PROPERTY

BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS and ANSWERS (1987-1992)

1987 BAR EXAMINATION

Question No.1:

Fred sold to Juan a parcel of land, belonging to his minor son, Lino, then under his guardianship,
without judicial approval. After the sale, Juan immediately took possession of the land, built a
house and religiously paid the taxes thereon, Nine years thereafter, Lino, no longer a minor,
rented the ground floor of the house built by Juan. Lino paid the rent for the first month, and
then stopped paying. Two years thereafter, when pressed for payment of the accrued rent, Lino
refused, claiming ownership over the property, alleging that the sale of the property to Juan
while he was a minor without approval of the guardianship court rendered the sale null and
void.

Is the claim of Lino valid and meritorious? Explain.

Question No.2:

Miguel, Carlos and Lino are neighbours. Miguel owned a piece of registered land which both
Carlos and Lino wanted to buy. Miguel sold the land to Carlos. The sale was not registered upon
the request of Miguel. Later on, the same was property was sold by Miguel to Lino. Miguel told
Carlos about the second sale. Carlos immediately tried to see Lino to discuss the matter and
inform him of the previous sale to him (Carlos) of the same property but Lino refused to see
Carlos. Thereupon Carlos annotated in the Registry of Property his adverse claim on the
property. A week later, Lino registered the sale on his favour and had a new transfer certificate
of title issued in his name. However, the adverse claim of Carlos was duly annotated in the title.
Notwithstanding, Lino took possession of the property and built a small bungalow thereon.

(a) Who is the rightful owner of the property? Explain.

(b) To whom would the bungalow built by Lino on the property belong? Explain

Question No. 3:

Rita owned a valuable painting which was stolen from her home. The theft was duly reposted to
the authorities a year after. Rita saw the painting hanging in the office of Mario. When queried.
Mario said that he bought the painting on a gallery auction. The painting was positively
identified as the one stolen from the house of Rita.

(a) Could Rita recover the painting? If so, would Mario be entitled to reimbursement of the
amount he paid for the painting? Explain.
(b) Supposing Mario bought the painting from a friend, would your answer be the same? Explain.
 1988 BAR EXAMINATION

Question No. 1:

(a) Distinguish co-ownership from partnership.

(b) Is the lease of the entire community property in co-ownership an act of administration or an
act of ownership or alteration? Explain, in relation to the need of consent of the co-owners.
(c) Since 1935, Janice possessed alone a parcel of land which she co-owned with Lenny. In
1970, with the knowledge of Leny, Janice obtained a torrens title over the land in her own
name alone. On august 1, 1988, Lenny brought an action against Janice for reconveyance of
her share. Janice set up the defense of laches. Will the defense prosper? Reasons

Question No. 2:

(a) How are easements acquired?

(b) In acquiring easement by prescription, how shall the period of possession be computed?
(c) About fifteen years ago, Adelaida constructed a house on her lot at Quezon City adjoining a
lot owned by Bernie. She provided it with several windows overlooking Bernie’s lot half a
meter away from the boundary line. A month ago, Bernie brought an action against Adelaida
for the closure of the windows alleging that they violate the law on distances
(1) Has Adelaida acquired an easement of light and view by prescription?
(2) Will the action of Bernie prosper?
(3) If the action will not prosper, will that not be tantamount to saying that Adelaida has
already acquired an easement of light and view?

Question No. 3:

(a) What is mean by “law” as a mode of acquiring ownership? What are the different
instances under the Civil Code whereby there is an acquisition of ownership by
operation of law? State at least three.
(b) A donated to X a parcel of land in 1975. The donation was made in a public instrument,
while the acceptance made by X was embodied in the same public instrument. The Deed
of Donation was entitled “Donation Inter Vivos.” There is however a provision in the ded
to the effect that, although the land donated shall be delivered immediately to X upon
the perfection of the donation with right to enjoy all of the fruits thereof, “ title shall
pass to the done only upon the donor’s death.” Upon the death of A, his widow and only
heir, B, brought an action for the recovery of the property on the ground that the
donation is a donation mortis causa and not a donation inter vivos. Will the action
prosper? Give your reasons.

Question No. 4:

(a) 1) Is title to registered land subject to prescription? Explain your answer.

