1. Define property.

(5 points) *
Article 414 of the New Civil Code defines property as all those things which are, or may
be, the object of appropriation. Property is also any physical or incorporeal entity
capable of becoming the object of a juridical relation. It refers to all things which are
already in the possession of man, or may be susceptible of appropriation.

2. Joshua, two years younger than his sister Carmina who recently celebrated her
debut, executed a legacy. He wanted to bequeathed his cornea to a qualified recipient
to take effect after his death. Can a human body or part of it be bequeathed? (5
points) *
Yes. Although under the law, the human body is not considered a property during a
person’s lifetime, hence cannot be appropriated, it is still not a property by reason of
public policy, even after death. However, certain special laws permit of exceptions. In
this case, R.A 7170 authorizes the legacy or donation of human organs after death or
for transplant as well as the advancement of research. Hence subject to the
requirements of R.A 7170, Joshua may bequeath his cornea to his sister, provided he
executes such donation upon reaching legal age (18yo).

3. A owns a parcel of residential land worth Five hundred thousand pesos (500,000.00).
Unknown to A, a residential house costing One hundred thousand pesos (100,000.00) is
built on the said land by B who claims ownership of the land. Answer all of the
following questions based on the premise that B is a builder in good faith and A is a
landowner in good faith. *

3.a. May A acquire the house built by B? If so, how? (5 points) *

Yes. According to the law, being the owner of the land on which anything has been built,
sown, or planted in good faith, A shall have the right: (1) to appropriate as his own the
works, or in this case, the house after payment of the indemnity provided for in Art 546
and 548; thus he should pay B the value of the house built by B. Or (2) to oblige B to
pay the price of the land. However, in this case, B cannot be obliged to buy the land if
its value is considerable more than that of the building. In this case, since the value of
the house is only 100k, and while the value of A’s land is considerably more, then B
shall pay reasonable rent to A, should the latter not choose to appropriate the building
or trees after proper indemnity (Art 448, Civil Code).
3.b. Assuming that the cost of the house was P900,000.00 and not P100,000.00, may A
require B to buy the land? (5 points) *
Yes. Art. 448 of the NCC, specifically provides that the builder or planter cannot be
obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the building or
trees. In this case, since the value of the land is only at P500,000, thus is lesser than the
value of the house built by B, which is P900,000, then A may require B to buy the land.
In fact, the law recognizes that the primacy of choice as to the A, being the landowner
who has the older right as compared to B. Therefore, A can exercise the option of
requiring B to buy the land.

3.c. In what situation may a "forced lease" arise between A and B? (5 points) *
Forced lease may arise between A and B when the value of the land is more than that of
the building or trees. Given such situation, A may not now compel B, to pay or buy the
land. Thus the remedy of A as the landowner is to appropriate the improvements (upon
payment of indemnity to B), or to lease the land to the B, at a reasonable rent. In case
they cannot agree on a rent, the court shall fix the terms thereof.

4. Amy is an owner of a condominium unit located in the affluent Rockwell Center in

Makati. She is planning to dispose the unit and approached you for an advice. In your
meeting, you learned that the common areas in the condominium project are held by
the owners of separate units. What will be your advice if she wants to sell it to an
individual? (5 points) *
I would advise Amy that as a condominium unit owner, she may freely sell her unit
provided that she complies with the requirements under RA 4726 or The Condominium
Act of the Phils. Sec. 5 of the same law provides that where the common areas in the
condominium project are owned by the owners of separate units as co-owners thereof,
no condominium unit therein shall be conveyed or transferred to persons other than
Filipino citizens, or corporations at least sixty percent of the capital stock of which
belong to Filipino citizens, except in cases of hereditary succession. Therefore, Amy
must ensure that the purchaser of her unit must be either a Filipino citizen or
corporation, if it’s the latter then it should be 60 percent owned and controlled by
Filipinos. Moreover, as the owner of the unit however, she does not merely sell the unit
itself but also sells her interest in the common areas, including her membership and
shareholdings in the corporation. Sec. 6 (g) of RA 4726 also provides that each
condominium owner has also the absolute right to sell or dispose of his condominium
unless the master deed contains a requirement that the property be first offered to the
condominium owners within a reasonable period of time before the same is offered to
outside parties.

