Property Enumerate the characteristics of property of public
Past Examination Question dominion.
In 1974 the government of Timbuktu donated to the
Philippines a parcel of land with an area of 10,000 sq.
meters where the Philippine Embassy would be built. But
due to the worsening tribal conflict between the Butsia and
the Sibulo, the Philippine government abandoned its
intention to the use lot, and instead, the President sold the
property to the highest bidder. A whooping P500 million
was offered by a Tembukia billio0naire which the
government accepted. Accordingly, this amount would be
enough to pay the salary increase of government teachers
for the year 1994. Congress earlier approved the salary
increase of teachers and provided for sources of funds to
raise the needed amount. One of the sources is for the
government to sell all its properties abroad.
If you are against the sale, what legal arguments
would you raise?
The above described property was intended for the
Phil. Embassy. Thus, such is part of the public
domain. Being property of public dominion, it
is outside the commerce of man and is
therefore not subject to sale on private
appropriation.
If you are the lawyer for the government, how
would you argue the validity of the sale?
Art. 422 of the Civil code provides that property of
public dominion, when no longer intended for
public use or for public service shall form part
of the patrimonial property of the State.
It is clear in the case at bar that the Philippine
government has already abandoned its
intention to use the said lot for the
establishment of the embassy building. It had
thereby been converted into the status of
patrimonial property and as such, it may be a
valid object of a contract of sale.
Aiko bought from Rufa several pieces of equipment which
she installed in her Sawmill plant. When Aiko failed sale of
her finances, a judgment was made against her. Aiko’s
sawmill equipment were levied as chattels and sold at
public auction. Rufa was the highest bidder. Aiko assailed
the sale void. Decide.
The sale of the equipment is void. Sawmill equipment
installed in a sawmill plant is real property pursuant of
Art. 415 par b. Furthermore, the SC said in the case of
Ago vs. CA, that judicial sale of real property on
execution requires the advertisement of sale by
publication in a newspaper as provided for under Sec.
16 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. In the present case,
the equipment were sold as chattels without the
requisite publication. Hence, the sale is void.
They are outside the commerce of man and cannot
be leased, donated, sold or be the object of any
contract.
They cannot be acquired by prescription no matter
how long the possession of the properties has
been.
They cannot be registered under the Land
Registration Law or be the subject of a Torrens
title.
They, as well as their usufruct, cannot be levied
upon by execution nor can they be attached.
In general, they can be used by anybody.
They may either be real or personal property.
Dr. Aga, a noted animal scientist, is the owner of 2 high
breed Arabian horses, which he keeps for experiments
inside a stable. One day he was surprised to find out that
the horses were gone. Later, they were recovered in the
possession of Mr. Oki Doc. When asked to explain, he
contended that they were sold to him by a certain Mr.
Balbin.
How would you classify the horses, real of personal
property? Why?
The horses should be classified as real property.
Art. 415 par 6 provided in part that animal
houses and the animals inside them are
considered as immovables. In this case, since a
stable is necessarily an animal house, it follows
that the horses which Dr. Aga kept inside it are
real properties.
How would you classify the sale to Oki Doc? Sale of real
or personal property?
It is a sale of personal property. According to
Justice Paras, when the animals inside the
permanent animal house…… or gratuitously, it
is believed that the transaction is an alienation
of personal property.
I would file the following animal cases:
Robbery or theft against Mr. Balbin and a
violation of Anti Fencing Law against Oki Doc.
From the viewpoint of criminal law, the
animals described in Art. 415 par 6 must be
considered as personal property. Hence, the
charges of robbery or theft which concerns
unlawful usurpation of personal property.
What are the limitations on ownership? Give an example to
each limitation.
The following are the limitations on ownership:
 Those given by the state police power, eminent domain,
taxation.
Those given by law, legal easements of waters or right
of way.
Those given by the owner himself: the owner pledges
or leases the property.
Those given by the person who gave the thing to its
present owner: the donor may prohibit the done
from partitioning the property for a period not
exceeding 20 years.
Art. 422 of the Civil Code provides: Property of public
dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for
public service shall form part of the patrimonial property
of the State. What do you understand by patrimonial
property? Give an example.
Patrimonial property of the state is the property it
owns but which is not devoted to public use,
public service or the development of the
national wealth. It is a wealth owned by the
state in its private (MINISTERIAL) as
distinguished from its public capacity
(GOVERNMENTAL).