2) How about the right of the registered owner to recover possession, is it equally
imprescriptible? Why?
3) What effect has the equitable principle of laches on the imprescriptibility of Torrens
Title? Explain.
(b) In passing upon the registrability of a document sought to be registered, what formal
requisites is the Register of Deeds charged to determine, under his responsibility,
whether or not they have been complied with?
 1989 BAR EXAMINATION

Question No. 1:

1. What is USUFRUCT? How is usufruct extinguished?

Question No. 2:

“X” mortgaged his land to the Philippines National Bank (PNB) to secure a promissory note. He
defaulted in the payment of the loan so that the land was sold at public auction on January 30,
1960, for P 3,500 with the PNB as the highest bidder. On January 20, 1970, “X” offered to
redeem the property in the amount if P 3,500. He enclosed a a postal money order for P 1,000
as partial payment and stated that the balance is to be paid in 12 monthly instalments. The PNB
then discovered that the sheriff’s certificate of the sale prepared after the public auction of the
land was not the registered so that it causes the same to be registered on January 30, 1970. The
PNB refused the offer of “X” contending that the offer to redeem was beyond the one-year
period provided under Act No. 3135 and that it was not accompanied by an actual and
simultaneous tender of the entire repurchase price. In view of the refusal of the PNB, “X” filed
an action to repurchase on February 20, 1970. Will the action prosper? Give your reasons.

Question No. 3:

May the owner of a building constructed on an unregistered land belonging to another apply for
the registration of such building under the Land Registration Act and P.D. 1529? What should he
do to protect his rights in case the owner of the land applied for registration thereof? Give your
reasons.

1990 BAR EXAMINATION

Question No. 1

B donated to M a parcel of land in 1980. B made the deed of donation, entitled ―Donation Inter
Vivos, in a public instrument and M accepted the donation in the same document. It was
provided in the deed that the land donated shall be immediately delivered to M and that M shall
have the right to enjoy the fruits fully. The deed also provided that B was reserving the right to
dispose of said land during his (B’s) lifetime, and that M shall not register the deed of donation
until after B’s death. Upon B’s death, W, B’s widow and sole heir, filed an action for the recovery
of the donated land, contending that the donation made by B is a donation mortis causa and not
a donation inter vivos. Will said action prosper? Explain your answer.

Question No. 2

In 1960, an unregistered parcel of land was mortgaged by owner O to M, a family friend, as

collateral for a loan. O acted through attorney-in-fact, son S, who was duly authorized by way of
a special power of attorney, wherein O declared that he was the absolute owner of the land,
that the tax declarations/receipts were all issued in his name, and that he has been in open,
continuous, and adverse possession in the concept of owner.

As O was unable to pay back the loan plus interest for the past five (5) years, M had to foreclose
the mortgage. At the foreclosure sale, M was the highest bidder. Upon issuance of the sheriff`s
final deed of sale and registration in January, 1966, the mortgaged property was turned over to
M`s possession and control. M has since then developed the said property. In 1967, O died,
survived by sons S and P.
 In 1977, after the tenth (10th) death anniversary of his father O, son P filed a suit to annul the
mortgaged deed and subsequent sale of the property, etc.., on the ground of fraud. He asserted
that the property in question was conjugal in nature actually belonging, at the time of the
mortgage, to O and his wife, W, whose conjugal share went to their sons (S and P) and to O.

a) Is the suit filed by P barred by prescription? Explain your answer.

b) After the issuance of the sheriff`s final deed of sale in 1966 in this case, assuming that M
applied for registration under the Torrens System and was issued a Torrens Title to the said
property in question, would that added fact have any effect on your conclusion? State your
reason.

Question No. 3

Bruce is the registered owner of a parcel of land with a building thereon and is in peaceful
possession thereof. He pays the real estate taxes and collects the rentals there from. Later,
Catalino, the only brother of Bruce, filed a petition where he, misrepresenting to be the
attorney-in-fact of Bruce and falsely alleging that the certificate of title was lost, succeeded in
obtaining a second owner`s duplicate copy of the title and then had the same transferred in his
name through a simulated deed of sale in his favor. Catalino then mortgaged the property to
Desiderio who had the mortgage annotated on the title. Upon learning of the fraudulent
transaction, Bruce filed a complaint Catalino and Desiderio to have the title of Catalino and the
mortgage in favor of Desiderio declared null and void.

Will the complaint prosper, or will the title of Catalino and the mortgage to Desiderio be
sustained?

Question No. 4

In 1950`s, the Government acquired a big landed estate in Central Luzon from the registration
owner for subdivision into small farms and redistribution of bona fide occupants. F applied to
buy the said land in accordance with the guidelines of the implementing agency. Upon full
payment of the price in 1957, the corresponding deed of absolute sale was executed in his favor
and was registered, and in 1961, a new title was issued in his name. In 1963, F sold the said land
to X; and in 1965 X sold it to Y. New titles were successively issued in the names of the said
purchasers.

