1.

FALSE (MERALCO v city assessor) local government code applies

ata
2. TRUE (415[1[) – no need to distinguish ownership
3. FALSE (Navarro v pineda)
4. A dried up river bed is governed by the rules on accession FALSE. It
must not be completely dried up ata (TRUE SA SAMPLEX)
5. TRUE/FALSE. The recognition is supposed to be a privilege granted
by the State, strictly Sir would not consider it as property.
HOWEVER, there is an issuance from the CHED saying that if
another party will acquire the school, the recognition given by the
State to the school shall be included
6. A hidden and unknown deposit of money is considered a hidden
treasure if the lawful owner does not appear and is unknown: may by
chance pa? pwedeng TRUE
7. A lagoon is a property of public domininon even if not included in 420:
TRUE – others of similar character ata papasok
8. FASLE; not actual use but intended for public use
9. TRUE – not impotent; sa samplex tho FALSE kasi impotent
nakalagay
10. FALSE – abot sa 4th civil degree
11. False
12. TRUE; intended pa din for public use?
13.  TRUE   In the case of Laurel vs Garcia, the SC said that Art.
422 does not automatically apply. The suggestion is that there must
be an affirmative act from the State as in the form of a law by the
legislative branch that would reclassify the property from pubic
dominion particularly by withdrawing it from public service or public
use and classifying it as patrimonial but substantially Art 422 provides
that if the property is no longer for public use, it shall form part of the
patrimonial property
14. FALSE;  The Petition shall be filed in the Family Court of the
province or city where the petitioner or the respondent has been
residing for at least six months prior to the date of filing. Or in the
case of non-resident respondent, where he may be found in the
Philippines, at the election of the petitioner.
15. TRUE; legitimate encounter naman di kasali sa 38(9)
16. FALSE; papasok pa din ata sa machinery receptacles
instrument and impliments
17. TRUE: if mapatunayan sya owner eh
18. TRUE ATA
19. FALSE; Exception: Valdez vs RTC; Art 40. If there is a void
marriage, then a party to a void marriage will marry again without the
judicial declaration of nullity of the previous marriage. Accdg to art. 50
the subsequent marriage is void. Pursuant to Art. 50, we apply Art.
43(2) which refers to the liquidation to the conjugal partnership or
absolute community of property. Valdez Case: a void marriage under
Art 40 is exceptional, not governed by Art 147 and 147. It is governed
by absolute community or conjugal partnership