A good example is of this would be a municipal
owned waterworks system. While such
system is open to the public, still the system
serves only to those who pay the charges and
rentals.
How would property of public dominion be converted to
patrimonial property? Explain.
According to the tenor of the decision in Faustino
Ignacio vs. Dir. Of Lands, the executive and,
possibly the legislative department have the
authority and power to make the declaration
converting property of public dominion to
patrimonial property. Stated otherwise, there
should be a formal declaration from the
government, either through the executive or
legislative withdrawing the intention to devote
property to public use. After this conversion, the
property, which is now PATRIMONIAL, can already
be alienated.
The Municipality of Trese Percados leased to Mr. Molanida a
portion of Plaza Roman. The lease went on for 20 years.
The leased portion was no longer used by the public ever
since a building thereon was erected. Finally, the leased
property was sold to Mr. Molanida. Rule on validity of the
sale.
The sale was valid. When a municipality no longer uses
a public plaza as such and instead constructed a
building thereon, it is clear that the property has
become patrimonial Act. 422. Being patrimonial,
the same may from that moment on…. sold to a
private individual. (Mun. of OAS vs. ROA, 7 Phil 20)
Joan Castañeda owns a parcel of land. He donated a portion
of it to the church for religious purposes. A part of the land
was kept open and used by the townspeople as a plaza.
Later, the entire plaza was donated by the town to the
church. Who owns the land? Explain the reasons.
The state owns the land. Even if Marcelino was the
original owner, when he allowed the people to use
the same as a public plaza, he was in effect waiving
his right thereto, for the benefit of the townfolks.
Being property for public use, the town cannot be
said to have validly donated it in favor of the
church. The plaza also could not have been
acquired by the church through prescription.
(Harty vs. Mun. of Victoria, 13 Phil 152)
A piece of land was registered in the name of phew phew.
One side of the land is upon this lot is built a stone for
which had stood there from time immemorial and was at
times used as defense against the inclusions of the Moros.
The municipality claimed that it exercised acts of
ownership over the land by permitting it to be occupied
and consenting to the erection of private houses thereon.
The Dir. Of Lands…. Putol… sorry.
The plaintiff had obtained in a previous action a judgement
for a sum of money against the defendant municipality of
Otot. Because of lack of funds, the money judgment was not
paid. Plaintiff then sought a writ of execution on the
following properties: 1 unit ambulance; 1 unit police car; 1
unit bulldozer; one 250 sq m lot; and 1 police station
building. Is the action valid?
No it is not. The attachment is not proper because
municipal-owned real and personal properties
devoted to public or governmental purposes may
not be attached and sold for the payment of a
judgment against a municipality. It is essential and
justifiable to exempt property for public use from
execution, otherwise, governmental service would
be jeopardized or impaired. (Vda. De Tantoco vs.
Municiap Council of Iloilo)
Enumerate the 3 actions for recovery of a real property:
Unlawful detainer, accion publiciana; accion
reinvindicatoria
Ms. Aye Remy Fabila while coming out of Las Malas gallera
saw a man about to carnap his all new Tayana trisikad. He
immediately pulled his Glock 19 and shot the man which
resulted to the latter’s death. When asked to answer for the
death, he contended that his action was justified under the
doctrine of self-help. Decide.
Her action was not justified under the doctrine of self
help. Art 429; enumerate requisites - The doctrine
 requires that reasonable means necessary to repel
the force must be used. Such is absent in this case.
What is an act in a state of necessity. Explain.
Art. 432, enumerate requisites; expound.
In the above doctrine, is it necessary that the actor is free
from negligence in the creation of such situation?
No, it is not necessary. Simple negligence is justified.
The law does not require that the person acting
under such doctrine be free from negligence in the
creation of a state of necessity. (Tolentino’s
commentary)
When two persons are confronted with a situation where
one would act under the doctrine of self help and the other
in a state of necessity, there would be conflict of rights. Who
has the superior right? Explain.
The one acting in a state of necessity has the superior
right. The right of self-help is not available against
an act in a state of necessity because there would
be unlawful aggression on the person acting
pursuant to the doctrine of state necessity.
