MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LAW, MARAWI CITY

LAW 201 – PROPERTY

January 10, 2022

Read each question very carefully and Answer the Essay questions legibly,
clearly, and concisely in the same order the questions are posed.  Note well the
allocated percentage points for each number, question, or sub-question. In
your answers, use the numbering system in the questionnaire. A mere "Yes" or
"No" answer without any corresponding explanation or discussion will not be
given any credit.

Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts presented by
the question, to select the material from the immaterial facts, and to discern
the points upon which the question turns. It should show your knowledge and
understanding of the pertinent principles and theories of law involved and their
qualifications and limitations. It should demonstrate your ability to apply the
law to the given facts, to reason logically in a lawyer-like manner, and to form a
sound conclusion from the given premises.

1. Artemio got two apartment buildings, apartment A worth ten million and
apartment B worth seven million, and a Toyota Camry automobile. In the early
months of the year 2010, Artemio told his son Bonifacio that he will inherit
Apartment A, he being the elder, apartment B will be inherited by Charito, the
young sister of Bonifacio. On December 18, 2010, believing that he owned
apartment A and feeling very sick, Bonifacio donated said property to his
youngest unmarried son, Carlito, who was still a college student. The donation
was duly embodied in a public document with proper notarization. Carlito’s
three brothers were already well-off as professional entrepreneurs. On March
20, 2011, Bonifacio died and Carlito substituted his father in collecting rents
from the building for the support of his schooling. On June 25, 2011, or barely
two days before Artemio died on June 27, 2011, Artemio told his children that
he is donating his Toyota Camry automobile to his brother Danilo. Danilo was
out on a field trip when Artemio died and had known his brother’s death only
upon his return on June 28, 2011. Nonetheless, an hour before his death,
Artemio had the automobile already delivered to Danilo’s residence. Now,
Danilo is happily using the automobile.

A. Is the donation of Apartment A by Bonifacio to Carlito a vaild donation?

Explain. (10 pts.)

B. Today, December 20, 2021, Charito found out that apartment A, being
located in a commercial district, becomes far valuable than apartment B. You,

1|Page
being a lawyer, Charito seeks your legal advice if she has available right to an
equal distribution of inheritance in relation to the two apartment buildings.
What legal advice will you provide. Explain. (10 pts.)

C. Was there a valid donation of the automobile by Artemio to his brother

Danilo? Explain. (10 pts.)

2. The complainants are co-owners of a 13-hectare coconut land. The land

has been declared for tax purposes in the name of the respondents’
predecessor-in-interest, the late Mr. Pascual. Sometime in 1996,
NAPOCOR installed transmission lines on a portion of the land for its 350 KV
high power TL Project. In the process, several improvements on the land were
destroyed. Instead of initiating expropriation proceedings, however, NAPOCOR
entered into a mere right-of-way agreement with Mr. Pascual for the total
amount of TWENTY SIX THOUSAND PESOS (P26,000.00) as easement fee. In
2002, the complainants filed a complaint against NAPOCOR for just
compensation and damages based on the constitutional guarantee that no
private property shall be taken for public use without just compensation.,
claiming that no expropriation proceedings were made on the property by
NAPOCOR, and that they allowed NAPOCOR entry into the land after being told
that the fair market value would be paid. Instead of filing an answer,
NAPOCOR claimed to have lawfully established a right-of-way easement on the
land which is in accord with Section 3-A(b), Republic Act No. (R.A.) 6395, the
NAPOCOR Charter, giving it the right to acquire a right-of-way easement upon
payment of "just compensation" equivalent to not more than 10% of the market
value of a private lot traversed by transmission lines.

If you are the RTC Judge to decide, how will you decide the case? Explain. (10
pts.)

3. Margie’s house and lot is adjacent to Bronson’s house and lot and is fifteen
feet lower in elevation. Margie started to excavate and do works on portion of
her lot nearest to Bronson, causing fear to the latter that his house might
collapse due to the excavation being done by Margie. What legal remedy is
available to Bronson to prohibit Margie from continuing the excavation she
started? Explain. (10 pts.)

4. Andrew subdivision had lots A and B vacant. The land title (TCT) on lot A
had an annotation of the existence of a Road Right of Way with lot B as the
dominant estate. Andrew sold lot A to Arnold and lot B to Bernard. When
Bernard constructed his house, he had portion of his concrete fence and his

2|Page
garage occupied the ten (10) sq.m. of the Road Right of Way. Incidentally, road
right of way was closed by Andrew subdivision when a new one with entry/exit
to the main road was developed for the use of all residents of the subdivision.
Subsequently, Arnold discovered the ten (10) sq.m. portion of the closed right
of way being occupied by Bernard. Arnold demanded payment from Bernard
on what he called an encroachment by the latter on his property. Bernard
refused arguing that the portion he had occupied of the road right of way shall
serve as an offset on his existing right of use over the same. This controversy
is brought to the Court by Arnold to exact payment form Bernard. If you are
the Judge, how will you decide? Explain. (10 pts.)