5. Apolonio and Maria were husband and wife. They begot two (2) children, namely,
Juan and Irenea. During his lifetime, Apolonio owned a parcel of land consisting of
1,000 square meters. When Apolonio and Maria died, the property was inherited by
Juan and Irenea. When the latter died, the heirs of Juan and Irenea became co-owners
of the property. The heirs of Juan, without the consent of the heirs of Irenea executed in
favor of Pedro a Deed of Absolute Sale covering the subject property. Is the sale
executed by the heirs of Juan valid? (5 points) *
Yes, the sale of the subject property by the heirs of Juan in favor of Pedro is valid but
only in as much as the pro-indiviso share of Juan in the community property which he
inherited with Irenea from their parents. Under the provisions of the law governing Co-
ownership, when a co-owner sells the whole property as his, the sale will affect only his
own share but not those of the other co-owners’ who did not consent to the sale. Thus
as similarly held in the case of Paulmitan v. CA, G.R. No. 51584, the sale of the property
by the heirs of Juan without the consent of the heirs of Irenea, being their co-owners is
not null and void but affects only their undivided share. Therefore, Pedro as the
transferee gets only what would correspond to his grantor, in the partition of the thing
owned in common by the heirs of Juan and Irenea.

6. Ana owned a valuable painting which was stolen from her house. The theft was duly
reported to the authorities. Five years later, Ana saw the painting hanging in the office
of Maria. When queried, Maria said that she bought the painting from Antonio. The
painting was positively identified as the one stolen from the house of Ana. Could Ana
recover the painting? If so, would Maria be entitled to reimbursement of the amount
paid for the painting? Explain. (5 points) *
Yes, Ana can recover the painting without reimbursing Maria. While the law considers
paintings made by the owner as immovables, the painting owned by Ana at her house
is merely personal property in view of the lack of “adherence” to the soil as
contemplated by the provisions of the law. Moreover, Art. 559 of the NCC, states that
one who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof, may recover it
from the person in possession of the same. Moreover, even if Maria’s possession was
in good faith, it is still not equivalent to title, since Ana was unlawfully deprived of her
painting unless said purchase by Maria was made in good faith at a public auction or
sale (Art. 559, 2nd paragraph) or purchased from a merchant’s store, or in fairs, or
markets in accordance with the Code of Commerce and special laws. In this case,
since the facts simply state that Maria bought the painting from Antonio, wherein
which sale is neither at a public auction or from a market, then Ana can recover her
painting from Maria without reimbursing her of the same according to Art. 559.

6.a. Supposing Maria conspired with Antonio is stealing Anna's painting, will your
answer be the same? (5 points)
Yes. All the more should Ana be entitled to recovery of her painting since the facts
state that Maria and Antonio were both in bad faith for having conspired to steal
Anna’s painting. Indeed, the Non-Recovery Principle as stated in Art. 559 of the NCC,
provides that an owner may recover without reimbursement from a possessor if it is
shown that the latter is in bad faith.

7. After a week of torrential rains, a portion of A's plantation, with an area of one
hectare and planted with 100 coconut trees, was eroded, while to B's farm, on the other
bank of the same river, a tract of land, also one hectare in area, on which stood 50
coconut was added. An equal number of trees, their roots expose, were found lying on
the ground in B's property. Seven months later, A, alleging that the one-hectare lot and
100 coconut trees were his, demanded their return but B, who had previously taken
possession of them refused, claiming that the land was formed by alluvion and,
therefore belongs to him and that A has lost his right to the coconut trees because he
did not lay claim to them in due time. A thereupon sued B for the recovery of the land
and coconuts. Will the action prosper? (10 points) *
The action will prosper only as to the recovery of the avulsion of land from A’s
plantation, but not as to the recovery of coconut trees uprooted from A to B’s land.
Article 459 of the NCC provides 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. Avulsion as
contemplated in Art. 459 is the removal of a considerable quantity of soil from one
estate and its annexation to another by the perceptible action of water. The
accumulation of soil is sudden and abrupt and said soil can also be identified. The
facts clearly show that this is a case of avulsion since the removal of the soil was due
to torrential rains and the segregated land was clearly identifiable as belonging to the
adjacent coconut plantation of A. Thus given the facts, A can therefore still recover his
land since the acquisitive period of two years for B to own the deposited soil has not
yet elapsed. However, it is a different case for the uprooted coconut trees since Article
460 of the NCC provide that trees uprooted and carried away by the current
of the waters belong to the owner of the land upon which they may be cast, if the
owners do not claim them within six months. In this case, since seven (7) months had
already elapsed, then such failure to make such claim within the 6 month period,
barred A from any future action to recover said coconut trees from B.