In 1977, C filed an action to annul the deeds of sale to F, X and Y and their titles, on the ground
that he (C) had been in actual physical possession of the land, and that the sale to F and the
subsequent sales should be set aside on the ground of fraud. Upon the motion of defendants,
the trial court dismissed the complaint, upholding their defenses of their being innocent
purchasers for value, prescription and laches. Plaintiff appealed.

(a) Is the said appeal meritorious? Explain your answer.

(b) Suppose the government agency concerned joined C in filing in the said action against the
defendants, would that change the result of the litigation? Explain.
 1991 BAR EXAMINATION

Question No. 1.

Spouses Michael and Linda donated a 3-hectare residential land to the City of Baguio on the
condition that the city government would build thereon a public park with a boxing arena, the
construction of which shall commence within six (6) months from the date the parties ratify the
donation. The donee accepted the donation and the title to the property was transferred in its
name. Five years elapsed but the public park with the boxing arena was never started.
Considering the failure of the donee to comply with the condition of the donation, the donor-
spouses sold the property to Ferdinand who then sued to recover the land from the city
government. Will the suit prosper?

Question No. 2.

Maria Enriquez failed to pay the realty taxes on her unregistered agricultural land located in
Magdugo, Toledo City. In 1989, to satisfy the taxes due, the City sold it at the public auction to
Juan Miranda, an employee at the Treasurer`s Office of said City, whose bid at P10, 000.00 was
the highest. In due time, a final bill of sale was executed in his favor.

Maria refused to turn-over the possession of the property to Juan alleging that (1) she had been,
in the meantime, granted a free patent and on the basis thereof an Original Certificate of Title
was issued to her, and (2) the sale in favor of Juan is void from the beginning in view of the
provision in the Administrative Code of 1987 which prohibits officers and employees of the
government from purchasing directly or indirectly any property sold by the government for non-
payment of any tax, fee, or other charges.

a) Is the sale to Juan valid? If so, what is the effect of the issuance of the Certificate of Title to
Maria?
b) If the sale is void, may Juan recover the P10, 000.00? If not, why not?
c) If the sale is void, did it not nevertheless, operate to divert Maria of her ownership? If it did,
who then is the owner of the property?
 1992 BAR EXAMINATION

Question No. 1

A owns a parcel of residential land worth P500,000.00 unknown to A, a residential house costing P
100,000.00 is built on the entire parcel by B who claims ownership of the land. Answer all the
following questions based on the premise that B is a builder in good faith and A is a landowner in
good faith.

a) May A acquire the house built by B? If so, how?

b) If the land increased in value to P500,000.00 by reason of the building of the house thereon,
what amount should be paid by A in order to acquire the house from B?

c) Assuming that the cost of the house was P90,000.00 and not P100,000.00, may A require B to
buy the land?

d) If B voluntarily buys the land as desired by A, under what circumstances may A nevertheless be
entitled to have the house removed?

e) In what situation may a "forced lease" arise between A and B. and what terms and conditions
would govern the lease?

Give reasons for your answers.

Question No. 2

What are the essential requisites or elements for the allowance of the reopening ore review of a
decree of registration?

Question No. 3

A owned a parcel of unregistered land located on the Tarlac side of the boundary between Tarlac
and Pangasinan. His brother B owned the adjoining parcel of unregistered land on the Pangasinan
side.

A sold the Tarlace parcel to X in a deed of sale executed as a public instrument by A and X. After X
paid in full the price of the sale, X took possession of the Pangasinan parcel in the belief that it was
the Tarlace parcel covered by the deed of sale executed by A and X.
After twelve (12) years, a controversy arose between b and X on the issue of the ownership of the
Pangasinan parcel.

B claims a vested right of ownership over the Pangasinan parcel because B never sold that parcel to
X or to anyone else.

On the other hand, X claims a vested right of ownership over the Pangasinan parcel by acquisitive
prescription, because X possessed this parcel for over ten (10) years under claim of ownership.

Decide on these claims, giving your reasons.

 1987 BAR EXAMINATION ANSWER KEY

Answer No. 1:

No, Lino’s claim is not valid and not meritorious because Lino is in estoppels. A lessee cannot assail
the right and title of the lessor and cannot claim ownership as against the lessor. The fact that the
sale was made while Lino was a minor is of no moment because he recognized and ratified the
contract after he was already of majority age.

Alternative Answer No. 1:

No, Lino’s claim is not valid and not meritorious because Juan has already become the owner of the
land by ordinary acquisitive prescription through adverse possession of the land for over ten (10)
years.

Alternative Answer No. 2:

No, Lino’s claim is not valid and not meritorious. Lino can no longer recover the land because of
laches.

