in good faith, the specific rights of a
builder in bad faith in case the landowner is also in bad faith are the following:

1. Right of retention for necessary and useful expenses provided for under Article
546 and 548; and
2. Right to pay the value of the land if its value is not considerably more than the
value of the building or trees or in case of a sower, right to rent the land.

II.

Marciano, who has been residing abroad, is the owner of a parcel of land through
which a river runs out into the sea. The land had been brought under the Torrens
System. Over the years, the river has brought silt and sediment from its sources up in
the mountains and forests so that gradually the land owned by Marciano increased in
area by three hectares. Unknown to Marciano, Ulpiano built three huts on this
additional area, where he and his two married children live. On this same area,
Ulpiano and his family planted peanuts, mongo beans and vegetable. Ulpiano also
regularly paid taxes on the land, as shown by tax declarations, for over thirty years.

When Marciano learned of the increased in the size of the land, he demanded Ulpiano
to vacate the land, demolish the huts, and pay his share in the proceeds of the harvest.
Marciano claims that under the Civil Code, the alluvium belongs to him as a
registered riparian owner to whose land the accretion attaches, and that his rights is
enforceable against the whole world.

Who between Marciano and Ulpiano is correct? Explain. (5%)

Marciano is correct.

The three-hectare land that gradually deposited on his land by the action of the waters
of the river is considered as alluvium, which under the Civil Code, belongs to him as
a registered riparian owner to whose land the accretion attaches, and that his rights
is enforceable against the whole world including Ulpiano and his two children.

2
The fact that Ulpiano and his children lived in the said land for over thirty years and
that he regularly paid taxes on the land, as shown by tax declarations, cannot give
rise to ownership considering that they are farm workers, therefore, they are
possessors not in the concept of owners but in the concept of mere holders.

Hence, even if they possess the land for more than 30 years, they cannot become the
owners thereof through extraordinary acquisitive prescription, because the law
requires possession in the concept of the owner. Payment of taxes and tax declaration
are not enough to make their possession one in the concept of owner. They must
repudiate the possession in the concept of holder by executing unequivocal acts of
repudiation amounting to ouster of Marciano, known to Marciano and must be
proven by clear and convincing evidence. Only then would his possession become
adverse.

III.

Alex died without a will, leaving only an undeveloped and untitled lot in Taguig City.
He is survived by his wife and 4 children. His wife told the children that she is waiving
her share in the property and allowed Bobby, the eldest son who was about to get
married, to construct his house on ¼ of the lot, without however obtaining the consent
of his siblings. After settlement of Alex’s estate and partition among the heirs, it was
discovered that Bobby’s house was constructed on the portion allocated to his sister,
Cathy asked Bobby to demolish his house and vacate the portion allotted to her. In
lieu of demolition, Bobby offered to purchase from Cathy the lot portion on which his
house was constructed. At that time, the house constructed was valued at P350.00.
What are respective rights of Cathy and Bobby? (10%)

The rights of Cathy are: (1) To demand the demolition of bobby’s house, since its
construction is illegal, in order to replace thing in its former condition at the expense
of Bobby (Art. 450); or (2) To compel Bobby to pay the price of the land on which his
house is erected (Art. 450); and (3) To be entitled to damages from the Bobby (Art.
451).

Bobby cannot offer to purchase from Cathy the lot portion on which his house was
constructed because such right is not vested to the builder in bad faith. He is only
entitled to the reimbursement of the necessary expenses he spent for the preservation
of Cathy’s land (Art. 452). Being a builder in bad faith, he loses what he has built on
the land of Cathy without right to indemnity (Art. 449).

IV.

Anthony bought a piece of untitled agricultural land from Bert. Bert, in turn,
acquired the property by forging Carlo’s signature in a deed of sale over the property.

3
Carlo had been in possession of the property for 8 years, declared it for tax purposes,
and religiously paid all taxes due on the property. Anthony is not aware of the defect
in Bert’s title, but has been in actual possession of the property from the time he
bought it from Bert, who had never been in possession of the property. Anthony has
since then been in possession of the property for three years. Did Anthony acquire
ownership of the property? (5%)

No, Anthony did not acquire ownership of the property.

