CIVL LAW REVIEW I

Property
January 25, 2021

1. Calsons, Inc. borrowed from GSIS upon the security of a real estate mortgage over
five parcels of land “together with all the buildings and improvements now existing
thereon or which may hereafter be constructed on the mortgaged properties.” GSIS
thereafter applied for foreclosure of the mortgage on grounds, inter alia, that
Calsons without prior consent of GSIS removed and disposed of the complete band
sawmill and filling machine which formed part of the properties mortgaged. Calsons
did not deny this allegation but contended that said machines were not included in
the mortgage. Decide.

2. The City Assessor of Cagayan de Oro City assessed a realty tax on several
equipment and machineries of Mindanao Bus Co., a company engaged in the
transportation business. These equipment were placed on wooden or cement
platforms and can be moved around in the bus company’s repair shop. The bus
company appealed the assessment to the Board of Tax Appeals on the ground that
the same are not realty. The Board of Tax Appeals of the City, however, sustained
the city assessor. Thus, the bus company appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals,
which likewise sustained the city assessor. Was the Decision of the CTA in
order? Reasons.

3. Serg’s Products Inc. (SPI) and PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. (PCI) entered into a
lease agreement providing that the machines in question were to be considered as
personal property, although the same were essential and principal elements in the
chocolate-making business of SPI. Subsequently, PCI filed a complaint against SPI
for sum of money, with an application for a writ of replevin. The sheriff then
proceeded to seize the machines in question. SPI contended that the subject
machines used in their factory were not proper subjects of the writ of replevin
because they were in fact real property having become immobilized by destination.
Decide.

4. In 1905, the Philippine Commission enacted Act No. 1360 authorizing the City of
Manila to reclaim a portion of the Manila Bay and the reclaimed area was to form
part of the Luneta extension. The Act likewise provided that the reclaimed area
“shall be the property of the City of Manila.” The City of Manila was likewise
authorized to lease the northern side of the reclaimed area for a hotel site.
Subsequently, the Philippine Commission passed Act No. 1657, amending Act No.
1360, to authorize the City of Manila to lease or sell the portion set aside as a hotel
site. After the reclamation, the City of Manila sold a portion of the reclaimed land
(located on the southern end) to Manila Lodge which, in turn, sold the same to
Tarlac Development Corp. After such purchase, the City of Manila filed a petition in
court for the re-annotation of its right to repurchase the property sold to Manila
Lodge, which petition was granted by the court. Thereafter, the TDC filed an action
to be declared the purchaser of the property in good faith. After trial, the trial court
found the subject land to be part of the “public park or plaza” and, therefore, part of
the public dominion. Consequently, the court declared the sale of the subject land
by the City of Manila to Manila Lodge void. Both Manila Lodge and TDC appealed
from the said decision. One of the issues raised by the appellants was that in order
that the character of property for public use may be so attached to a plaza, the
latter must be actually constructed or at least laid out as such. They contended that
 the subject property was not yet constructed as a plaza or at least laid out as a
plaza when it was sold by the City of Manila. D e c i d e .

5. The then municipality of Parañaque passed an ordinance authorizing the closure of

several municipal streets for purposes of converting them as sites for flea market
and/or vending areas. The municipality then entered into an agreement with
Palanyag for the operation of flea market in the said streets. Subsequently, Brig.
Gen. Macasiano of the PNP ordered the destruction and confiscation of the stalls.
Palanyag went to court. The trial court upheld the validity of the ordinance passed
by the Municipality of Parañaque. Macasiano questioned the ruling of the trial court
before the Supreme Court. Decide.

6. The registered owners of a parcel of land situated in Antipolo, Rizal, who were
based in the United States of America, authorized the petitioner German
Management & Services, Inc. to develop their property into a residential subdivision.
Finding that part of the property was occupied by private respondents and twenty
other persons, petitioner advised the occupants to vacate the premises but the latter
refused. Nevertheless, petitioner proceeded with the development of the subject
property which included the portions occupied and cultivated by private
respondents. In so doing, the petitioner forcibly removed and destroyed the barbed
wire fence enclosing private respondents’ farmholdings. Petitioner likewise
bulldozed the rice, corn, fruit bearing trees and other crops of private respondents.
Private respondents, thereafter, sued the petitioner for ejectment (forcible entry).
The Municipal Trial Court dismissed the action, which dismissal was sustained by
the Regional Trial Court on appeal. Both courts have rationalized the petitioner’s
drastic action of bulldozing and destroying the crops of private respondents on the
basis of the doctrine of self-help enunciated in Article 429 of the New Civil Code.
Was the ruling in accordance with the law? Reasons.

