New Era University

College of Law New Era,

Quezon City

Midterm Examinations in Property

21 December 2020

Assistant Ombudsman Leilanie Bernadette C. Cabras

1. Capt. (ret.) Steve bought a parcel of land described as Lot No. 123-A in an exclusive
subdivision named Asgard Estates and the title was issued in his name. Tony, Manila’s
ultimate millionaire playboy, also bought a lot in the same subdivision, which is
denominated as Lot No. 123-B. Intending to build his retirement home thereat, Capt. Steve
engaged the services of a geodetic engineer to determine the actual location of his lot, but
the engineer erroneously identified Lot No. 123-B as Capt. Steve’s lot. The latter thus
proceeded to construct his house, complete with all building permits and with a huge sign
put up by his contractor with an architect’s perspective of the proposed house. After one
year, Steve moved in his new home. Two months later, Tony’s lawyer wrote Capt. Steve,
demanding that the house be demolished. Tony also filed an action for recovery in court, to
which Capt. Steve filed his Answer with Counterclaim, stating that he is a builder in good
faith and that Tony is guilty of estoppel and laches. Rule on the conflicting claims. (20 pts.)

Answer:

The issue that needs to be settled on the aforementioned fact are as provided:

Whether or not Tony could just Demand for the Constructed Building in his land to be
demolished.

The answer herein, is in the Negative, as provided by the Civil Code under art. 448 the
Land owner has three options to choose from when something is built or constructed in
his or her land. The Land owner here in, could first; appropriate for himself those
constructed and built on the Land with payment and reimbursement to the Builder.
Second, the Land owner could also oblige the builder to pay for the value of the land, or
if the Land has higher value as compared to the constructed works and Builder has no
means of payment, a settled payment of rent as stipulated between the parties.

As provided in the Civil code these three options are only available if the Builder is in
good faith. Herein as provided in the Facts, Capt. Steve built on the land on “ Good
Faith” since when the house was being constructed he is under the impression that they
we’re building on the right land.

As provided, Tony, cannot just ask for the Building or house to be demolished.

Since as provided on the Facts, there was no Bad faith on the part of Capt. Steve on the
time the House or Building was being constructed.
 Second, it is good that Tony also went to file an action to Recover since as provided in
the Civil code, the right and legal thing to do to recover possession of property once it is
lost is only through court action. Such action should also me commended.

2. Dr. Bruce Baner is the owner of a titled lot which is bounded on the north by the
Valdefuente River in Cabanatuan City. An alluvial deposit of two (2) hectares was added to
the registered area. Natasha, the doctor’s neighbour, took possession of the portion formed
by accretion and started cultivating exotic plants and even constructed a greenhouse. She
claims that she had been in open, continuous and undisturbed possession of said portion
since 1990 as shown by a tax declaration and a certification from the Barangay Captain of
Valdefuente. In 2018, Bruce filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title and contends that the
alluvium belongs to him as the riparian owner and that since the alluvium is, by law, part and
parcel of the registered property, the same may be considered as registered property.

Is Bruce’s contention and understanding of alluvium correct? Who has a better right to it,
if any? Bruce or Natasha? Decide and explain. (20 pts.)

The one who has a better right over the property as provided in the facts is Natasha.

There are no facts given that she took over the land under “Bad Faith” , as provided on the
foregoing facts she even legally obtained a tax declaration and even a Certification from the
Barangay wherein the allotted land formed through alluvial deposits are found.

Herein, there is as provided Good faith on the Part of Natasha when she constructed a
greenhouse and started to cultivate plants on her allegedly believed property.

As provided in the Civil code and Jurisprudence. Prescription is, in general a mode to acquire
ownership and rights over a real property through lapse of time.

In the manner as provided by law, the Ordinary acquisitive prescription must be in Good
faith, with legal title and for ten years of undisturbed ownership.

Good faith is present if there is a reasonable belief from the person alleging ownership over
the property that he or she is indeed the owner of the aforementioned land or herein, the
alluvial deposits.

Herein, Natasha is in “Good faith”, She has a reasonable belief that she owns the property
because of a certification and tax declaration and what’s important herein is her
Undisturbed ownership of the land for actually more than ten years, from 1990 to 2018
when Bruce asked or filed a complaint for quieting of the title.

As provided by the following, Natasha has a better right over the property.
3. Stark Petroleum Co., an international business conglomerate, owned and operated a
petroleum operation facility off the coast of Palawan. The facility was located on a floating
platform made of wood and metal, upon which was permanently attached the heavy
equipment for the petroleum operations. A portion of the structure also serves as the living
quarters of the crew who stay there year-round. As Pepper Patz, the Chief Executive Officer
is a known environmentalist and advocate of sel-sufficient systems, the company also
constructed a garden in the floating platform where trees, vegetables, and other plants were
planted. The garden’s produce supply the crew with food, and there are also chicken coops
maintained in the garden. A large floating aquarium, known as the “Batysphere Bubble” was
also placed beside the platform wherein exotic fishes and corals from the sea surrounding
the oil rig were housed. The platform was tethered to a ship, the M/V Avenging Spirit, which
was anchored to the seabed, while the “Batysphere Bubble” was connected to the platform
by means of a heavy chain link.

a) Is the platform movable or immovable property?

b) Are the equipment and living quarters movable or immovable property?

c) Are the trees, plants and flowers immovable or movable property?

d) What about the corals and the fishes?

e) Is the “Batysphere Bubble movable or immovable property?