Yes, Anthony can acquire ownership of the property through acquisitive prescription.
In the present case, Anthony is a buyer/possessor in good
faith because he was not aware of the defect in Bert's title (Art. 526, Civil Code). As
such, Anthony can acquire ownership and other real rights over immovable property
through open, continuous possession of 10 years (Art. 1134, Civil Code). Anthony
needs nine (9) more years of possession, in addition to his one (1) year of possession
in good faith.
V.

The properties of Jessica and Jenny, who are neighbors, lie along the banks of the
Marikina River. At certain times of the year, the river would swell and as the water
recedes, soil, rocks and other materials are deposited on Jessica's and Jenny's
properties. This pattern of the river swelling, receding and depositing soil and other
materials being deposited on the neighbors' properties have gone on for many years.
Knowing this pattern, Jessica constructed a concrete barrier about 2 meters from her
property line and extending towards the river, so that when the water recedes, soil
and other materials are trapped within this barrier. After several years, the area
between Jessica's property line to the concrete barrier was completely filled with soil,
effectively increasing Jessica's property by 2 meters. Jenny's property, where no
barrier was constructed, also increased by one meter along the side of the river.

A. Can Jessica and Jenny legally claim ownership over the additional 2 meters and
one meter, respectively, of land deposited along their properties?(5%)

No, only Jenny can claim ownership over the additional one meter of land deposited
along her property.

Art. 457 of the Civil Code provides that "to the owners of lands adjoining the banks
of river belong the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the
current of the water."

4
Jessica cannot claim ownership over the additional two meters of land deposited along
her property as the same was not formed solely by the natural effect of the water
current of the river but is also the consequences of her direct and deliberate
construction of a barrier which caused the deposit of soil and other materials on her
property. In other words, the increase in her property was not caused by nature but
was manmade which accretion belongs and part of the public dominion.

B. If Jessica's and Jenny's properties are registered properties, will the benefit of such
registration automatically extends to the increased area of their properties? (5%)

No, even if the properties of Jenny and Jessica are registered properties, the benefit
of such registration does not extend to the increased area of their properties.

Accretion does not automatically become registered land because there is a specific
technical description of the lot in its Torrens title. There must be a separate
application for registration of the alluvial deposits under the Torrens System. (Grande
v. CA, G.R. No. L-17652, 30 June, 1962).

VI.

Don was the owner of an agricultural land with no access to a public road. He had
been passing through the land of Ernie for over 20 years. Subsequently, Don
subdivided his property into 20 residential lots and sold them to different persons.
Ernie blocked the pathway and refused to let the buyers pass through the land.

A. Did Don acquire an easement of right of way? Explain. (5%)

No, Don did not acquire an easement of right of way.

Under the Civil Code, an easement of right of way is discontinuous in nature which is
exercised only if a man passes over somebody's land. Being discontinuous easement,
it may only be acquired by virtue of a title and is not acquirable by prescription.

Further, possession of the easement by Don is only permissive, tolerated or with the
acquiescence of Ernie. It is a settled rule that a permissive use of a road over the land
of another, no matter how long it may be, will not create an easement of way by
prescription.

B. Suppose Ernie’s land and the subdivided agricultural lands were both owned by
Don, can Don blocked the pathway and refused to let his buyers pass through the
land? (5%)

5
No, Don cannot blocked the pathway and refused to let his buyers pass through the
land.

Article 649 of the Civil Code provides that the owner, or any person who by virtue of
a real right may cultivate or use any immovable, which is surrounded by other
immovables pertaining to other persons and without adequate outlet to a public
highway, is entitled to demand a right of way through the neighboring estates, after
payment of the proper indemnity.

Since the agricultural land had no access to a public road, and that only through the
other land, (that which pertains to Ernie) where one can access the public road, Don
cannot block the pathway in his land.

c) What are the rights of the lot buyers, if any? Explain. (2%) SUGGESTED

ANSWER: Prior to the grant of an easement, the buyers of the dominant estate
have no other right than to compel grant of easement of right of way. Since the
properties of the buyers are surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate
outlet to a public highway and the isolation is not due to their acts, buyers may
demand an easement of a right of way provided proper indemnity is paid and the
right of way demanded is the shortest and least prejudicial to Ernie. (Villanueva v.
Velasco, G.R. No. 130845, November 27, 2000).

VII.