7. The City Council of Quezon City passed Ordinance No. 6118, Series of 1964 which
required private cemeteries in Quezon City to set aside at least six percent (6%) of
their total area for charity burial grounds of the city’s deceased paupers. Pursuant
thereto, the Quezon City Engineer notified Himlayang Pilipino, Inc. that such
ordinance would be enforced by the City Government. Himlayang Pilipino, Inc.
assailed the validity of the ordinance on the ground that the same involved
confiscation of private property. The City Government, on the other hand, argued
that the taking of the Himlayang Pilipino’s property is a valid and reasonable
exercise of police power and that the land is taken for a public use as it is intended
for the burial ground of paupers. Decide.

8. The National Power Corporation constructed underground tunnels on several

parcels of land owned in common by Ibrahim and his co-owners situated in Lanao
Del Sur. NAPOCOR constructed the tunnels in 1978 but its existence was
discovered by the land owners only in 1992. The tunnels were apparently being
used by NAPOCOR in siphoning the water of Lake Lanao and in the operation of
NAPOCOR’s other projects located in other parts of Mindanao. The existence of
the tunnels came to the attention of the co-owners only when one of them applied
for a permit with the Marawi City Water District to construct and/or install a
motorized deep well. The application was denied on the ground that the construction
of the deep well would cause danger to lives and property because Marawi City lies
in an area of local volcanic and tectonic activity and because of the existence of
tunnels underneath the surface of their property. He was then informed that
underneath the land are underground tunnels of the NAPOCOR. Upon such
discovery, the co-owners filed an action against NAPOCOR for recovery of land and
damages. Decide.
9. The Transfer Certificate of Title covering the subject parcel of land issued in the
name of Petitioner Virgilio Dionisio contains an annotation to the effect that the lot
owner becomes an automatic member of Bel-Air Village Association and must abide
by such rules and regulations laid down by the Association in the interest of the
sanitation, security and the general welfare of the community. Bel –Air Village
Association imposes annual dues among its members.   The  petitioner questioned
the collection of the dues on the following grounds:  the questioned assessment is a
property tax outside the corporate power of the association;  the association  has no
power to compel the petitioner to pay the assessment for lack of privity of contract;
the questioned assessment should not be enforced for being unreasonable,
arbitrary, oppressive, confiscatory and discriminatory; the respondent association is
exercising governmental powers which should not be sanctioned. Is the imposition
of annual dues proper? Explain.

10. Makati Commercial Estate Association, Inc. (formerly Ayala Commercial Estate
Association), the respondent, is an association of all real estate owners and long-
term lessees of parcels of land located in the Makati Commercial Area.  Pursuant to
its Articles of Incorporation, the members are assessed association dues annually,
subject to penalty and interest in case of default.  Petitioner, South Pachem
Development, Inc. purchased from Ayala Corp two adjoining lots.  The deed of
restrictions which was duly annotated in the titles of the property and annexed to the
two deeds provides that: “The owner of this lot or his successor-in-interest is
required to be and is automatically a member of the Makati Commercial Estate
Association, Inc. or any other Association which may be formed  or to which the
area may be affiliated got the purpose, and must abide by the rules and regulations
laid down by the association in the interest of security, maintenance, beautification
and the general welfare of the area.  The association will also provide for and collect
assessments which will constitute a lien on the property xxxx”

The petitioner stopped paying its association dues including the interest and penalty
to private respondent.  It questioned the legality of the deed of restrictions for being
contrary to morals, public policy, good customs, and the Constitution, as it
constituted a perpetual burden on the property and the purchaser would be deprived
of the use of the property without due process of law. Decide.

