Final Exam

Property Law
October 12, 2010
1. If during the construction of my house, I request my neighbor to keep in the
meantime a painting (with frame) which I own and my friend attaches said painting
on his own wall, should the painting be regarded as real or personal property?
Ans: Personal, in view of the lack of intent to be attach permanently in my neighbors house.
(Art. 415 par 4)
2. X is the owner of a piece of land where hidden treasure was believed to be buried. Y,
who owns a mechanical device used in detecting hidden treasure was given
permission by X to use the device on his land. Y discovered, after some effort, jewelry
and other precious objects which are not of interest to science of the arts worth P
5Million. To whom should the treasure belong?
Ans. The treasure belongs to BOTH (50-50) because this is still a case of finding by chance
defined as good luck, in conformity with the intent of the Code Commission. This is so
even if the search for the treasure was clearly a deliberate one. Firstly is difficult to find
hidden treasure without a hunt for it in many cases the same is buried many feet beneath
the earth. Secondly, what is the use of asking permission, if after all the treasure would go,
all of it, to the proprietor of the land? Thirdly, permission is required, otherwise the finder
would generally be a trespasser, who gets NOTHING.
3. Pedro in bad faith constructs a house with the materials of Jose, who is also in bad
faith, on the land of Tomas who is in good faith. Give their rights and obligations.
Ans.
(a) Since both Pedro and Jose are in bad faith, as between them, good faith must govern.
Hence, Jose, the owner of the materials, must be reimbursed by Pedro, but in case Pedro
cannot pay, Tomas, the landowner, will not be subsidiary liable, because as to him, Jose is in
bad faith. If Pedro pays, Pedro cannot ask for reimbursement from Tomas because as to
Tomas, Pedro is in bad faith.
(b) Thomas, the landowner can ask damages from both.
1. He may appropriate the house for his own without payment of indemnity
2. Demand the demolition of the house at Pedros expense.
3. Compel Pedro to pay the price of the land whether the land is considerably more
valuable than the house or not.
4. As land bordered a lagoon. Because of an extraordinary flood, a portion of the land
was inundated (covered with water). Has he lost said portion of the land?
Ans: No because Art 458 states that the owner of the estates adjoining ponds or lagoons do
not acquire the land left dry by the natural decrease of the waters, or lose that inundated by
them in extraordinary floods.
5. Because if the force of the river current, some trees on the estate of A were uprooted
and cast on the estate of B. Who owns the trees?

Ans: A still be considered as the owner of the uprooted trees, but if he does not claim them
within 6 months, B will become the owner. If A makes the claim, he will have to shoulder the
expenses for gathering or putting them in a safe place. Failure to make such claim within 6
months will bar any future action to recover the tree. (Art. 460)
6. Jose and Marias estates face each other and adjoin a river. Later, the river naturally
changes its course and the river bed is abandoned. The new river bed happens to be
in the land of Maximo. Who owns the abandoned river bed?
Ans: Maximo owns the ENTIRE abandoned river bed to compensate him for the loss of the
land now occupied by the new river bed.
7. A and B owned in common a two-storey house. The upper floor was used as a
dwelling; the lower was available for the rent by stores. If A lives in a room of the
upper floor, and uses a room of the lower floor as an office, can B demand a rent?
Ans: (a) No rent for the upper floor can be demanded for A was exercising his right as coowner, without prejudicing B who had she wanted, could have also lived in another room of
the said floor, and who therefore could not have been prejudiced.
(b) Half-rental may be demanded for the use of the lower floor. Rent could be asked because
others could have rented the same, but only half should be given because A was a coowner.
8. A tenant placed machines for use in a sawmill on the land of the landlord. Is the
machinery real or personal?
Ans: As a rule the machinery should be considered as personal since it was not placed on
the land by owner of the said land. Immobilization by destination or purpose cannot
generally be made by a person whose possession of the property is only TEMPORARY,
otherwise we will be forced to presume that he intended to give the property permanently
away in favor of the owner of the premises.
9. Sand and gravel were extracted by agencies of the City of Manila from San Mateo
River banks of the Hilario Estate in the province of Rizal. When Hilario sued for
indemnity, it was alleged that the river banks are of public ownership. Does the
contention of Hilario tenable? Rule.
Ans: No. River banks are of public ownership and hence no indemnity need be given.
Reason: The bed of a river is of public dominion, hence also the banks since they are part of
the bed. While it is true that Art 638 on easements on river banks, the law speaks of both
public and private river banks, still private river banks refer to those already existing.
10.A owns 2 estates. He sold the first (having access to the highway) to B. Later, he sold
the second (without access) to C. So that C can gain access, he must pass through
Bs land. Does C have to pay indemnity to B?
Ans: Yes, because after all, B did not sell the land to C and clearly Art 652 cannot apply
despite a decision to the contrary by the Spanish Supreme Court which ruled A should take
care of the indemnity.