Answer No. 2:

a. In double sales, under Article 1544, the land sold belongs to the first registrant in good faith. If
none it belongs to the person with the oldest title, provided there is good faith. Carlos, who has the
oldest title, is therefore the rightful owner of the property, because there was no registration in
good faith by Lino.

b. The bungalow built by Lino belongs to Carlos. Lino is a builder in bad faith. Article 449 provides that
he who builds in bad faith on the land of another loses what is built without right to indemnity.

Answer No.3:

a. Yes, Rita could recover the painting, but Mario is not entitled to reimbursement because a gallery
auction is a public sale.

b. Yes, insofar as recovery of the painting is concerned Rita can recover it. No, as regard
reimbursement, because the painting was not bought at a public sale as provided under Article 559
of the Civil Code. Mario is entitled to reimbursement.
 1988 BAR EXAMINATION ANSWER KEY

Answer No. 1:

Co-ownership is distinguished from an ordinary partnership in the following ways:

(1) As to creation: Whereas co-ownership may be created by law, contract, succession, fortuitous
event or occupancy, partnership is always created by contract.

(2)As to purpose: Whereas the purpose of co-ownership is the common enjoyment of the thing or
right owned in common, the purpose of a partnership is to obtain profits.

(3) As to personality: Whereas a co-ownership has no juridical personality which is separate and distinct
from that of the owners, a partnership has.
(4) As to duration: Whereas an agreement not to divide the community property for more than 10
years is not allowed by law, such an agreement would be perfectly valid in the case of partnerships.
(5) As to power of members: Whereas a co-ownership, unless there is an agreement to that effect, a
partner has the power to represent the partnership, unless there is stipulation to the contrary.
(6) As to effect of disposition of shares: If a co-owner transfers his share to a third person, the latter
becomes automatically a co-owner, but if a partner transfers his share to a third person, the latter
does not become a partner, unless agreed upon by all of the partners.
(7) As to division of profits: Whereas in co-ownership the division of the benefits and charges is fixed by
law, in a partnership the division of profits and losses may be subject to the agreement of the
partners.
(8) As to effect of death: Whereas the death if a co-owner has the effect upon the existence of a co-
ownership, the death of a partner shall result in the dissolution of the partnership.

(b) Lease of personal property is a mere act if administration, and, therefore, requires the resolution of
the majority of the co-owners. However, lease of real property may be an act of administration or
an act of alteration depending upon the circumstances of each particular case. (1) If the lease is
recorded in the Registry of Property, whatever may be the duration thereof, it is an act of
ownership, and therefore, requires the unanimous consent of all the co-owners, since under the
unanimous consent if all the co-owners, since under the law, a special power of attorney is required.
(3) If the lease, however, i not recorded in the Registry of Property and the duration thereof is only
one year or less, it is an act of administration and therefore, merely requires the resolution of the
majority of the co-owners.

(c) It is submitted that the defense of laches will prosper. As held by the Supreme Court in several
notable decisions, in order that the doctrine of laches or “stale demands” can be applied, the
following elements must concur: (1) Conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom
he claims, giving rise to the situation of which complaint seeks a remedy; (2) delay in asserting the
complainant’s rights, the complainant having had knowledge or notice, of the defendant’s conduct
and having been afforded an opportunity to institute a suit (3) lack of knowledge or notice on the
part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which he bases the suit; (4)
injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief if accorded to the complainant, or the suit is
not held to be barred ( Miguel vs. Catalino, 26 SCRA 234). All of these elements are present in the
instant case. As a matter of fact, the doctrine was applied to a case wherein a co-heir and another
were able, through fraud. To register a tract of land in their names. According to the Supreme Court,
the action for reconveyance brought by the other co-heirs more than twenty year later is now
barred not by extinctive prescription but also by laches. (Fabian vs. Fabian, 22 SCRA 231)
Answer No. 2:

(a) Continuous and apparent easements are acquired either by virtue of title or by prescription of ten
year ( At. 620 , CC), while continuous non apparent easements and discontinuous easements
whether apparent or non apparent, can only be acquired by virtue of a title (Art. 622, CC)

(b) In order that an easement may be acquired by prescription, the time of possession shall be
computed thus: In positive easements, from the day on which the owner of the dominant estate, or
the person who may have made use of the easement, commenced to exercise it upon the servient
estate; and in negative easements, from the day on which the owner of the dominant estate
forbade, by an instrument acknowledged before a notary public, the owner of the servient estate,
from executing an act which would be lawful without the easement. (Art. 621, CC).