[Putol]….owner. Cristeta, on the other hand, argued that
she owns the house where the treasure was found, ergo
under the law, the treasure belongs to her. Decide.
One half of the treasure must go to Astro, the finder and
one half to Cristeta, the owner of the property.
Had they already been married at the time of the
discovery, the treasure would have belonged to the
conjugal partnership under Art. 117 of the PC. It is
clear that they were still “living in” at the time of
the discovery by Cristeta.
Rea is believed to be entitled to no share at all. Art. 438
provides that hidden treasure belongs to the owner
of the land, building or other property on which it
is found. Therefore, since the treasure was found
in the basement of Cristeta’s mansion,then the
same belongs to him. When the building and the
land belongs to two different persons, each is
considered separate from the other, and the
property found in the building will belong to the
owner of the building.
PROPERTY (ATTY. BATACAN)
PAST EXAM COMPILATION
1ST EXAM
PART I: TRUE OR FALSE
•TRUE
Parties in a contract may treat as a personal property
those which are classified by law as real property.
However, their contract or agreement will only be valid as
to them both but it will be void with respect to third
persons since the same is contrary to an expressed
provision of the law which treats of the property as an
immovable or real property. (-3)
•TRUE
The requisites in order for a machinery, receptacle,
instrument or implement to be considered as immovable
property are the following:
•The machinery, receptacle, instrument or
implement must be placed by the manner
of the immovable;
•There must be an industry or work
carried on in a building or land of the
owner;
•The machineries must tend directly to
meet the needs of said industry or work;
and
•The machineries must be essential to the
industry or works and not merely
incidental.
(-2)
•FALSE
A town plaza is property of the public domain of the
first class, that is, it is a property intended for public use.
As a property of public domain and are intended for the
public use at that, it cannot be subject to lease even if said
lease is authorized by an ordinance.
Properties of public domain are characterized by
the following:
•They are intended for public use, public
service or for the development of national
wealth;
•They cannot be the subject of any
contract, hence, they cannot be the subject
of encumbrances or appropriation
EXCEPT when the contract entered into is
for their repair or improvement;
•They are outside the commerce of man;
•They cannot be appropriated or
alienated; and
•They cannot be the subject of leases,
mortgages, and other servitudes. (-2)
•FALSE
Article 429 states that the owner or legal possessor of
a thing for property has the right to exclude any person in
the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose he
may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to
repel or prevent any actual or threatened unlawful
physical invasion or usurpation of his property.
The doctrine of self-help may be used only when the
owner is not yet dispossessed of the property. But if he
was already dispossed of his property he can no longer
use force. to His proper remedy would be to file an action
for forcible entry or unlawful detainer.
 The doctrine self-help or the right of property owner
to use force against force can be applied only when there
is actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or
usurpation of his property, meaning he can employ force
at the time when the invasion or usurpation is going on or
is actually happening. But if he already lost possession of
the property the right use force can no longer be invoked.
•FALSE
Lessees cannot be considered builders in good faith
because the fact that they are lessees to the land they
know that they are not the owners thereby and that their
right over the leased premises is only limited to what is
stipulated in the lease agreement they had with the
landowner. Having this knowledge and knowing this that
the lessee, when he builds plants, or sows something in
the leased premises is a builder, planter, or sower in bad
faith.
Good faith on the part of the builder in case of a
builder, planter or sower presupposes that the builder,
planter, or sower, does not know that he no longer has
right to the same still belongs to him. In the case of a
lessee the lessee knows that he has no right to make
improvements on the leased land (unless allowed in the
lease contract) so he cannot claim that he is in good faith
if he chooses to build, plant or sow thereon.
PART II
•Article 448 of the Civil Code applies to a situation
wherein a builder, planter or sower builds, plants or
sows on a piece of land belonging to another in good
faith.
In this situation the owner is given the option on what
to do with the improvement on his land by the builder,
planter, sower in good faith since the principle of
accessions grants to him rights in the accession on his
property. The landowner may: 1.) choose to appropriate
for himself the improvement on his land by paying for its
value to the builder, planter or sower; or 2.) he may
__the builder in good faith to buy his land provided that
its price is not considerably higher than the value of the
improvement by the builder.