5. Chino designed a plastic Leaf Spring Eye Bushing made of polyvinyl

chloride replacing one made of rubber and this design provides a technical
solution to the problem of wear and tear in automobiles as it increases the life
span of vehicle-bearing cushion on its propeller shaft. Ching had this invention
copyrighted under R.A. No. 8293. Five persons all surnamed Sabinas were
issued search warrant for illegal manufacture of the copyrighted plastic leaf
spring bushing for automobiles. The Sabinas moved to quash the search
warrant for lack of probable cause arguing that the plastic leaf spring bushing
is not a proper subject of a copyright but rather a patent. What is the correct
registration for the “plastic leaf spring eye bushing, copyright or patent?
Explain. (10 pts.)

6. Smart Communications Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in

telecommunication businesses. In a particular community, it constructed and
installed a cellular base station inside of which is a communications tower,
rising as high as150 feet, with antennas and transmitters. Residents in the
vicinity of the cellular base station filed before the RTC a Complaint against
Smart for abatement of nuisance and injunction with prayer for temporary
restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction, alleging that: the SMART
tower is no different from the Mobiline tower constructed at Reina Mercedes,
Isabela which collapsed during a typhoon that hit Isabela in October 1998, an
incident which is of public knowledge; its structural design is weak, unstable,
and infirm, susceptible to collapse and poses great danger to life and limb of
persons as well as the properties of complainants. When in operation, the
tower would also pose danger to the life and health of complainants, especially
children, because of the ultra high frequency (UHF) radio wave emissions it
radiates. Only recently, Cable News Network (CNN) reported that cell phones,
with minimal radiated power, are dangerous to children, so more it is for this
communications tower, whose radiated power is thousands of times more than
that of a cellphone.

3|Page
Smart answered that the Tower’s safety has been pre-cleared and is unlikely to
cause harm in exposing the members of the public to levels exceeding health
limits considering that the antenna height of 150 feet. The structural stability
and soundness of the tower has been certified safe by a registered Engineering
Consulting firm Microflect. Smart’s impetus to push through with the
construction of the Tower is spurred by the Telecommunications Act of 1995 or
Republic Act 7925 which states that the "expansion of the telecommunications
network shall give priority to improving and extending basic services to areas
not yet served.

SMART Communications Inc. filed a Motion for Summary Judgment that

reads:

“There is no need for a full-blown trial as the causes of action and issues have
already been identified in all the pleadings submitted to this Honorable court
and that there is clearly no genuine issue as to any material fact or cause in
the action.”

Complainants opposed the Motion for Summary Judgment, maintaining that

there were several genuine issues relating to the cause of action and material
facts of their Complaint which requires full blown trial to prove the allegations
of both parties.

The RTC, after requiring the parties to submit respective memoranda, issued
its Order granting defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissed the
complaint and ruled as follows:

“Now, as to the Court’s assessment of the circumstances obtaining, we find the

claim of the complainants to be highly speculative, if not an isolated one.
Elsewhere, we find several cell sites towers scattered (sic) all over, both of the
Smart, Globe, and others, nay even in thickly populated areas like in Metro
Manila and also in key cities nationwide, yet they have not been outlawed or
declared nuisance as the complainants now want this Court to heed. To the
thinking of the Court, they are harping imagined perils to their health for
reason only known to them. Allegations in the complaint are more imaginary
than real and do not constitute factual bases to require further proceeding or a
trial.”

1. are you convinced by the RTC’s ruling that there is no nuisance to speak
of in the case? Why or why not. Explain. (10 pts.)
2. the complainants argued that there were several genuine issues relating
to the cause of action and material facts of their complaint which
requires full blown trial to prove the allegations of both parties. If you
are the Judge, will you not give due consideration to this argument by
allowing parties to prove their respective arguments? Explain your
reasons. (10 pts.)
4|Page
7. Cecilio applied for registration of title over a parcel of land filed on
December 15, 2000 with the RTC of Lanao del Sur. In his application, Cecilio
alleged, among others, that he is the owner in fee simple of the subject lot,
having acquired the same by purchase as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale
dated December 2, 1994; that the said property is an agricultural land planted
with corn, palay, bananas, coconut and coffee by his predecessors-in-interest;
that his predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive and
uninterrupted possession and occupation of the land under bona fide claim of
ownership since the 1930's and that they have declared the land for taxation
purposes.

Subsequently, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the

Solicitor General (OSG), opposed the application contending that the
muniments of title, such as tax declarations and tax payment receipts, did not
constitute competent and sufficient evidence of a bona fide acquisition of the
land applied for nor of the alleged open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession by respondent and his predecessors-in-interest as owners for the
period required by law.