11. From 1956 to 1957, Carried Lumber Company sold and delivered lumber and
construction materials to the Insular Farms, Inc. which the latter used in the
construction of six buildings at its compound in Bolinao, Pangasinan. For failure
of Insular Farms to pay the full purchase price, Carried Lumber instituted in October
1958 a civil case against Insular Farms for the recovery of the unpaid balance. In
1961, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Carried Lumber. Insular Farms
did not appeal. In 1962, Carried Lumber levied upon six buildings in Bolinao,
Pangasinan. At this point, Pacific Farms, Inc. filed a third-party claim, asserting
ownership over the levied buildings which it had allegedly acquired from Insular
Farms by virtue of a deed of absolute sale executed sometime in March 1958. The
sheriff proceeded, however, with the public auction and eventually sold the buildings
to Carried Lumber as the highest bidder. Thereafter, Pacific Farms filed a complaint
against Carried Lumber and the sheriff for the nullification of the auction and for
damages.

The trial court, after trial, rendered judgment annulling the levy and the certificate of
sale. Carried Lumber appealed from said judgment alleging, inter alia, that there
exists a materialman’s lien over the six buildings in its favor. Decide.

12. A parcel of land was acquired by the spouses Juan and Restituta Pombuena from
the latter’s mother through onerous title (sale). Thereafter, Juan filed for himself and
 his co-owner Restituta an application for a Torrens title over the land. Subsequently,
a decision was promulgated in the cadastral proceedings pronouncing Juan
(married to Restituta) as the owner of the land. Some years after, a contract of lease
over the land was entered into between Pershing Tan Queto and Restituta (with the
consent of Juan) for a period of ten years. After the expiration of the lease, Juan
and Restituta sued Pershing for unlawful detainer. In the meantime, an Original
Certificate of Title was issued in the name of Juan (married to Restituta) as a
consequence of the cadastral case. During the pendency of the ejectment case,
Juan entered into a barter agreement with Pershing whereby the latter became
the owner of the leased premises, and the spouses Juan and Restituta in turn
became the owners of a parcel of land with improvements previously owned by
Pershing. Subsequently, Pershing constructed a concrete building on the property
previously owned by Juan and Restituta. The construction of the building was
without any objection on the part of Restituta. Later, however, Restituta sued both
Juan and Pershing for reconveyance of title over the disputed land, for the
annulment of the barter, and for recovery of the land with damages. Decide the
case.

13. Edith Robillo purchased from Pleasantville Development Corp. (PDC) a parcel of
land designated as Lot 9, Phase II in Pleasantville Subdivision, Bacolod City. In
1975, Eldred Jardinico bought the rights to the lot from Robillo. At that time, lot 9
was vacant. Upon completing payments, Jardinico secured from the Register of
Deeds in 1978 title in his name. It was then that he discovered that
improvements had been introduced on lot 9 by Wilson Kee, who had taken
possession thereof. It appears that in 1974, Kee bought on installment lot 8 of the
same subdivision from C.T. Toress Enterprises, Inc. (CTTEI), the exclusive real
estate agent of PDC. CCTEI through its employee, accompanied Kee’s wife to
inspect lot 8. Unfortunately, the parcel of land pointed by CCTEI’s employee was lot
9. Thereafter, Kee proceeded to construct his residence, a store, an auto repair
shop and other improvements on the lot. Is Kee a builder in good faith? Explain.

14. The trial court rendered a decision in a cadastral proceeding awarding Lot No.
8864 to spouses Julio Baltazar and Constancia Valencia as their conjugal
partnership property. Said decision having become final, the corresponding
decree was issued on July 12, 1941, and pursuant thereto, said lot was registered in
the names of the applicant spouses under Original Certificate of Title No. O-1445.
Meanwhile, Julio Baltazar died. In 1961, his surviving wife and children filed a
motion in the cadastral case for writ of possession against Silvina Caridad and
her daughter, Eduarda Caridad, who had been in possession of the southern
portion of Lot No. 8864 since 1939, while the cadastral case involving the lot was
pending before the trial court, and before the decision and the corresponding decree
issued in 1941. The Caridads refused to remove their houses from the southern
portion of Lot No. 8864 insisting that they are builders in good faith and, as such,
they are accorded rights under article 448 of the new Civil Code. Is the contention
correct? Explain.

