UNIVERSITY OF STO.

TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW

Final Examination in Property

15 December 2022
6 pm – 8 pm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following problems must be answered and issue(s) raised therein addressed in the
context of Property Law, taking into consideration such provisions and case doctrines
covered.

01. Pursuant to a search warrant issued by the Regional Trial Court at Muntinlupa City,
a team of National Bureau of Investigation operatives conducted a search of a seven-
bedroom mansion, owned by Congressman Kabig Dukot, in an exclusive subdivision in
Alabang inhabited by Kareem, a forty-seven-year old Iranian national and lessee of
subject premises. The search party found a cache of unlicensed high-powered firearms
and a kilogram of methamphetamine hydrochloride, shabu in street parlance, in the
basement, more specifically in a double-locked room. Kareem denies knowing the
existence of the contraband guns and drugs, while the good congressman denies even
knowing Kareem himself. The operatives want to find out whom they should file a
complaint for illegal possession of firearms and prohibited drugs against. As head of NBI
Legal, what might your opinion be? Discuss.
[10%]

02. In 1991, Derek bought a second-hand Ferrari knowing all-too-well that the same was
a stolen vehicle. For some reason, he was able to register the car in his name and used
it rather freely until he passed away in 2010. Since the car formed part of Derek’s estate,
the title to the same was transferred to Derek, Jr., his sole and exclusive heir, a few
months after his death, through a duly published Affidavit of Self-Adjudication, allowing
Derek, Jr. to transfer the now-collectible car to his name. In 2021, Derek, Jr. receives a
letter from Don Dioning, the registered owner of the Ferrari at the time it was stolen,
demanding its return. Derek, Jr. seeks your extensive legal advice. Counsel?
[10%]

03. Karl, a multi-billionaire, owned a two-hundred-seventy-five-hectare parcel of

agricultural land in Davao del Norte. Finding the need to have someone she trusted to
oversee the sizable property, she invited Karenina, his very close confidante, to construct
her dwelling place in the property, repeatedly telling all and sundry how glad he was that
Karenina acceded to his request. Through the years, Karenina introduced improvements
to the house. At some point, however, Karl suspected Karenina of defrauding him of part
of the earnings of his farm, prompting him to demand that she leave and vacate her
house. Karenina agreed, provided that she be reimbursed the expenses she incurred in
building and improving subject house. Karl argued that she knew all-too-well that she did
not own the property but occupied the same by his mere tolerance, thus entitling her to
nothing. Dispute reached your court. Decide. Discuss.
[10%]
 2

04. Nikka lost her newly-purchased Patek Philippe Nautilus when she used the
washroom at the hotel where she had dinner. The lady attendant who found the watch
looked for her but could no longer find her, so she ended up holding on to it when she left
for home, intending to surrender the same to the hotel management the following day.
Unfortunately, the lady attendant was held up, watch and all, on her way home. The
robber, wanting to get rid of his stolen goods, immediately went to a pawnshop where the
owner, a wicked lady, realizing the value of the PhP24M watch, offered the robber Five
Thousand Pesos for it to be pledged, which the latter readily accepted. As expected, the
robber never redeemed the watch which went through a public auction. At the auction,
the pawnshop owner herself made the highest bid. Nikka, through said owner’s daughter
who happened to be her friend, heard of the latter’s mother’s good fortune, suspected
that it just might be her watch that was auctioned off. After confirming it to be so, she
retains your services as her legal counsel. Will you sue? On what grounds? If you were
the pawnshop owner’s counsel, what might your defense or defenses be, if any? If you
were the judge, how would you decide?
[10%]

05. Liza, the filthy rich heiress of a tobacco magnate, constituted a fifteen-year usufruct
on her twenty-five-hectare agricultural land, as well as on the farmhouses constructed on
it, in Imelda’s favor. A couple of years after, Super Typhoon Paeng leveled all the
structures on the land, destroying all the crops which were ripe for harvest, and rendering
the property of no beneficial use. Liza, maintaining that the usufruct was terminated by
an act of God, demanded that Imelda leave and vacate the land. Might Ramona be in the
right? Discuss.
[10%]