In denying the application, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reasoned:

“It bears stressing at this point in time that before one can register his title over a
parcel of land, the applicant must show that he, by himself or by his
predecessors-in-interest, had been in notorious possession and occupation of the
subject land under a "bona fide" claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or
earlier; and further, the land subject of application is alienable and disposable
portion of the public domain. The evidence adduced by the applicant shows that
the subject land applied for registration was declared as alienable and
disposable portion of the public domain only on March 15, 1982, or short of more
or less seven (7) years of the required adverse possession of thirty (30) year,
when the application was filed on December 15, 2000.”

In reversing the RTC, the Court of Appeals, ruled:

“Applicants for confirmation of imperfect title must, therefore, prove the following:
(a) that the land forms part of the disposable and alienable agricultural lands of
the public domain; and (b) that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive
and notorious possession and occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of
ownership either since time immemorial or since June 12, 1945.

There are two parts to the requirements of the law. As to the first part, there is
no doubt that the subject property, regardless of the date, was already made
alienable and disposable agricultural land. As to the second requirement, there
is a specific cut-off date of possession: June 12, 1945. The cut-off date of
possession of June 12, 1945 only applies to the requirement of possession. It

5|Page
does not have any bearing as to when the land became alienable and
disposable.

When the property was classified as alienable and disposable, specifically on

March 15, 1982, does not have any bearing with the second requirement of
possession so that despite the fact that the property became alienable and
disposable only in 1982, the possession requirement since June 12, 1945 stands
so that, as in this case at bench, when the possession was since 1930, which is
before June 12, 1945, the requirement of possession has been met.”

Republic of the Philippines, as represented by the Office of the Solicitor

General, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari based on this ground:

“FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIRED 30-YEAR ADVERSE

POSSESSION SINCE THE SUBJECT LAND WAS DECLARED ALIENABLE AND
DISPOSABLE LAND OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN ONLY ON MARCH 15, 1982 PER
CENRO CERTIFICATION, AND THE APPLICATION WAS FILED ONLY ON
DECEMBER 12, 2000. ANY PERIOD OF POSSESSION PRIOR TO THE DATE
WHEN THE SUBJECT LAND WAS CLASSIFIED AS ALIENABLE AND
DISPOSABLE IS INCONSEQUENTIAL AND SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM
THE COMPUTATION OF THE 30-YEAR PERIOD OF POSSESSION.”

The applicable provisions of law and jurisprudence on the matter as follows:

(A) Section 14(1), Presidential Decree No. 1529 provides:

Section 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the proper Court
of First Instance (Now RTC) an application for registration of title to land,
whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives:

(1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have

been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation
of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim
of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.

(B) Section 48 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, otherwise known as The Public
Land Act, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1073, states:

Sec. 48. The following described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of
the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein,
but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court
of First Instance (Now RTC) of the province where the land is located for
confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor
under the Land Registration Act, to wit:

xxxx
6|Page
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have
been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation
of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of
acquisition or ownership, since June 12, 1945, immediately preceding the filing
of the application for confirmation of title, except when prevented by war or
force majeure. Those shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the
conditions essential to a government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate
of title under the provisions of this chapter.

Based on the above provisions, an applicant for original registration of title

based on a claim of exclusive and continuous possession or occupation must
show the existence of the following:

1. Open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession, by themselves

or through their predecessors-in-interest, of land;

2. The land possessed or occupied must have been declared alienable

and disposable agricultural land of public domain;

3. The possession or occupation was under a bona fide claim of

ownership;

4. Possession dates back to June 12, 1945 or earlier.6

(C) Republic v. Naguit [409 Phil. 405] involves the similar question. In that
case, this court clarified that Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree
should be interpreted to include possession before the declaration of the land’s
alienability as long as at the time of the application for registration, the land
has already been declared part of the alienable and disposable agricultural
public lands. This court also emphasized in that case the absurdity that would
result in interpreting Section 14(1) as requiring that the alienability of public
land should have already been established by June 12, 1945. Thus, this court
said in Naguit:

“Besides, we are mindful of the absurdity that would result if we adopt

petitioner’s position. Absent a legislative amendment, the rule would be,
adopting the OSG’s view, that all lands of the public domain which were not
declared alienable or disposable before June 12, 1945 would not be susceptible
to original registration, no matter the length of unchallenged possession by the
occupant. Such interpretation renders paragraph (1) of Section 14 virtually
inoperative and even precludes the government from giving it effect even as it
decides to reclassify public agricultural lands as alienable and disposable. The
unreasonableness of the situation would even be aggravated considering that
before June 12, 1945, the Philippines was not yet even considered an
independent state.”

7|Page
Question: If you are the one to decide the application for registration of the
land, will you grant the application and order the issuance of land title to
Cecilio? Support your answer. (15 pts.)

(GOOD L U C K)

8|Page