Answer:

a) The property is a movable property. As provided in the civil code under art 415.
A property will be considered an immovable property like Docks and structure’s even
though floating if by nature, they are intended to remain in a permanent and fixed place.

Herein, the facility is intended to be moved or has an intention to be moved if necessary,

as proven by where it is tethered which is an anchored ship. If the facility is intended to
be permanently placed on the location, then there should be no reason to anchor or
tether the facility to another ship.

b) The equipment and living quarters could be considered as an immovable property.

Granted that such is needed as essential to the works being constructed on the facility
within.
c) Yes, the trees, plants and flowers should be considered as an immovable property.
As provided in the Civil the code, trees, plants and growing fruits attached to a land are
considered an immovable property. Even though it is placed inside a facility that is
moving, such may still be considered a movable property, such is still and should still be
considered immovable INSIDE the property since no. 1 they are placed there to with an
intention of permanence and is logically attached to Land although inside a facility.
Herein, the intention should be considered.
d) Breeding places should be as provided by the civil code and jurisprudence considered as
an immovable property, herein, the corals could be considered as the breedingplace of
the fishes and must be considered as an immovable property. This includes the anilas
and the young of fishes.
e) The “ Batysphere” or the aquarium as provided by the facts was only placed Beside the
platform, it is not attached to it, Meaning not unlike the platform which is tethered on a
 ship should be considered as an immovable since it was placed there with an intention
to be permanent.

4. What are considered as property of public dominion? Patrimonial property? Give 2 concrete
examples of each. Can privately owned property become property of public dominion?
Can it become part of the patrimony? Explain (10 points)

Properties for Public dominion as provided by the civil code and jurisprudence are properties
owned by the state for either: Public use, Public Service or those which belong to the state
for development of National Wealth.

Patrimonial properties are Government owned properties that can be sold to private parties
or can be alienated to Filipino citizens or qualified corporations as provided by the Law.

Properties of Public dominion cannot be sold or alienated or is not available to man and
Patrimonial property is available to be alienated to man.

Two concrete examples of Property under Public dominion are Roads and Squares.

an example of Patrimonial property are those other properties owned by the state that is or
could be alienated like cars which are pronounced with government action that is not usefull
anymore or buildings of the same, granted there is a positive action from the government of
it changing the usefulness of the aforementioned and is not anymore available for public use
or public service.

Privately owned property could only be transferred to public dominion of there is a proper
acquisition of the property from the state, with just compensation and a positive act that
such property is being acquired for public use or service.

And once it’s no longer intended for such, the aforementioned property may then be,
through positive action and if no longer be intended for public use or service be a
patrimonial property available to be alienated by the state to private ownership.

5. Before leaving the Philippines to go to the United States of America sometime in 1988, the
spouses Arthur, nicknamed Thor, and Jane, entrusted all their legal papers and documents
to their friend, Nick Furry. Thinking that his friends have permanently settled in the US, Nick
forged a deed of sale, making it appear that he had bought the couple’s 4-storey building in
Makati and 20 hectare farm lot in Sariaya, Quezon. In 2010, he succeeded in obtaining a
Transfer Certificate of Title over the properties in his name. Later, Nick sold the farm lot to
Peter, who built a butterfly and spider farm on the property. In 2015, Peter registered the
deed of conveyance, and title over the farm lot was transferred in his name. As to the
building, in 2010, Nick entered into a long-term lease with Shield Corporation which uses the
premises as training facilities for their sales agents. This year, Thor and Jane came home to
the Philippines after more than three (3) decades of staying in the US, intending to retire
here. Upon being denied entry into their own building by the agents of Shield and then going
to Sariaya and seeing Peter’s farm, they realized what Nick had done and they immediately
hired you as their lawyer.

What action or actions will you institute in order to vindicate Thor and Jane’s rights with
respect to the farm lot and with the building? Explain fully. (30 points)
Answer:

Possession and Ownership of property can’t be acquired through force or intimidation, the
only way to reacquire ownership and possession is invoking the aid of a competent court to
acquire legal possession over the property.

First a complaint for quieting of title Should be filed since there is a legal standing and
interest coming from Thor and Jane that the title, for the real property, being held by shield
although looks valid is actually invalid, voidable or even unenforceable.

Having legal interest over such property they have the right to ask for a quieting of title from
the honourable court.

Second, to re-Acquire the right to exercise Ownership Rights over the property, since the
aforementioned is Real property, Thor and Jane should file an Accion Reindivicatoria to
reacquire the exercise of ownership rights. As provided by the civil code, the owner of a
property has the right to enjoy and dispose of the property and they also have a right of
action in order to recover ownership or exercise of ownership rights over the property. Since
as provided, the question or issue to be answered in the facts are the rights of ownership of
Thor and Jane, which was unlawfully taken from them by the Acts of Nick, then an accion
Reindivicatoria is in order.

After reacquisition of their rights of ownership over the property, they then can file the
proper criminal actions against Nick to make him liable for his unlawful actions.