06. In 2005, Emmanuel built a residential house on a lot whose only access to the
national highway was a pathway crossing Aikee’s property. Emmanuel and others had
been using this pathway since 1980. In 2006, Aikee fenced off his property, thereby
blocking Emmanuel's access to the national highway. Emmanuel demanded that part of
the fence be removed to maintain his old access route to the highway, but Aikee refused,
claiming that there was another available pathway for ingress and egress to the highway.
Emmanuel countered that the pathway Aikee refers to has defects, is circuitous, and is
extremely inconvenient to use. To settle their dispute, they hired Leigh, a geodetic and
civil engineer, to survey and examine the two pathways and the surrounding areas, and
to determine the shortest and the least prejudicial way through the servient estates. After
the survey, the engineer concluded that the second pathway is the longer route and will
need improvements and repairs, but will not significantly affect the use of Aikee's
property. On the other hand, the first pathway that had long been in place is the shorter
route but would significantly affect the use of his property. Considering the engineer's
findings and the circumstances of the case, resolve the parties' right-of-way dispute.
Discuss.
[10%]

07. Myra and Mila are immediate neighbors who have been trying to outdo each other
for years on end. When Myra posted her life-sized photograph in a miniskirt on her front
door for everyone who passes by to see, Mila responded by posting her life-sized half-
naked self-portrait, done with her own hand, on her own door. The barangay tanods who
were amused with the exchange, reported the same to the Punong Barangay who, in
 3

turn, summoned the warring ladies and asked them to appear before him with what they
respectively posted. Myra brought her photograph, arguing that the same was decent by
any reckoning. Mila, on the other hand, brought her painting of her half-naked self,
invoking artistic license and insisting it was no less than a piece of art. The Punong
Barangay decided that Myra’s photo was alright but ruled that Mila’s painting was an
indecent and salacious piece of art and, thus, was a nuisance. He then ordered her to
take the posted painting down. Mila’s incensed and heads straight to your law office,
asking you if she should comply with the Punong Barangay’s order. Your take, Counsel?
[10%]

08. Grace, a wealthy spinster, donated a house and lot to her only nephew, Adrian, who
was of legal age and who accepted the donation. The donation and Adrian's acceptance
thereof were evidenced by a Deed of Donation. Adrian then lived in the house and lot
donated to him, religiously paying real estate taxes thereon. Twelve years later, when
Grace passed away, a woman claiming to be her illegitimate daughter filed a complaint
against Adrian. Claiming rights as an heir, she prayed that Adrian be ordered to re-
convey the house and lot to Grace's estate. In her complaint she alleged that the notary
public who notarized the Deed of Donation had an expired notarial commission when the
Deed of Donation was executed by Grace. Was the donation valid? As Adrian’s counsel,
what will your defense be? Discuss.
[10%]

09. Abigail executed a deed of donation covering a four-hectare rice land in favor of her
daughter, Karina Kate. The deed specifically provides that: " For and in consideration of
the love and service Karina Kate has shown and given to me, I hereby freely, voluntarily
and irrevocably donate to her my four-hectare rice land covered by TCT No. 12345,
located in San Luis, Batangas. This donation shall take effect upon my death. " The deed
also contained Karina Kate's signed acceptance, and an attached notarized declaration
by Abigail and Karina Kate that the land will remain in Abigail’s possession and cannot
be alienated, encumbered, sold or disposed of while Abigail is still alive. As the
outstanding lawyer of the decade, you have been asked to advise Karina Kate on
whether the deed is a donation inter vivos or mortis causa and to explain the reasons
supporting your opinion.
[10%]

10. Sasha, Margaret, and Nerissa are the full-blooded sisters of Nairobi. Their parents
bought an eight-hundred-square-meter parcel of land in an exclusive subdivision in Pasig
City and had the same registered in their names. Nairobi, hooked on gambling, sold her
share in said property to Migs, Sasha’s ex-boyfriend. This infuriated Sasha, Margaret,
and Nerissa who rushed to your law office to find out if they can buy Migs’ share out,
and, if so, under what conditions. D
[10%]

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam