Property:

X is the owner of the hidden treasure being the owner of the land.
The law provides that the hidden treasure belongs to the owner of the land where the treasure
was found.
In this case, although, Y found the treasure and since it was found on the land of X, the hidden
treasure then belongs to X.

Accession:
1. a. Jose and Pedro; both are entitled to for the reimbursement of necessary expenses incurred
in the building of the house with right to redemption.
b. Only Pedro is entitled for the reimbursement of necessary expenses incurred in the building
of the house with right to redemption.
c. Jose acted in bad faith is still entitled to reimbursement but without right of redemption
d. Both Jose and Pedro are entitled to reimbursement but without right of redemption for
necessary expenses incurred on building the house.

2. a. Both Liza and Jess have a right for appropriation and Jess has a right for reimbursement

b. only Liza shall have a right for appropriation.

c. Jess shall have a right for reimbursement.

d. Both Liza and Jess shall have no right to be indemnified or for reimbursement as for the
materials and expenses

3. a. Jess shall answer subsidiarily for their value and only in the event that the one who made
use of them has no property with which to pay; Peter shall Pay value of materials to its owner
without paying damages; Leo can collect value of materials primarily from builder, planter,
sower, subsidiarily from land owner

b. Peter shall pay value of materials to its owner without paying damages.
c. Leo can collect value of materials primarily from builder, planter, sower, subsidiarily from
land owner
d. Jess shall answer subsidiarily for their value and only in the event that the one who made use
of them has no property with which to pay

e. all of them loses its right to indemnity

Possession:

1. No. Possession in the eyes of the law does not mean that a man always have a feet on every
corner of the property or square meter of the property before possession is deemed acquired.
2. As a General Rule, possession cannot be recognized in two different personalities. Except in
cases of co-possession.
a. where there are two possessors of the land/property, the present possessor shall be
preferred.
b. where there are two possessors of the disputed land/property , the one longer in possession
is preferred over the other.
c. where the dates of possession of the said land or property are the same, the one with a title
over the property or land shall be preferred
d. where all the above mentioned circumstances are present, the actual fact of possession can
be judicially determined.
3. (1). NO, the action will not prosper. The law provides that a person who has been unlawfully
deprived of her possession of the thing she owns shall have a right to recover it. Thus, Miss A
was unlawfully deprived of the diamond ring, hence, she has a right to recover it from Miss B
who is in possession of the same.
(2) Yes, it will make a difference on my answer. In this case, the diamond ring of Miss A can no
longer be recovered as she obtained the ring in good faith at a public sale. The law provides for
an exception such as when the thing was acquired in good faith by the possessor at a public
sale, in which case the owner of the thing can no longer return the thing without reimbursing
the same.
Although, Miss A can still recover the ring, subject to reimbursement to Miss B.
(3) Yes, it will make a difference on my answer. If Miss B can prove that the ring was bought
was from the jewelry store then Miss A can no longer recover the ring from Miss B. As in this
case, the jewelry store is a merchant store. The law provides that the merchant enterprise is
the lawful owner of the thing.
4. I will deny the motion. In this case, the owner of the ring was unlawfully deprived of the ring
as it was stolen from her, he can, therefore recover the same from B, who has acquired the ring
in good faith. The proper remedy that Miss A should avail is replevin. Which is the recovery of
personal property.

Quieting of Title/Co-Ownership:
1. The law provides for the following requisites of an action to quiet title:
a. plaintiff must have a legal title to or interest in the real property which is the subject matter
of the action.
b. that there must be a cloud in such title
c. that such cloud must be due to some claim or proceeding which is valid but is in truth invalid
d. that the plaintiff must return to the defendant all benefits he may have received from the or
reimburse him for expenses that may have redounded to his benefit.
Yes, the requisites are present in this case. The plaintiff are the heirs of Mr. R who is a
registered owner of the land and they have a legal right or interest of the land which is the
subject matter of the action.
There was a cloud of such title, as a claim from a third person, Mrs. X surfaced that there is a
Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Mr. R and Mrs. X.
2. In this case, the period of filing the complaint for Quieting of Title by A, B and C is
imprescriptible as they have the possession of the property.
3. Yes. A can file for the complaint for Quieting of Title on behalf of all the heirs. The rule on co-
ownership provides that co-ownership exists whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or
right belongs to different persons. The co-ownership creates a rights in favor of any one of co-
owners with respect to the property they own.