If the landowner chooses to appropriate the thing
built for himself the ownership thereof passes to him
only after he pays the builder. If in the meantime he
chose the first option but he has not paid for it yet the
builder can retain the improvement. But the moment he
has paid for what was built he can ask the builder to
vacate. If the landowner will compel the builder to buy
the land and the latter is unwilling or fails to pay the
landowner can exercise his right to demand removal of
the thing built even at the expense of the builder.
•No, B can’t be deemed on builder in good faith.
It can be claimed by B that he built house on the
land relying on the promise of A that he would
donate the land to B. However, since A’s promise to
him has not yet materialized he knows that he is not
yet the owner of the land and consequently he has no
right to make improvements thereon. But despite this
knowledge on the part of B he still proceeded to build
his house on the land (not yet given by donation to
him and to which he has no right yet). Because of this
knowledge, B should be considered in bad faith. And
being a builder in bad faith he loses what he has built
and is not entitled to indemnity. (-1)
•No, the contention of Y is not correct.
Co-ownership ceases when there is already
partition and the co-owners are given their shares in
the previously co-owned property. In this case since
the property was already divided, x’s encroachment
can be considered as an improvement built by him in
another’s land, Y’s land. Since he built the same in
good faith he is entitled to reimbursement or
indemnity equivalent to the value of the house (the
part that encroached upon Y’s land) if and only if Y
decides to appropriate the same. But if Y chooses the
option for X to buy the land (provided that the price
thereof is not considerably higher than the value of
the improvement) X has no choice but to follow since
the option is given by law to the landowner on whose
land something is built; planted or sown in good
faith. If X fails to pay for the land of Y, Y can
compel him to remove what he has built. Thus, the
principle in Article 445 can be applied in this case.(-
1)
•The effect of separation of the things or real properties
by incorporation under paragraphs 4 and 5 of article
415 of the New Civil Code is that in paragraph 4 the
properties mentioned (Statues, reliefs, paintings and
other objects for use or ornamentation) will become
personal properties since their incorporation to the real
property or immovable has already ceased and which
attachment was the reason for their consideration as
being immovable properties.
Whereas the properties mentioned in
paragraph 5 (machinery, receptacles, instruments and
implements), their separation from the immovable
(buildings or land) alone does not necessarily make
them lose their identity as real properties by
incorporation and destination. So long as they are still
necessary for the conduct of the industry or works on
the land or building they can still be considered as
immovable property by destination or purpose. But if
they are no longer needed for the industry or works then
they become movable or personal property.
•
No. There can be no legal guardianship of
the dead since a dead person, because of his death, loses
his civil personality and even all the rights granted to
him by law. Hence there would be no need to execute
legal guardianship over a dead person.
Furthermore, should the dead person still have
obligations, the same will be passed to his estate or to
his heirs thus there would be no necessity for legal
guardianship of a dead person. (-2.5)
2008-2009
PART I
•FALSE

A human organ is outside the commerce of man,
thus, it cannot be appropriated. However, a person
can donate his organ on his own choice but such
donation would not make an organ a property under
the law.(-1.5)
•FALSE
Only the law can treat or convert real property as
personally. But by purposes of taxation, real or
immovable property can be treated as movable
property. (-3)
•FALSE
One case decided by the Supreme Court held that the
President cannot solely withdraw the use of public
property for which it was originally intended. There
should be a law that authorizes such withdrawal.(-
1.5)
•FALSE
Machinery that is bolted to the ground will
not always be considered as realty under the law.
Immovable property under paragraph 5 of
Art. 415 is classified as an immovable by destination
or purpose. If the real property will no longer be
intended for an industry even if the same is still
bolted ceased to be an immovable but will be now be
considered movable because the purpose for which it
is intended no longer exist.(-3)
•FALSE
The separation of the thing
incorporated under Art 415 par. 4 and 5 does not
necessarily converts the immovable property to
personalty.
The purpose and intention of the party is material in
this case. When the separation is for temporary such
as when the property is separated thereby just for
repair with the intention to return them back to its
former state then, the property will remain as an
immovable. For par.4 and 5 or Art.415 is classified as
an immovable by destination and not merely as an
immovable by incorporation. (-3.5)
PART II
•A.) Yes, the subject machineries can be included.
After acquired property can be subject to foreclose if
no stipulation to the contrary that will exclude such
machineries.