8. Mr. A is a usufructuary of a coconut land belonging to B. He transferred his

usufructuary right to C who took possession of the land. While possessing it, C, without
the knowledge of A, cut 100 coconut trees on the land. Is A liable to B for the damage
caused by C on the land under usufruct? (10 points) *
Yes. Article 590 of the NCC provides that a usufructuary who alienates or leases his
right of usufruct shall answer for any damage which the things in usufruct may suffer
through the fault or negligence of the person who substitutes him. In this case, while
C, as the sub-usufructuary answers for any damages to the usufructuary, it is still Mr.
A, the usufructuary who answers to the naked owner, B for the damages caused by C.
Thus, A will be held liable for the damages or reimbursement of the value of the
coconut trees cut by C on B’s land.

9. Gemma, a usufructuary of a parcel of land owned by Albert, claims ownership of a

portion thereof brought about by accretion. She contends that the portion she is
claiming is not part of the contract of usufruct Albert executed since it only accrued
after two (2) years from the commencement of the usufruct. Therefore, open for
adverse possession. However, Albert reasoned that her possession to said portion will
not ripen into ownership as such is merely tolerated. Who is correct? (10 points)  *
Albert is correct based on Art. 537 of the NCC. An usufruct as defined under the law is
a real right, of a temporary nature, which authorizes its holder to enjoy all the benefits
which result from the normal enjoyment of another‘s property, with the obligation to
return, at the designated time, either the same thing, or, in special cases, its equivalent.
Thus while the law grants Gemma the right to enjoy the thing given in usufruct, it is
merely temporary in nature and said right can only be created by Albert as the owner.
While usufructs under the law may be created by law, contract, last will or prescription,
such does not include acquisitive prescription brought about by accretion. Gemma's
claim based on prescription is baseless since her possession as usufruct was by mere
tolerance of Albert and, therefore, did not adversely affect Albert's possession and
ownership (Art. 537, CC). Therefore, inasmuch as her possession is merely that of a
holder or usufruct, she cannot acquire the disputed area by prescription.

10. What is meant by caucion juratoria? (5 points) *

Caucion juratoria refers to the case contemplated by Art. 587 of the NCC whereby the
usufructuary, being unable to file the required bond or security, files a verified petition in
the proper court, asking for the delivery of the house and furniture necessary for
himself and his family without any bond or security.
11. Enumerate the obligations of the usufructuary at the commencement of the
usufruct. *
The obligations of the usufructuary at the commencement of the usufruct are as
follows: 1) According to Art. 583 of the NCC, to make, after notice to the owner or his
legitimate representative, an inventory of all the property, which shall contain an
appraisal of the movables and a description of the condition of the immovables; and 2)
To give security, binding himself to fulfill the obligations imposed upon him in
accordance with the provisions of Art. 583. The usufructuary may however be
exempted from making an inventory or giving security provided it not pose any injury
to anyone.
12. Enumerate the obligations of the usufructuary at the pendency of the usufruct.  *
The obligations of the usufructuary at the pendency of the usufruct are as follows: 1)
Observe Due care according to Art 589 and 610, for the thing in usufruct as required of
a good father of a family; to 2) answer for damages caused by his substitute’s
fault of negligence according to Art. 590; to 3) usufruct over livestock according to Art.
591, such as replacing the young for those animals which have died from natural
causes and deliver their remains should all of them perish without the fault of the
usufructuary; to 4) make ordinary repairs & extraordinary repairs according Art 592; to
5) notify the owners of urgent repairs according to Art 593; to 6) pay interest on the
amount expended for extraordinary repairs according to Art 594; to 7) allow works and
improvements by the owner which does not prejudice the usufructuary according to
Art 595; to 8) pay annual charges and taxes imposed on the fruits according to Art.
596-597; to notify the owner of any act of third persons detrimental to the ownership
according to Art 601, otherwise be liable for damages; and lastly to 9) shoulder the
expenses, costs and liabilities in suits involving the usufruct according to Art 602.

13. Enumerate the obligations of the usufructuary at the termination of the usufruct.  *
Article 612 of the NCC provides that the upon the termination of the usufruct, the
usufructuary shall deliver the thing in usufruct to the owner, without prejudice to the right
of retention pertaining to the usufructuary or his heirs for taxes and extraordinary
expenses which should be reimbursed. After the delivery has been made, the security or
mortgage shall also be cancelled.