(c) (1) Adelaida has not acquired an easement of light and view by prescription after ten years. There
are two reasons for this. In the first place, there was no formal prohibition as required by law. This
should have been done by means of an instrument acknowledged before a notary public wherein
she should have prohibited Bernie from obstructing his light and view. She did not. In the second
place, she did not observe the legal requirement that there should eb a distance of at least two
meters between the windows and Bernie’s lot, since the view is direct. According to the Civil Code,
non-observance of this distance foe not gives rise to prescription.

(2) The action will not prosper because more than ten years has already elapsed from the time of
the opening of the windows. Bernies rights of action has already prescribed.

(3) This is not tantamount to saying that Adelaida has already acquired an easement of light and
view. Under the Civil Code, nobody can prevent Bernie from obstructing Adelaida’s light and view by
constructing a building on his lot or by raising a wall thereon contiguous to the windows of Adelaida.

Answer No. 3:

(A) When the Civil code speaks of law as a distinct mode of acquiring ownership, it refers to those
instances where the law, independently of the other modes of acquiring ownership, automatically
and directly vests the ownership of the thing in a certain individual once the prescribed requisites or
conditions are present of complied with.

Examples of this are:

(1) Land which belongs exclusively to either of the spouses where a building is constructed with
conjugal funds. Here, the ownership of the land is vested automatically in the conjugal
partnership one the condition that its value has been reimbursed to the owner has been
complied with ( Art. 158, par. 2, CC)
(2) Hidden treasure which a stranger discovers by chance on another’s property. Here, one –
half of the treasure belongs by right of occupation to the stranger, while the other half
belongs by operation of law to the proprietor. ( Art. 438, par. 2, CC)
(3) Abandoned beds, when a river or stream suddenly changes its course to traverse private
lands. The former owners of the new bed shall be the owners of the abandoned bed in
proportion to the area lost by each. (Art. 58, P.D. No. 1067)
(4) Fruits neutrally falling from a tree upon adjacent land. Here, the ownership of the fruits is
vested automatically in the owner of the adjacent land.( Art. 681, CC).

(B) Yes, the action will prosper. In Bonsato vs. Court of Appeals, and Howard vs. Court of Appeals, the
Supreme Court declared that in order that a donation will be considered a disposition post mortem,
it should reveal any or all of the following characteristics:
 (1) Convey no title or ownership to the transferee before the death of the transferor; or, what
amount to the same thing, that the transferor should retain the ownership, full or naked, and
control the property while alive;

(2) That before his death the transfer should be revocable by the transferor at will, ad nutum; but
revocability may be provided for indirectly by means of a reserved power in the donor to dispose of
the property conveyed;

(3) That the transfer should be void if the transferor should survive the transferee.

It is clear from the facts stated in the problem that the donation reveals the first characteristics.
Hence, it is a disposition, post mortem. Therefore, in order that the donation can take effect it is
essential that it must be made in a will executed in accordance with all of the formalities prescribed
by law (Art. 728, CC). Since this requisite has not been complied with, the donation in the instant
case is void or inexistent.

Committee’s Recommendation Re: No. 4 (a) and (b)

(a) It is recommended that the following be likewise considered as instances whereby there is
acquisition of ownership by operation of law:
(1) The acquisition of property in co-ownership under a marriage governed by the absolute
community regime.
(2) Estoppel under article 1434 of the Civil Code which provides that:
“When a person who is not the owner of a thing sells or alienates and delivers it, and later the
seller or grantor acquires title thereto, such title passes by operation of law to the buyer or
grantee”; and
(3) Registration of land under Act 496 where the applicant is not the real owner.
(b) It is recommended that the mention of the first characteristic of the three mentioned above,
should merit a full credit for this question.

Answer No. 4:

(a) 1) No because under Section 47, P.D. 1529, no title to registered land in derogation of that of the
registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. A similar provision is
found in the Civil Code. The reason is that once a piece of land is registered under the Torrens
System, it operates as a notice to the whole world. All persons are bound by it. No one can please
ignorance of the registration.

(2) The right to recover the land from another person holding it is equally imprescriptible, the
reason being that possession is a mere consequence of ownership.

(3) While Torrens Title is imprescriptible, under certain exceptional circumstances, it may yield to
the equitable principle of laches. In other words, certain circumstances such as inaction or utter
neglect on the part of the owner and the intervention of rights by third paties may, for reasons of
equity, convert the claim of imprescriptibility into a stale demand. (Meijia vs. Gamponia, 100 Phil.
277; Miguel vs. Catalino, G.R. L-23072, Nov. 29, 1968; Heirs of Batiog Lacamen vs. Heirs of Laruan,
G.R. L-27058, July 31, 1985).
(b) To be registrable, a voluntary document affecting registered land must be sufficient in law.
(Section 51, P.D. 1529) Sufficiency refers to both substance and form.