Suppose a squatter’s hut was built on A’s land. Can A abate extra-judicially the
squatter’s hut on the ground that it is a nuisance? (5%)

a) A squatter's hut (1%) If constructed on public streets or riverbeds, it is a public

nuisance because it obstructs the free use by the public of said places. (City of Manila
v. Garcia, G.R. No. L-26053, February 21,1967) If constructed on private land, it is a
private nuisance because it hinders or impairs the use of the property by the owner.

Article 705 and 706 civil code

VIII.

Mike built a house on his lot in Pasay City. Two years later, a survey disclosed that a
portion of the building actually stood on the neighboring land of Jose, to the extent of
40 square meters. Jose claims that Mike is a builder in bad-faith because he should
know that boundaries of his lot and demands that the portion of the house which
encroached on his land should be destroyed or removed. Mike replies that he is a
builder in good faith and offers to buy the land and occupied the building instead.

6
A. If you were the lawyer of Jose, what action will you file against Mike? (5%)

B. If you were the judge, will you consider the Mike a builder in good faith or bad
faith? (5%)

C. If you were the judge, will you grant Mike’s request to buy the land occupied by
the building? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1) Yes, Mike is a builder in good faith. There is no showing

that when he built his house, he knew that a portion thereof encroached on Jose's lot.
Unless one is versed in the science of surveying, he cannot determine the precise
boundaries or location of his property by merely examining his title. In the absence
of contrary proof, the law presumes that the encroachment was done in good faith
[Technogas Phils, v. CA, 268 SCRA 5, 15 (1997)]. 2} None of the preferences shall be
followed. The preference of Mike cannot prevail because under Article 448 of the
Civil Code, it is the owner of the land who has the option or choice, not the builder.
On the other hand, the option belongs to Jose, he cannot demand that the portion of
the house encroaching on his land be destroyed or removed because this is not one of
the options given by law to the owner of the land. The owner may choose between the
appropriation of what was built after payment of indemnity, or to compel the builder
to pay for the land if the value of the land is not considerably more than that of the
building. Otherwise, the builder shall pay rent for the portion of the land encroached.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: 1) Mike cannot be considered a builder in good faith
because he built his house without first determining the corners and boundaries of
his lot to make sure that his construction was within the perimeter of his property.
He could have done this with the help of a geodetic engineer as an ordinary prudent
and reasonable man would do under the circumstances. 2) Jose's preference should
be followed. He may have the building removed at the expense of Mike, appropriate
the building as his own, oblige Mike to buy the land and ask for damages in addition
to any of the three options. (Articles 449, 450, 451, CC)

IX.

For many years, the Rio Grande river deposited soil along its bank, beside the titled
land of Jose. In time, such deposit reached an area of 1,000 square meter. Ten years
later, a big flood occurred in the river and transferred the 1,000 square meters to the
opposite bank, beside the land of Agustin. The land transferred in now contested by
Jose and Agustin as riparian owners and by Vicente who claims ownership by
prescription. Who should prevail? (5%)

Jose should prevail. The disputed area, which is an alluvion, belongs by right of
accretion to Jose, the riparian owner (Art. 457 CC). When, as given in the problem,
the very same area" was "transferred" by flood waters to the opposite bank, it

7
became an avulsion and ownership thereof is retained by Jose who has two years to
remove it (Art. 459, CC). Vicente's claim based on prescription is baseless since his
possession was by mere tolerance of Jose and, therefore, did not adversely affect
Jose's possession and ownership (Art. 537, CC). Inasmuch as his possession is merely
that of a holder, he cannot acquire the disputed area by prescription.

X.

Emma bought a parcel of land from Equitable-PCI Bank, which acquired the same
from Felisa, the original owner. Thereafter, Emma discovered that Felisa had granted
a right of way over the land in favor of the land of Georgina, which had no outlet to
a public highway, but the easement was not annotated when the servient estate was
registered under the Torrens system. Emma the filed a complaint for the cancellation
of the right of way on the ground that it had been extinguished by such failure to
annotate. How would you decide the controversy? (5%)