15. Facundo mortgaged two parcels of land to Monte de Piedad Savings Bank. In 1981,
the spouses Lacap assumed to pay Facundo’s mortgage obligation to the bank. Due
to their failure to pay their obligation to the bank, the latter foreclosed on the
mortgage. During the auction sale, the bank emerged as the highest bidder and title
passed on to it. The bank, however, allowed the spouses to stay in the premises as
lessees paying a monthly rental. The spouses thereafter introduced improvements
thereon after relying on the bank’s assurance that the property would be sold back
to them. In 1996, when the spouses tried to pay their monthly rental, the bank
refused to accept the payment inasmuch as the property had already been sold to
another person. When the spouses offered to buy the property, the bank turned
 down their offer. Sometime thereafter, the spouses received a letter demanding that
they vacate the premises because it was already owned by Ong Lee. The spouses
instituted a civil case against Ong Lee for cancellation of sale and damages. Ong
Lee, on the other hand, filed a complaint for unlawful detainer. Decide.

16. This case involves a parcel of land co-owned by the plaintiffs and defendants in the
proportion of 2/3 and 1/3 each, respectively. An action for partition was filed by
plaintiffs in the CFI of Cebu. The trial court appointed a commissioner in
accordance with the agreement of the parties. The said commissioner conducted a
survey, prepared a sketch plan and submitted a report to the court, recommending
that the property be divided into two lots: lot 1161-A with an area of 30 square
meters for plaintiffs and lot no-1161-B for the defendants with an area of 15 square
meters. The houses of plaintiffs and defendants were surveyed and shown on the
sketch plan. The house of defendants occupied the portion of lot 1161-A of
plaintiffs. The parties manifested their conformity to the report and asked the trial
court to finally settle and adjudicate who among the parties should take possession
of the 5 square meters of the land in question. The trial court thereafter rendered a
decision which states that since Article 448 cannot be applied to a case where one
has built, planted or sown on the land owned in common, the defendants should
remove and demolish, at their expense, the part of their house which encroached
upon the land of the plaintiffs. Was the decision of the trial court in order? Explain.

17. While Ernesto Valentino was still courting his wife, Rebecca, the latter’s mother had
told him the couple could build a residential house on a certain lot of a subdivision in
Parañaque. Assuming that the wife’s mother was the owner of the land, Ernesto did
construct a house on the said land in 1967 at a cost of P8,000 to P10,000. It turned
out that the land had been titled in the name of Mr. & Mrs. Jose Santos, Jr., who in
1974, sold the same to Leonila Sarmiento. In 1975, Sarmiento asked the spouses
Valentino to vacate the land. Thereafter, Sarmiento filed an ejectment case against
the spouses. The Municipal Court found that the spouses Valentino had built the
house in good faith and that it had a value of P20,000.00. It then ordered the
spouses to vacate after Sarmiento has paid them the mentioned sum of P20,000.00.
On appeal, the CFI of Pasay modified the decision pursuant to Article 448 of the
Civil Code. Sarmiento was required, within 60 days, to exercise the option to
reimburse the spouses Valentino the sum of P40,000.00 as the value of the
residential house, or the option to allow them to purchase the land for P25,000.00.
Sarmiento did not exercise any of the two options within the indicated period, and
Ernesto was then allowed to deposit the sum of P25,000.00 with the court as the
purchase price for the land. Subsequently, Sarmiento questioned the action of the
court.

1. Are the spouses Valentino builders in good faith?

2. Can Sarmiento refuse either to pay for the building or to sell the land and
insist on the removal of the building?

18. Antonio Nazareno, the predecessor-in-interest of Desamparado Vda. De Nazareno,

caused the approval by the Bureau of Lands of the survey plan designated as Plan
Csd-106-00571 with a view to perfecting his title over the accretion area being
claimed by him. The accretion was formed by the dumping of boulders, soil and other
filling materials on portions of the Balacanas Creek and the Cagayan River
bounding Nazareno’s land. Before the approved survey plan could be released to
Nazareno, it was protested by his lessees. Acting upon such protest, the Regional
Director of the Bureau of Lands ordered the amendment of the survey plan by
segregating therefrom the areas occupied by the lessees. Thereafter, the Director of
Lands ordered Nazareno to vacate the portions adjudicated to the lessees. Upon the
 death of Antonio, Vda. De Nazareno went to court to question the action taken by the
Bureau of Lands. Is the subject portion of land private property? Explain.