As to form, it is the ROD’s responsibility to check such items as the full name and signature of
vendor or grantor, the marital consent of the wife if the land sold is conjugal, the full name,
nationality, the civil status, the name of spouse, if married, the resident and postal address of the
grantee. If the grantee is a corporation, the deed must be accompanied with the Articled of
Incorporation, a board resolution authorizing the corporation to buy and another resolution of the
board naming the corporate officer authorized to execute and sign the contract. This is to to
mention the proper observance of the requirements in the acknowledgement portion of the deed.

1989 BAR EXAMINATION ANSWER KEY

Answer No.1:

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.

Usufruct is extinguished:

1) By the death of the usufructuary, unless a contrary intention clearly appears;

2) By the expiration of the period for which it was constituted, or by the fulfillment of any
resolutory condition provided in the title creating the usufruct;
3) By merger of the usufruct and ownership in the same person;
4) By renunciation of the usufructuary;
5) By the total loss of the thing in usufruct;
6) By the termination of the right of the person constituting the usufruct;
7) By prescription. 

Recommendation of the Committee:

An enumeration of four (4) should be given full credit.

Answer No. 2:

Yes, the action will prosper. The one (1) year period of redemption is counted from the
registration of the sheriff’s certificate of the sale hence the action has not yet prescribed.
However, there nee nit be tender of the redemption price because the filing of the judicial
action to enforce the right of redemption within the redemption period suffices.

(2) Subsequent to the original registration of a parcel of land bordering a river, it area increased
by accession. This additional area was not included in the technical description appearing on the
Torrens Certificate of Title having been acquired subsequent to the registration proceedings.
May such additional area be acquired be acquired by third persons thru prescription? Give your
reasons.
Answer No. 2:

The Land Registration Law provides that no title in derogation of the registered owner may be
acquired by adverse possession or acquisitive prescription. Since the law refers to registered
lands, the accession mentioned in this question may be acquired by a third person through
adverse possession or acquisitive prescription.

Alternative answer:

If the accession is manmade, then it cannot be considered as private property. It belongs to the
public domain, and, therefore, cannot be acquired by adverse possession or acquisitive
possession.

Answer No. 3:

The Land Registration Act and PD 1529 apply to registration of land only. It may include the
building as an accessory but the building cannot be registered independently o the land because
registration contemplated under this Act refers only to ownership of land.

The owner of the building should file an opposition or answer o the application for registration
and ask the court that right to the building be annotated in the decree and later in the
certificate of title.

(2) “A” is the owner of a registered land. The Torrens Title is entrusted to “B”, his clerk
secretary, who forges “A’s” signature on a deed of the sale of said land in his “B,” upon
registration. Does “B” have a valid title over the land? If “B” sells the property to “C”, do the
latter acquire a valid title over it?

Answer No. 3:

A forged deed is an absolute nullity and conveys no title but it can be the root of a title.
If title to the land has been transferred to a party based upon a forged deed, and later on after
the issuance of such title the property is transferred to another who is an innocent purchaser for
value, then the latter acquires a valid title.
 1990 BAR EXAMINATION KEY

Answer No. 1

Yes, the action will prosper. The donation is a donation mortis causa because the reservation is
to dispose of all the property donated and, therefore, the donation is revocable at will.
Accordingly, the donation requires the execution of a valid will, either notarial or holographic
(Arts 755, 728 NCC).

Answer No. 2

a) Under Art. 173 of the Civil Code, the action is barred by prescription because the wife had only
ten (10) years from the transaction and during the marriage to file a suit for the annulment of the
mortgage deed,

Alternative Answer to a) First Alternative Answer:

a) The mortgage contract executed by O, if at all, is only a voidable contract since it involves a
conjugal partnership property. The action to annul the same instituted in 1977, or eleven
(11) years after the execution of the sheriff`s final sale, has obviously prescribed because:

1) An action to annul a contract on the ground of fraud must be brought within four (4) years
from the date of discovery of the fraud. Since this is in essence an action to recover
ownership, it must be reckoned from the date of execution of the contract or from the
registration of the alleged fraudulent document with the assessor`s office for the purpose of
transferring the tax declaration, this being unregistered land. (Bael v. Intermediate
Appellate Court, G.R. L-74423 Jan. 30, 1989 169 SCRA 617)
2) If the action is to be treated as an action to recover ownership of land, it would have
prescribed just the same because more than 10 years have already elapsed since the date of
the execution of the sale.