The complaint for cancellation of easement of right of way must fail. The failure to
annotate the easement upon the title of the servient estate is not among the grounds
for extinguishing an easement under Art. 631 of the Civil Code. Under Article 617,
easements are inseparable from the estate to which they actively or passively belong.
Once it attaches, it can only be extinguished under Art. 631, and they exist even if
they are not stated or annotated as an encumbrance on the Torrens title of the
servient estate. (II Tolentino 326, 1987 ed.) ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Under
Section 44, PD No. 1529, every registered owner receiving a certificate of title
pursuant to a decree of registration, and every subsequent innocent purchaser for
value, shall hold the same free from all encumbrances except those noted on said
certificate. This rule, however, admits of exceptions. Under Act 496, as amended by
Act No. 2011, and Section 4, Act 3621, an easement if not registered shall remain
and shall be held to pass with the land until cutoff or extinguished by the
registration of the servient estate.
However, this provision has been suppressed in Section 44, PD No. 1529. In other
words, the registration of the servient estate did not operate to cut-off or extinguish
the right of way. Therefore, the complaint for the cancellation of the right of way
should be dismissed.

XI.

Demetrio knew that a piece of land bordering the beach belonged to Ernesto.
However, since the latter was studying in Europe and no one was taking care of the
land, Demetrio occupied the same and constructed thereon nipa sheds with table and
benches which he rented out to people who want to have a picnic by the beach. When
Ernesto returned, he demanded the return of the land. Demetrio agreed to do so after
he has removed the nipa sheds. Ernesto refused to let Demetrio remove the nipa sheds

8
on the ground that there already belonged to him by right of accession. Who is
correct? (5%)

Ernesto is correct, Demetrio is a builder in bad faith because he knew beforehand

that the land belonged to Ernesto, under Article 449 of the New Civil Code, one who
builds on the land of another loses what is built without right to indemnity. Ernesto
becomes the owner of the nipa sheds by right of accession. Hence, Ernesto is well
within his right in refusing to allow the removal of the nipa sheds

XII.

Rommel was issued a certificate of title over a parcel of land in Quezon City. One year
later, Rachelle, the legitimate owner of the land, discovered the fraudulent
registration obtained by Rommel. She filed a complaint against Rommel for
reconveyance and caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on the certificate
of title issued to Rommel. Rommel now invokes the indefeasibility of his title
considering that one year has already elapsed from its issuance. Will Rachelle’s suit
for reconveyance prosper? (5%)

A Notice of Lis Pendens may be canceled even before final Judgment upon proper
showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting or harassing the adverse party
or that the notice of lis pendens is not necessary to protect the right of the party who
caused it to be registered. (Section 77, P.D. No. 1529)
In this case, it is given that Rachelle is the legitimate owner of the land in question. It
can be said, therefore, that when she filed her notice of lis pendens her purpose was
to protect her interest in the land and not just to molest Rommel. It is necessary to
record the Lis pendens to protect her interest because if she did not do it, there is a
possibility that the land will fall into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value and
in that event, the court loses control over the land making any favorable judgment
thereon moot and academic. For these reasons, the notice of lis pendens may not be
canceled.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Rachelle's suit will prosper because all elements for
an action for reconveyance are present, namely: a) Rachelle is claiming dominical
rights over the same land. b) Rommel procured his title to the land by fraud. c) The
action was brought within the statutory period of
four (4) years from discovery of the fraud and not later than ten (10} years from the
date of registration of Rommel's title. d) Title to the land has not passed into the
hands of an innocent purchaser for value.
Rommel can invoke the indefeasibility of his title if Rachelle had filed a petition to
reopen or review the decree of registration. But Rachelle instead filed an ordinary
action in personam for reconveyance. In the latter action, indefeasibility is not a
valid defense because, in filing such action, Rachelle is not seeking to nullify nor to

9
impugn the indefeasibility of Rommel's title. She is only asking the court to compel
Rommel to reconvey the title to her as the legitimate owner of the land.

Yes. The property registered is deemed to be held in trust for the real owner by the
person in whose name it is registered. The Torrens system was not designed to
shield one who had committed fraud or misrepresentation and thus holds the title in
bad faith. (Walstrom v. Mapa Jr., (G .R 38387, 29 Jan. 1990) as cited in Martinez,
D., Summary of SC Decisions, January to June, 1990, p. 359],

XIII.