19. Sometime in 1960, Sinfroso Pascual, the predecessor-in-interest of the heirs of

Emiliano Navarro, filed an application to register and confirm his title to a parcel of
land situated in Sibocan, Balanga, Bataan, described in Plan Psu-175181 and said to
have an area of 146,611 square meters. Pascual claimed that this land is an
accretion to his property situated in Barrio Perto Rivas, Balanga, Bataan. It is
bounded on the eastern side by the Talisay River, on the western side by the
Bulacan River, and on the northern side by the Manila Bay. The Director of Lands
opposed the application contending that the subject land is part of the public domain.
The evidence, however, shows that the accretion took place on the northern portion
of Pascual’s land. Decide.

20. A portion of the Tripa de Gallina creek was diverted to a man- made canal which
totally occupied Lot 2958-B (with an area of 3,588 sq.m.) belonging to Felix Baes.
The diversion was resorted to by the government to improve the flow of the Tripa de
Gallina creek. Baes and his wife claim that they became the owners of the old bed
(which was eventually filled up by soil excavated from Lot 2958-B) by virtue of
Article 461. Rule on the contention.

21. Del Rosario was a registered owner of a parcel of land at Sampaloc, Manila.
Adjoining said lot is a dried-up portion of the old Estero Calubcub occupied by Mario
Ronquillo. The Del Rosarios claim that long before the year 1930, del Rosario had
been in possession of his parcel of land including the adjoining dried-up portion of the
old Estero Calubcub. Because Ronquillo refused to vacate, the Del Rosarios filed
an action in court to be declared the rightful owners of the dried-up portion.
Ronquillo, on the other hand, argued that the dried-up portion is part of the land of
the public domain. Decide.

22. The siblings Daniel, Albertana and Felicidad, all surnamed Teokemian, owned in
common a parcel of land which they inherited from their father. On January 16,
1950, Daniel and Albertana, without the participation of Felicidad, executed a deed
of sale in favor of Andres Orais, over a parcel of unregistered land with an area
described as 7.3720 hectares. On January 26, 1950, the land was surveyed in the
name of Virgilia Orais, daughter of Andres, and denominated as Lot No. 2239, PLS-
287, Cateel Cadastre. As surveyed, it had an area of 11.1000 hectares. On June 24,
1957, Virgilia Orais was issued a free patent over the land. Thereafter, she was
likewise issued an original certificate of title.

Notwithstanding such sale and issuance of title in the name of Virgilia Orais,
Felicidad Teokemian remained in possession of the one-third portion of the inherited
property. She had been in possession of that portion since it was left to her by her
father in 1941.

On July 27, 1972, the one-third portion occupied by Felicidad Teokemian was sold to
Elano Cabrera, husband of Felicidad Cabrera, who immediately took possession of
the same. When Virgilia Orais learned that the Cabreras were occupying a portion of
the subject property, the former filed an action for quieting of title against Felicidad
Cabrera, who was already a widow at that time. Decide the petition.

23. Gertrudes Isidro, during her marriage with Adriano Isidro, acquired a parcel of land
in 1955. In the deed of sale and in the title (TCT No. 43100) that was issued in
the name of Gertrudes Isidro, she was described as a “widow.” Her husband,
however, died only on December 2, 1973. In 1985, Gertrudes obtained a loan from
the spouses Alexander and Adelaida Cruz, secured by the property covered by
TCT No. 43100. When Gertrudes failed to pay the loan, she executed a pacto de
retro sale in favor of the spouses Cruz. When Gertrudes failed to repurchase the
 property within the period agreed upon, ownership thereof was consolidated in the
name of Alexander Cruz in whose name TCT No. 130584 was issued. On June 9,
1987, Gertrudes died. Thereafter, her heirs, received demands to vacate the
premises from the spouses Cruz, the new owners of the property. The heirs of
Gertrudes responded by filing a complaint for the nullification of the sale and the title
of Alexander Cruz. Decide.