B.) Suit for replevin is tenable for X. Although, only
the law can treat real property as personalty, the
parties are bound by estoppels if they made an
agreement treating immovable property to movable
property and for as long as no third person will be
prejudiced. Thus, replevin will be proper.(-3)
•B is not entitled to the proceeds of the sugar cane
harvested by “A” after the sale. Before the one-year
redemption period lapsed, A is still entitled to the
fruits of the said farm.
B during the redemption period has only an inchoate
right to the property is still own by A. Thus, during
such time the fruits still belong to A.
•The concept of “taking” for public use would mean
a dispossession; or deprivation or even material
impairment on the part of the private owner.
As long as the owner of the property will be deprived
of its normal use, then, there is taking. Hence, if that
will be the case, the owner will be entitled to
payment of just compensation.
•In this case, since A and B are in good faith, the
following are their rights under the law:
B, has the right to appropriates as his ow the works
if he choose to, provided that he will indemnify A.
A, on the other hand, has a right for indemnity by B
and A has the right of retention until full payment is
paid to him.
However, B, has the option to sell the land to A if he
choose not to appropriate A’s work over his land. But
A has the right to refuse to buy the land if the price of
the land is considerably higher than what he
constructed.
If assuming, the land is not considerably higher than
what he constructed on, then B can oblige A to buy
the land and this time A has no right of retention and
B can even order it remove if A failed to pay the
land.(-1)
•The requisites for prescription to lie against a co-
owner are as follows:
•The co-owner must make an unequivocal
repudiation that would amount to oust the other co-
owner;
•That he must made known such repudiation to all
co-owners;
•It must be clear and convincing.(-1)
FIRST EXAM
•Renunciation not valid since prejudicial to co-
ownership (Art.488)
Alex’s renunciation is not valid.
The Civil Code provides that a co-
owner has the right to compel the other co-owners to
contribute to the expenses needed for the preservation
of the thing owned in common. A co-owner may also
be exempted from such obligation by renouncing so
much of his interest which will be equivalent of his
supposed contribution. However, in no case may such
waiver will be allowed if it prejudiced the co-
ownership.
In the present case, Alex
renunciation will surely prejudiced the fishpond. Also,
Sam is experiencing financial problems could not
answer for the needed expenses to preserved the
fishpond. Therefore, Alex is not allowed to such
renunciation.
•What is the concept of alteration under Article 491?
Give 5 examples.
The concept of alteration under
article 491 of the Civil Code refers to any act which
changes the form and substance of the thing. Even if
benefits would result to the co-owners, the law is clear
that such act is prohibited, unless of course if it is
concerned by all the co-owners.
Some examples of act of alteration are as follows:
• A, B, C, and D co-owned a farm, A and
B wanted to convert it into a cemetery.
This could only be possible if C and D
concurred.
• A and B co-owned a house. A and B
should agree if any of them wants to
change the house for residential purpose
to a nightclub.
• A, B, and C co-owned a swimming pool
a swimming pool intended for their
private use. A wanted to make such
swimming pool open to the public to
earn profits. This should have B and C
consent in order to be possible.
• A co-owned a house with B. B wanted
some of the rooms in the first floor to be
rented to earn extra income. This should
need the concurrence of A.
• A and B co-owned a fishpond. B wanted
it to convert to a swimming pool. This
should need the consent of A.
(-1.5)
•Article 534, Acquired in Good Faith, Good Faith
from the date of the decedent.
Whether Juan is Liable?
A.) Juan is not liable for damages resulting from the
wrongful possession of Pedro.
It is a well-settled rule that bad faith is
personal and is not transmitted to the heirs or
successors, unless it be proved that such heirs or
successors know about such bad faith.
The Civil Code also provides that good faith
is always presumed. And it is not lost until the
moment it is proven that the person was aware of the
defect in his title or mode of acquisition.
In the case, there was no proof presented
which would show that Juan know all along that his
father was not the true owner the building. Therefore
the presumption of good faith in his favor was not
overcome. He should not be liable for damages
resulting from the wrongful possession of Pedro.(-2)
(Bad Faith, Article 533)
B.) Nina is entitled to 2,000,000.
Juan is entitled to 5,000,000.
The Civil Code provides that possession of
hereditary rights is deemed transmitted to the heirs,
without any interruption, at the date of the death of the
decedent, when it is accepted. However the benefits of
the possessor in good faith shall only be at the time of
the death of the decedent.