Second Alternative Answer:

a) The action to recover has been barred by acquisitive prescription in favor of M considering
that M has possessed the land under a claim of ownership for ten (10) years with a just title.
b) If M had secured a Torrens Title to the land, all the more S and P could not recover because
if at all their remedies would be:

1) A Petition to Review the Decree of Registration. This can be availed of within one (1) year
from the entry thereof, but only upon the basis of “actual fraud.” There is no showing that
M committed actual fraud in securing his title to the land; or
2) An action in personam against M for the reconveyance of the title in their favour. Again, this
remedy is available within four (4) years from the date of the discovery of the fraud but not
later than ten (10) years from the date of registration of the title in the name of M.

Answer No. 3

The complaint for the annulment of Catalino`s Title will prosper. In the first place, the second
owner`s copy of the title secured by him from the Land Registration Court is void ad initio, the
owner`s copy thereof having never been lost, let alone the fact that said second owner`s copy of
the title was fraudulently procured and improvidently issued by the Court.
 In the second place, the Transfer Certificate of Title procured by Catalino is equally null and
void, it having been issued on the basis of a simulated or forged Deed of Sale. A forged deed is
an absolute nullity and conveys no title.

The mortgaged in favor of Desiderio is likewise null and void because the mortgagor is not the
owner of the mortgaged property. While it may be true that under the “Mirror Principle” of the
Torrens System of Land Registration, a buyer or mortgagee has the right to rely on what appears
on the Certificate of Title, and in the absence of anything to excite suspicion, is no obligation to
look beyond the certificate and investigate the mortgagor`s title, this rule does not find
application in the case at hand because here Catalino`s title suffers from two fatal infirmities
namely:

1. The fact that it emanated from a forged deed of a simulated sale;

2. The fact that it was derived from a fraudulently procured or improvidently issued second
owner`s copy, the real owner`s copy being still intact and in the possession of the true
owner, Bruce.

The mortgage to Desiderio should be cancelled without prejudice to his right to go after Catalino
and/ or the government for compensation from the assurance fund.

Answer No. 4

(a) The appeal is not meritorious. The trial court ruled correctly in granting defendant`s motion to
dismiss for the following reasons:

1) While there is the possibility that F, a former lessee of the land was aware of the fact that C
was the bona fide occupant thereof and for this reason his transfer certificate of title may
be vulnerable, the transfer of the same land and the issuance of new TCT`s to X and Y who
are innocent purchasers for value, renders the latter`s titles indefeasible. A person dealing
with the registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title and the
law will not in any way oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine the condition
of the property in search for any hidden defect or inchoate right which may latter
invalidate or diminish his right to the land. This is the mirror principle of the Torrens
System.

2) The action to annul the sale was instituted in 1977 or more than ten (10) years from the
date of execution thereof in 1957, hence, it has long prescribed.

3) Under Section 45 of Act 496,” the entry of a certificate of title shall be regarded as an
agreement running with the land, and binding upon the applicant and all his successors in
title that the land shall be and always remain registered land. A title under Act 496 is
indefeasible and to preserve that character, the title is cleaned anew with every transfer
for value.

(b) Even if the government joins C, this will not alter the outcome of the case so much because
of estoppels as an express provision in Section 45 of Act 496 and Section 31 of PD No. 1529
that the decree of registration and the certificate of title issued in pursuance thereof “shall
be conclusive upon and against all persons, including the national government and all
branches thereof, whether mentioned by name in the application or notice, or not.”
 1991 BAR EXAMINATION ANSWER KEY

Answer No. 1

Ferdinand has no right to recover the land. It is true that the donation was revocable because of
breach of the conditions. But until and unless the donation was revoked, it remained valid.
Hence, Spouses Michael and Linda had no right to sell the land to Ferdinand. One cannot give
what he does not have. What the donors should have done first was to have the donation
annulled or revoked. And after that was done, they could validly have disposed of the land in
favour of Ferdinand.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER (1):

A. Until the contract of donation has been resolved or rescinded under Article 1191 of the Civil
Code or revoked under Art. 764 of the Civil Code, the donation stands effective and valid.
Accordingly, the sale made by the donor to Ferdinand cannot be said to have conveyed title to
Ferdinand, who, thereby, has no cause of action for recovery of the land acting for and in his
behalf.

B. The donation is onerous, and being onerous, what applies is the law on contracts, and not the
law on donation (De Luna us. Abrigo, 81 SCRA 150). Accordingly, the prescriptive period for the
filing of such an action would be the ordinary prescriptive period for contacts which may either
be six or ten depending upon whether it is verbal or written. The filing of the case five years
later is within the prescriptive period and, therefore, the action can prosper,

Alternative Answer (2):

The law on donation lays down a special prescriptive period in the case of breach of condition,
which is four years from non-compliance thereof (Article 764 Civil Code). Since the action has
prescribed, the suit will not prosper.