24. Sometime in 1939, Feliza Azul sold the property in pacto de retro to certain third
persons, the period of repurchase being three years. Subsequently, Feliza died.
During the period of redemption, her son in the first marriage repurchased the subject
property, who thereafter was able to secure title to the property only in his name.
Subsequently, however, the other children of Felisa in her second marriage filed an
action for partition and accounting claiming that they were co-owners of the subject
property, being heirs. The son of Felisa in the first marriage contends that the subject
property devolved upon him upon the failure of his co-heirs to join him in its
redemption within the period required by law. Is the contention tenable? Explain.

25. The disputed property was mortgaged by spouses Tan Tiong Tick and Tan Ong Hun
to China Bank in 1963. In 1969, Tan Tiong Tick died without having paid the
mortgage obligation. He was survived by his widow and six children, including D.
Annie Tan. Meanwhile, China Bank foreclosed the mortgage in 1972. It was the
highest bidder at the public auction. Thereafter, the heirs of Tan Tiong Tick sought to
nullify the real estate mortgage and the foreclosure sale before the defunct CFI of
Manila. The widow, Tan Ong Hun, also died, thus the children were left to redeem
the foreclosed property. The one-year redemption period lapsed on July 6, 1973,
but the heirs of the spouses Tan failed to redeem the property. China Bank then
consolidated its ownership over the disputed property and a new title was issued in
its name. In the meantime, a compromise agreement was forged between China
Bank and the Tan heirs. The Bank allowed the heirs to repurchase the property on
or before August 31, 1974, otherwise, it would dispose of the property to another
party. Within the agreed period, or on August 30, 1974, only D. Annie Tan
repurchased the entire property using her own funds. The bank, however, insisted
that the repurchase be made for or in behalf of the other heirs as well. Left without
any choice, D. Annie Tan filed an action in court, asserting her exclusive ownership
over the property. Decide.

26. Petitioner (Bukidnon Doctors’ Hospital, Inc.) was a mortgagor of respondent

(MBTC). Upon petitioner’s failure to pay the mortgage obligation, respondent
foreclosed the mortgage and acquired the property during the public auction.
Petitioner likewise failed to redeem the foreclosed property from the respondent
within the redemption period. Subsequently, however, the parties entered into a
lease agreement to enable the petitioner to continue its operation. After almost two
years after said agreement, respondent demanded that the petitioner vacate the
leased premises. When the petitioner refused, respondent initiated an ex parte
proceeding for the issuance of a writ of possession, which was subsequently issued
by the court. Was the issuance of the writ of possession in order? Explain.

27. Emma bought a parcel of land from Equitable-PCI Bank, which acquired the same
from Felisa, the original owner. Thereafter, Emma discovered that Felisa had granted
a right of way over the land in favour of the land of Georgina, which had no outlet to a
public highway, but the easement was not annotated when the servient estate was
registered under the Torrens Sytem. Emma then filed a complaint for cancellation of
the right of way on the ground that it had been extinguished by such failure to
annotate. Decide the issue.

28. X was the original owner of two adjoining lots. He had constructed on one of the lots
a house with windows overlooking the adjoining lot. In 1940, he sold the first lot,
including the house to A and the second lot to B. 1in 1955, B applied for a permit to
 construct a house on his lot. A opposed the approval of the application. The
application however, was approved. Subsequently, A brought an action to restrain B
from constructing the house, unless it is erected at a distance of not less than three
meters from the boundary line. A contends tat he has acquired an easement of light
and view in accordance with Art. 624 of the NCC, while B maintains that since he has
never been formally prohibited by A from obstructing the light and view as required
by Arts. 621 and 668 of the NCC, consequently, there can be no basis for the
existence of an easement of light and view. Decide the case stating your reasons.

29. About 15 years ago, A constructed a house on his lot at Quezon City adjoining a lot
owned by X. He provided it with several windows overlooking X’s lot half a meter
away from the boundary line. A month ago, X brought an action against A for the
closure of the windows alleging that they violate the law on distances.

a. Has A acquired an easement of light and view through prescription?

b. If he has not, will the action of X prosper?
c. If the action will not prosper, will that not be tantamount to saying that A has
already acquired n easement of light and view?