Manuel was born on 12 March 1940 in a 1 000-square meter property where he grew
up helping his father, Michael, cultivate the land. Michael has lived on the property
since the land was opened for settlement at about the time of the Commonwealth
government in 193 5, but for some reason never secured any title to the property other
than a tax declaration in his name. He has held the property through the years in the
concept of an owner and his stay was uncontested by others. He has also
conscientiously and continuously paid the realty taxes on the land. Michael died in
2000 and Manuel - as Michael’s only son and heir -now wants to secure and register
title to the land in his own name. He consults you for legal advice as he wants to perfect
his title to the land and secure its registration in his name. What do you have to prove
to secure Manuel's objectives and what documentation are necessary? (5%)

I would advice Manuel to file an application for registration under Sec 14 of Pres.
Decree No. 1529, or the Property Registration Decree (PRD), specifically Sec14 (1)
which requires (a) that the land applied for forms part of the alienable and
disposable (A & D) portion of the public domain, and (b) that the applicant has been
in open, continuous and notorious possession and occupation thereof under bona
fide claim of
ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier. However, it is only necessary that the land
is already declared A & D land “at the time for application for registration is filed”
(Malabanan v. Republic, G.R. No. 180067, June 30, 2009).
Manuel could also invoke Sec 14 (2) of the same Decree, which allows registration
through ordinary acquisitive prescription for thirty years, provided, however, that
the land is “patrimonial” in character, i.e. already declared by the government (a)
as A & D, and (b) no longer needed for public use or public service (Malabanan,
supra).
Manuel could also file an application for “confirmation of imperfect or incomplete
title’ through “judicial legalization” under Sec. 48 (b) of CA no. 141, or the Public
Land Act (PLA). But, as held in Malabanan, there is no substantial difference
between this provision and Sec 14 (1) of the PRD. Both refer to agricultural lands
already classified as alienable and disposable at the time the application is filed, and
require possession and occupation since June 12, 1945. The only difference is that

10
under the PRD, there already exists a title which is to be confirmed, whereas under
the PLA, the presumption is that land is still public land (Republic v. Aquino, G.R.
No. L-33983, January 27, 1983).
Manuel may also invoke “vested rights’ acquired under Rep. Act. No. 1942, dated
June 2, 1957, which amended Sec. 48 (b) of the PLA by providing for a prescriptive
period of thirty years for judicial confirmation of imperfect title. It must only be
demonstrated that possession and occupation commenced on January 24, 1947 and
the 30-year period was completed prior to the effectivity of PD No. 1073 on January
25, 1977. PD No. 1073 now requires possession and occupation since June 12, 1945
(Republic v. Espinosa, G.R. No. 171514, July 18, 2012).
Another alternative is for Manuel to secure title through administrative proceedings
under the homestead or free patent provisions of the PLA. The title issued has the
same efficacy and validity as a title issued through judicial proceedings, but with the
limitations that the land cannot be sold or disposed of within five years from the
issuance of patent (Sec. 118, CA No. 141, as amended).

This is the answer:

Manuel has a the burden to overcome the presumption of State ownership by “well-
nigh incontrovertible” evidence (Ong v. Republic, G.R. No. 175746, March 12,
2008). Accordingly, he must show that ht eland is already classified as A & D “at the
time the application for registration is filed” and that he has been in “possession and
occupation thereof” in the manner required by law since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
Manuel may tack his possession to that of his predecessor-in-interest (Michael) by
the testimony of disinterested and knowledgeable eyewitnesses. Overt acts of
possession may consist in introducing valuable improvements like fencing the land,
constructing a residential house thereon, cultivating the land and planting fruit
bearing trees, declaring the land for taxation purposes and paying realty taxes, all of
which are corroborative proof of possession.
To identify the land, he must submit the tracing cloth plan or a duly-certified
blueprint or whiteprint copy thereof (Director of Lands v. Reyes, G.R. No. L27594,
November 28, 1975; Director of Lands v. CA and Iglesia ni Cristo, G.R. No. L-
56613, March 14, 1988).
To show the classification of the land as A & D, the application must be
accompanied by (1) a CENRO or PENRO
certification; and (2) a certified true copy of the original classification approved by
the DENR Secretary (Republic v. Bantigue, G.R.No. 162322, March 14, 2012). A
presidential or legislative act may also be considered.

11