Answer No. 2

a) The sale of the land to Juan is not valid, being contrary to law. Therefore, no transfer of
ownership of the land was effected from the delinquent taxpayer to him. The original
certificate of title obtained by Maria thru a free patent grant from the Bureau of Lands
(Chapter VII, CA 141) is valid but in view of her delinquency, the said title is subject to the
right of the City Government to sell the land at public auction. The issuance of the OCT did
not exempt the land from tax sales. Section 44 of PD 1529 provides that every registered
owner receiving a Certificate of Title shall hold the same free from all encumbrances,
subject to certain exemptions.
b) Juan may recover because he was not a party to the violation of the law.
c) No, the sale did not divest Maria of her title precisely because the sale is void. It is as good
as if no sale ever took place.

In tax sales, the owner is divested of his land initially upon award and issuance of the Certificate
of Sale, and finally after the lapse of the 1 year period from the date of registration, to redeem,
upon execution by the treasurer of an instrument sufficient in form and effects to convey the
property. Maria remained owner of the land until another tax sale is to be performed in favor of
a qualified buyer.
 1992 BAR EXAMINATION ANSWER KEY

Answer No. 1

At this point in time, X cannot claim the right vested ownership over the Pangasinan parcel by
acquisitive prescription. In addition to the requisites common to ordinary and extraordinary
acquisitive prescription consisting of uninterrupted, peaceful, public, adverse and actual
possession in the concept of owner, ordinary acquisitive prescription for ten (10) years requires
(1) possession in good faith and (2) just title. “Just title” means that the adverse claimant came
into possession of the property through one of the modes recognized by law for the acquisition
of ownership but the grantor was not the owner or could not transmit any right (Art. 1129, Civil
Code). In this case, there is no ‘just title” and no mode that can be invoked by X for the
acquisition of the Pangasinan parcel. There was no constructive delivery of the Pangasinan
parcel because it was not the subject-matter of the deed of sale. Hence, B retains ownership of
the Pangasinan parcel of land.

Answer No. 2

The essential elements are: 1) that the petitioner has a real or dominical right; 2) that he has
been deprived thereof through fraud; 3) that the petition is filed within one (1) year from the
issuance of the decree; and 4) that the property has not yet transferred to an innocent
purchaser (Rublico vs Orellana 30 SCRA 511; Libudan vs Gil 45 SCRA 17).

Optional extended answer:

Petition for review of the Decree of Registration.

A remedy expressly provided in Section 32 of PD 1529, this remedy has the following elements:

a) The petition must be filed by a person claiming dominical or other real rights to the land
registered in the name of respondent.

b) The registration of the land in the name of respondent was procured by means of actual,
(not just constructive) fraud, which must be extrinsic. Fraud is actual if the registration was
made through deceit or any other intentional act of downright dishonesty to enrich oneself
at the expense of another. It is extrinsic when it is something that was not raised, litigated
and passed upon in the main proceedings.

c) The petition must be filed within one (1) year from the date of the issuance of the decree.

d) Title to the land has not passed to an innocent purchaser for value (Libudan vs Gil
45SCRA27, 1972; Rublico vs Orrelana, 30 SCRA 511, 1969; RP vs CA, GR No. 40402, March
16, 1987).
 1. The buyer in good faith of a registered parcel of land does not have to look beyond the
Torrens title in search for any hidden defect or inchoate right which may later invalidate or
diminish his right to what he purchased (Lopez vs CA GR. 49739, Jan. 20, 1989).

Answer No. 3

At this point in time, X cannot claim the right vested ownership over the Pangasinan parcel by
acquisitive prescription. In addition to the requisites common to ordinary and extraordinary
acquisitive prescription consisting of uninterrupted, peaceful, public, adverse and actual
possession in the concept of owner, ordinary acquisitive prescription for ten (10) years requires
(1) possession in good faith and (2) just title. “Just title” means that the adverse claimant came
into possession of the property through one of the modes recognized by law for the acquisition
of ownership but the grantor was not the owner or could not transmit any right (Art. 1129, Civil
Code). In this case, there is no ‘just title” and no mode that can be invoked by X for the
acquisition of the Pangasinan parcel. There was no constructive delivery of the Pangasinan
parcel because it was not the subject-matter of the deed of sale.

Hence, B retains ownership of the Pangasinan parcel of land.

Submitted by:

Noel Sinco
Rushell Parcon