30. From Meralco’s substation in Quezon City emanates an unceasing sound, which,
according to Dr. Velasco, who is residing in the adjoining lot, disturbed his
concentration and sleep, impaired his health and lowered the value of his property.
Wherefore, he brought a action against Meralco for abatement of the nuisance and
for damages. Quantitative intensity measurements made show that normal sound
levels in the locality range from 40 to 50 decibels, while in the areas immediately
adjoining the substation, they range from 66 to 76 decibels. Will the action prosper?
Reasons.

31. Guillermo Balandan and his wife are claiming damages in the sum of P2,000 for the
death of their son, Mario. B Co. was the owner of an ice plant, who had in their
premises 2 tanks filled of water, 9 feet deep. The factory was fenced but ingress and
egress were easily made because the gates were always open and there was no
guard assigned in the said gate. Also, the tanks didn’t have any barricade or fence.
One day when Mario was playing with his friend, they saw the tank inside the factory
and began playing and swimming inside it. While bathing, Mario sank to the bottom
of the tank, only to be fished out later, already as a cadaver, having died of ‘asphyxia
secondary to drowning.’ The lower court decided in favor of the parents saying that
the B Co. is liable for damages due to the doctrine of attractive nuisance.

a. Discuss the Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance?

b. Is B Co. liable for damages? Reasons.

32. Glo and Mike got married while Mike’s marriage with Lolita was still subsisting.
During their coverture, Mike gave her P20,000.00 which she used to buy a property
and placed it under her name. What is the nature of the transaction? Reasons.

33. Domingo Melad owned a farm lot and a residential lot. He and his wife, having no
children of their own, had taken into their home as their ward the spouses Felix
Danguilan and Isidra Melad. The latter was Domingo’s niece. The spouses Felix
Danguilan and Isidra Melad lived with Domingo Melad and his wife and helped
Domingo with the cultivation of the farm. Thereafter, Domingo executed a private
instrument giving to the spouses Felix Danguilan and Isidra Melad his two lots on the
 understanding that the latter would take care of the grantor and would bury him upon
his death, which obligation the spouses fulfilled. What is the nature of the grant of two
lots in favour of Felix Danguilan and Isidra Melad? Is it a valid contract? Reasons.

34. In 1930, the spouses Eusebio de Castro and Martina Rieta, executed a deed of
donation in favor of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila covering a parcel of
land located at Kawit, Cavite. The deed of donation provides that the donee shall not
dispose or sell the property within a period of 100 years from the execution of the
deed of donation, otherwise a violation of such condition would render ipso facto null
and void the deed of donation and the property would revert to the estate of the
donors. In 1980, and while still within the prohibited period, the Roman Catholic
Bishop of Imus, sold the property to spouses Florencio and Soledad Ignao. When the
heirs of Eusebio Castro and Martina Rieta learned about the sale, they filed an
action for the nullification of the deed of donation, rescission of the sale in favor of
the spouses Ignao and reconveyance of the property. Decide the issue.

35. In 1956, Trinidad Vda. de Quijada, together with her sisters and a brother executed a
deed of conditional donation over a two-hectare parcel of land in favor of the
Municipality of Talacogon, the condition being that the parcel of land shall be used
solely and exclusively as part of the campus of the proposed provincial high school in
Talacogon. Apparently, Trinidad remained in possession of the parcel of land despite
the donation. In 1962, Trinidad sold one hectare of the subject land to Regalado
Mondejar. Subsequently, Trinidad verbally sold the remaining one hectare to
Regalado Mondejar without the benefit of a written deed of sale and evidenced solely
by receipts of payment. In 1987, the proposed provincial high school having failed to
materialize, the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Talacogon enacted a
resolution reverting the two parcels of land back to the donors. In the meantime,
Regalado Mondejar sold portions of the land to several buyers. In 1988, the children
of the late Trinidad Vda. de Quijada filed an action for the recovery of the two parcels
of land against Regalado Mondejar and the other transferees of the subject property.
Decide the issue.