In the case, the 2,000,000 was received by
Pedro during his lifetime. Therefore, such amount was
the fruits of the building, and showed rightfully be
transmitted to the true owner of the building, in this
case is Nina.
However, the 5,000,000 was collected after
the death of Pedro. Applying the provision of the Civil
Code, this would inure t the benefits of Jun since he is
a possessor in good faith. And benefits pertaining to
the possessor in good faith shall be at the time of the
death of decedent.
•(Article 535, Capacity to Act, Judicial Acts)
Minors are allowed to acquire possession.
The Civil Code provides that minors and
incapacitated persons can acquire possession.
However, they need legal representatives in order to
enforce their rights arising from such possession.
An example would be a minor who was
given computer. Such minor may acquire it without
the need of legal representatives. But if ownership
over the computer is contested by other person, such
minor needs a legal representative in order to enforce
or protect his rights over the computer. (-2)
•A.) Loida cannot forcibly eject Marina from the
leased premises.
The fact that Loida is not the owner of the
premises, she has no right to eject anyone from such
property. However, if Loida was the usufructuary of
such premises, she may compel Marina to pay rentals.
As a usufructuary, Loida has the right to personally
enjoy the thing in usufruct and leased it to another.
Loida is only exercising her rights as a usufructuary is
limited to right to enjoy and right to use the thing. It
soe not include the right to dispose the thing in
usufruct.(-1.5)
B.) Marina can be compelled to pay rents.
The fact that Loida is not the owner of the
leased premises will not justify Marina in not paying
rentals. This would amount to unjust enrichment.
•(Article 596, 597)
The owner will be the one to pay for the real property
taxes.
The Civil Code provides that charges
imposed on the capital shall as –ome by the naked
owner; while charges imposed on the fruits is to be
borne by the usufruct.
Real property taxes are charges imposed on
the capital, therefore it is the naked owner obliged to
pay for such taxes.(-1)
•(Article 559)
In Edca and Tagactac cases, the movable
property involved was not unlawfully deprived from
or lost by the naked owner. Therefore, in both cases,
there was a valid transfer of ownership. The sale
between the buyer and the seller was fully
consummated.
But in the case of Aznar, the sale was not
fully consummated. In that case, it was agreed by the
parties that the purchase price will be paid after the
registration of the car was transferred in the name of
the buyer. The transfer of registration of the car was
transferred in the name of the buyer. The transfer of
registration indeed took place but the purchase price
was not fully paid. The buyer disappeared after having
in his possession the car and the registration. Said car
was then sold to an innocent purchaser.
In the second case, the seller was unlawfully
deprived of his property. There was fraud involved
because the purchase price was not fully paid.
In the case of Tagastac and Edsa, the owner
may not anymore recover said property from the
possessor in good faith. But in the case of Aznar,
notwithstanding the good faith of the possessor, the
owner is still entitled to claim the property which was
unlawfully deprived from him. And there is no need
for reimbursement because the possessor did not buy it
at public auction.(-1)
•(Article 607)
If the usufruct was constituted over a
building only, the destruction of such building will end
the usufruct on the building but the usufructuary still
has a right to set the interest on the value of the land
and on the old materials.
This is so because even if the usufruct was
constituted only over the building, the usufructuary
also uses the land. (-2.5)
•(Article 559)
The concept of irreindivicability as provided
for in the Civil Code provides that the possession of
movable property in good faith is equivalent to title.
The exception for this is when the owner lost the
property or was unlawfully deprived thereof, such
owner may get back the property without the need of
reimbursing the possessor. However, it also provided
for the exception of the exception. This is when the
possessor acquired such property as a public auction.
In this case, the owner may get back the property but
with the need of reimbursing the possessor.(-2.5)
(not sure kung 1st exam ni siya)
PART I.
•a.) A property of public dominion may be converted
into patrimonial property if the same has been
abandoned as no longer intended for public use,
public service or for the development of public
wealth.
However, this provision of the Civil
Code does not automatically or ipso facto
converts the said property of public dominion
into patrimonial property without express
declaration made by the State. As provided in
Sec.4 Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, the
Congress has the right to declassify or reclassify
a land. Anent thereto, the President may pursuant
to a law enacted by Congress, reclassify a land
from public dominion to patrimonial property.
