Professional Documents
Culture Documents
• MSBF failed to act seasonably in • MSBF did in fact assert its right to
exercising its right to conduct the conduct the survey and erecting
survey its main structures in the area of
• MSBF’s surveys covered 16- its choice
hectare area; inappropriate to • MSBF’s survey shows that BGC’s
determine the 7-hectare area stall is within the 7-hectare area
• NHA’s survey shows that BGC
occupied a portion outside of the
7-hectare area covered by MSBF’s
usufructuary rights
APPLICATION ART. 605. Usufruct cannot be
constituted in favor of a town,
Art. 565: The rights and obligations of corporation, or association for more
the usufructuary shall be those than fifty years. xxx
provided in the title constituting the The law clearly limits any usufruct
usufruct. xxx constituted in favor of a corporation or
In this case, Proc.No.1670 is the title association to 50 years.
constituting the usufruct. It categorically Unlike a natural person, a corporation or
states that the 7-hectare area shall be association’s lifetime may be extended
determined “by future survey under the indefinitely. The usufruct would then be
administration of the Foundation subject perpetual. This is especially invidious in
to private rights if there be any.” cases where the usufruct given to a
However, the 7-hectare portion of MSBF is corporation or association covers public
no longer easily determinable considering land.
that varied structures erected within and Proc. No. 1670 was issued on Sept.19,1977
surrounding the area. (28 years ago)
Hence, there's a need for a NEW SURVEY Hence, under Article 605, the usufruct in
to be conducted jointly by NHA and MSBF. favor of MSBF has 22 years left.