I.

a. Under Article 523 of the Civil Code, possession is defined as the

holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a right while occupation is a mode of
acquiring ownership under Article 712 of the Civil Code and it is effected
through: (1) Hunting and fishing; (2) Finding hidden treasures; (3) Finding of
abandoned movables and (4) Finding movables which never had an owner.

b. Easement may be constituted only on an immovable by nature while

usufruct may be constituted on either movable or immovable property;
Easement may not be extinguished by the death of the dominant owner while
usufruct may be extinguished by the death of usufructuary; Easement is non-
possessory right over an immovable whereas usufruct involves a right of
possession over an immovable; and Easement is limited to particular of specific
use of servient estate whereas usufruct includes all the uses and the fruits of
the property.

c. Under Article 453 (1) of the Civil Code, if both parties are in bad faith,
they shall be treated as if they are both in good faith. The builder in bad faith
has the limited right of removal, this right can only be resorted if no injury is
inflicted on the work constructed and right to reimbursement for the value of
materials.

II.

Marciano is correct.
According to Article 456 of the Civil Code, it is provided that, to the
owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion which they
gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters.
In the case at bar, considering that accretion was deposited on
Marciano’s land by the natural occurrence in the waters of the river and the
latter did not erect nor construct any structure for purposes of increasing the
deposition of soil and silt, Marciano automatically owns the accretion.
Moreover, the occupancy of Ulpiano and his children to the three (3) hectare
unregistered land owned by Marciano are undoubtedly possession not in the
concept of an owner but that of a concept of a holder taking into the
consideration the fact that the same are tenants of the said land based on the
foregoing facts. Hence, their possession for more than 30 years is of no moment
since the law requires possession thereof in the concept of an owner. Payment
of taxes and tax declaration are not sufficient to make their possession one in
the concept of owner.
 III.

Cathy can validly demand for the demolition of Bobby's house.

According to the Civil Code, it is provided that none of the co-owners shall,
without the consent of the others, make alterations in the thing owned in
common, even though benefits for all would results therefrom.

In the case at bar, considering the fact that the construction of the house by
Bobby was done without the consent of his siblings, the alteration effected is
illegal. Because of this, Bobby is considered to be in bad faith and as a
sanction for his conduct, he can be compelled by Cathy to demolish or remove
the said house at his own expense. In the same view, Bobby cannot legally
insist on purchasing the land since he is in bad faith, he will not be given the
option to pay for the price of the lot as mentioned in Article 450 of Civil Code.

IV.

No. Anthony did not yet acquire ownership of the property.

According to Article 526 (1) of the Civil Code, it is provided that, he is

deemed a possessor in good faith who is not aware that there exists in his title
or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it. In the same view, it is also
provided under Article 1134 of the said law that ownership and other real
rights over immovable property are acquired by ordinary prescription through
possession of ten years. The possession hereof shall be that of an owner and
strictly should be in good faith.

In the case at bar, Anthony is a possessor in good faith since he was not
aware of the defect in Bert's title and because of that Anthony may acquire
ownership and other real rights over the said property through open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of 10 years. However, Anthony
still needs seven more years of possession to add to his three years of
possession in good faith in order to acquire ownership of the property by
acquisitive possession.

Hence, Anthony did not yet acquire the subject property since his
possession thereof is only for three years and it was not shown that he sought
the recording of such sale to the Registry of Property.
 V.

a. Only Jenny can claim ownership over the additional one meter of land
deposited along her property.

According to Article 457 of the Civil Code, it is provided 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.

In the case at bar, it was shown that Jessica constructed a concrete barrier
about 2 meters from here property line for purposes of extending the same,
however, Jenny did not do the same thing.

Hence, Jessica cannot legally claim ownership of the additional 2 meters of

land along her property because she constructed a concrete barrier about 2
meters from her property causing deposits of soil and other materials when the
water recedes. The increase in her property was not caused by nature but was
man-made.
b. If the properties of Jessica and Jenny are registered properties, the
benefit of such registration does not extend to the increased area of their
properties. It is well-established by the Court that accretion does not
automatically become registered land as there must be a separate application
for the same due to the technicalities in the description of the lot.

VI.
a. Don did not acquire an easement of right of way.

According to the Civil Code, easement cannot be claimed by prescription if

the said easement is a discontinuous one. An example of which is a legal
easement of a right of way. Only continuous and apparent easements can be
acquired by prescription of 10 years of uninterrupted use and enjoyment.

In the case at bar, the easement involved is a right of way which is

characterized by law as a discontinuous easement. Don’s passage thereto was
by mere acquiescence or tolerance of Ernie.

Concomitant to the said provision, Don cannot claim to have acquired the
easement of right of way by prescription, because this easement is
discontinous although apparent.
 b. Considering that there is no right of way existing to the land owned by
Don, Don may validly blocked the pathway and refuse to let his buyers pass
through the his land.
However, the lot buyers may request Don to establish a right of way as
voluntary easement by entering into a contract with him, or file action to
constitute a legal easement by proving compliance with the four requisites for
creating a legal easement of right of way under Articles 649 and 650 of the Civil
Code.

VII.
Yes. A can abate extra-judicially the squatter’s hut on the ground that it is a
nuisance.
According to the Supreme Court, a squatter’s hut, being an illegal
construction constitutes a public nuisance per se, if it poses problems of health
and sanitation and if the squatter’s hut is built on a private land and hinders
or impairs the owner’s use of his or her own property, then it would constitute
a private nuisance.

Moreover, according to Article 705 of the Civil Code, one of the remedies
against a private nuisance is abatement, without judicial proceedings and that
in Article 706 of the same Code, it tells that any person injured by a private
nuisance may abate it by removing, or if necessary by destroying the thing
which constitutes the nuisance, without committing a breach of the peace or
doing unnecessary injury. However, it is indispensable that the procedure for
extra-judicial abatement of a public nuisance by a private person be followed.

VIII.
a. As a lawyer of Jose, I will ask my client if he can settle the issues
extra-judicially considering the provisions under Article 448 of the Civil
Code. If nothing happen, i will request the barangay council which has
jurisdiction over Mike and Jose to conduct a barangay conciliation and
mediation proceedings over the issues involved in the case at bar. If no
settlement was attained, in the interest of my client, i will file an ejectment
case against Mike before the Metropolitan Trial Court which has jurisdiction
over the properties located within the Pasay City.
b. Yes. If I were the judge I would consider Mike as a builder in good faith.
 In the case at bar, there is no showing that Mike deliberately built his house
with a knowledge that a portion thereof will encroached on Jose's lot. In
addition, he cannot determine the precise boundaries or location of his
property by merely examining his title since he is not a geodetic engineer or
any professional to that effect.

Hence, in the absence of contrary proof, the law may presume that the
encroachment done by Mike was in good faith.

c. As a judge, I will abide by what Article 448 of the Civil Code provides.
According to the said law, it is the owner of the land who has the option or
choice, not the builder. The owner may choose between 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.
Concomitant to the above-mentioned law, Jose’s preference should be
followed. He may appropriate the building as his own or oblige Mike to buy the
land.

IX.
Jose should prevail.
According to Article 459 of the Civil Code, it is provided that, whenever
the current of a river, creek or torrent segregates from an estate on its bank a
known portion of land and transfers it to another estate, the owner of the land
to which the segregated portion belonged retains the ownership of it, provided
that he removes the same within two years.
In the case at bar, the disputed area belongs, by right of accretion, to
Jose, the riparian owner. When the very same area was transferred by
floodwaters to the opposite bank, it became an avulsion and ownership thereof
is retained by Jose who has two years to remove it. On the other hand,
Vicente’s claim based on prescription is not meritorious since his possession
was by mere tolerance of Jose and, therefore, did not adversely affect Jose’s
possession and ownership pursuant to Article 537 of the Civil Code. So long as
Vicente’s possession is merely that of a holder, he cannot validly acquire the
disputed area by prescription.
 X.
The complaint for cancellation of easement of right of way should be
dismissed.
According to Article 617 of the Civil Code, easements are inseparable from
the estate to which they actively or passively belong. As an exception to the
rule, Article 631 enumerated the ways on how to extinguish easements, to wit:
(1) By merger in the same person of the ownership of the dominant and
servient estates; (2) By non-use for ten years; with respect to discontinuous
easements, this period shall be computed from the day on which they ceased to
be used; and, with respect to continuous easements, from the day on which an
act contrary to the same took place; (3) When either or both of the estates fall
into such condition that the easement cannot be used; but it shall revive if the
subsequent condition of the estates or either of them should again permit its
use, unless when the use become possible, sufficient time for prescription has
elapsed, in accordance with the provisions of the preceding number; (4) By the
expiration of the term or the fulfillment of the condition, if the easement is
temporary or conditional; (5) By the renunciation of the owner of the dominant
estate; (6) By the redemption agreed upon between the owners of the dominant
and servient estates.
In the case at bar, although there was a failure to annotate the easement
upon the title of the servient estate however, the same is not among the
grounds for extinguishing an easement. Once easements attaches, it can only
be extinguished under Article 631, and they will subsist despite the fact that
they are not stated or annotated as an encumbrance on the Torrens title of the
servient estate.

XI.
Ernesto is correct.
Under Article 449 of the Civil Code, he who builds, plants or sows in bad
faith on the land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right
to indemnity. In other words, one who builds on the land of another loses what
is built without right to indemnity.
In the case at bar, Demetrio is a builder in bad faith because he already
knew that the land belonged to Ernesto. As a result thereof, Ernesto becomes
the owner of the nipa sheds by right of accession. Hence, Ernesto is well within
its right in refusing to allow the removal of the nipa sheds.
 XII.
Yes. Rachelle’s suit for reconveyance will prosper.
According to the rules, the proper time to file action for reconveyance is
within one year from the entry of the decree, however, if the action is based on
fraud, rule on indefeasibility of title will not apply instead the proper time to file
the said action is four years from discovery of such mistake or fraud.
In the case at bar, Rachelle’s contention was that there was fraud in the
registration of land sought by Rommel. It may be added also that Rommel may
not be a buyer in good faith.
In view of the foregoing, Rachelle’s action for reconveyance may prosper.
XIII.
I would advise 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 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. In this
case, regardless if the land subject to registration was not an alienable and
disposable land when it occupied so long as at the time of the filing, the same
is alienable and disposable land.

Manuel may also invoke Sec 14 (2) of the same Decree, which allows him
to register the subject land through ordinary acquisitive prescription for thirty
years, provided, however, that the land is patrimonial in character.
Manuel may 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).
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 showed 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.
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.
 To show the classification of the land as alienable and disposable, 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. A presidential or legislative act may also be considered.