In the case of Laurel v. Garcia, the
Supreme Court held that mere abandonment of
the Roppongi Property did not ipso facto
converted the same from public domain to
patrimonial property of the State.(-1)
b.) An example of a property of a public
dominion which automatically becomes a private
property are:
1. Abandoned river bed may be
acquired by the ___ owner.
2. Military reservations when no
longer intended for public service or public use.
3. Fortified places inside a military
reservation.
4. Adverse possession of a public
alienable or agricultural land for more than 30
years, where the possessor had been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession.
•No, the lessees are not entitled to the right of
retention of the leased premises.
Under the law, a lessee may be entitled
to the lease premises prior to its reimbursement
if he is a lessee in good faith. From the moment
the contract of lease expired and the lessor made
an election to choose the lessee to vacate the
leased premises, from that point in time the
lessee becomes a lessee in bad faith.
•No, the lessees are not entitled to a right of the
leased property.
It may be true, that the lessee were in
good faith because they had a right over the
leased premises by virtue of the contract of lease.
But, when the contract expired, the lessee knew
that their contract is renewable and that during
their discussion they did not arrive into an
agreement; therefore at that point in time the
lessee is already in bad faith.
Retention of the leased premises is
allowed only the lessees who are in good faith.
From the moment the lessor communicated its
option to oust the lessee, the presumption of
good faith was already interrupted. Applying
article 448 by analogy, the lessor has to pay the
lessee for the expenses (necessary and useful)
they incurred based on Article 452, provided the
lessor appropriated the thing. Or the lessor may
remove what has been built by the lessee
pursuant to Article 4_ _.
•If I were Alfonso, I would argue that the sale is null
and void. Rep. Act 3135 deals only with extra-
judicial foreclosure of real property.
 The law states that a property is a
personalty if the same is a real property by
provisions of the special law.
In the instant case, the building was
subjected to a chattel mortgage, therefore
Alfonso and Encarnacion treated the same as
personalty. The parties who executed the
contract are bound by the stipulations thereof
because of the principle of estoppels. The party
cannot assail the validity of the chattel mortgage
as the same is binding between them.
This case finds relevance in the
pronouncement made by the Supreme Court in
Navarro v. Pineda where it held that it is a
known phenomenon that parties to a contract
may treat as personalty a property although a real
property for purposes of the chattel mortgage
law. But, the real reason is that parties cannot
assail its validity because of the principle of
estoppel.
Hence, attachment of the building
whom Alfonso and Encarnacion treated as
personalty cannot be subject to extra-judicial
foreclosure.
•No, the tank and sea creatures are not real property.
Article 415 enumerates things as property that are
immovables. It states that everything attached to an
immovable which by its nature cannot be separated
therefrom without substantial injury, as deterioration
of an immovable is considered an immovable
property (par.3) this partakes of an immovable by
incorporation.
The tank as well as the sea creatures
were attached to an elevated platform. The
platform here, does not fall under the
enumeration mentioned in Article 415 such as
construction of any kind adhered to the soil.
Neither does the tank be considered animal
houses, pigeon houses, or beehives, so that it be
considered immovable.
By the principle of exclusion, and the
clear provision of the law, the tank as well as sea
creatures remain as personal property.(-3.5)
•Replevin is an action to recover a personal property
from an unlawful possessor thereof.
In the instant case what is sought to be
recovered is the owner’s duplicate of title which
is a personal property. As the law expressly
states that personal rights over commercial or
industrial are personal property although they
may involve real property (Article 417,par.2). It
means that Lucio’s right to recover the
document, although it involves a real property
contemplates of a personal right. The document
evidencing the land is a personal property.
Prescinding from the above
rationalization, the action for replevin is tenable.
•Generally, a co-owner cannot acquire an owned
property in common by prescription.
The Civil Code provides that a co-
owner may renounce his right over ownership of
a property owned in common. Such, renunciation
must be made known to all co-owners and it
must be manifested. His action to renounce his
right must be unequivocal and must be
communicated to all. Par# _ concerned so as not
to prejudice the rights of his co-owners.
Only then, that his manifest
renunciation be made known, that his ownership
as a co-owner be acquired by other co-owner.
•The concept of condominium, under Condominium
Law is one of co-ownership. The owners of the
condominium make up a corporation. The owners
have exclusive or real rights over such units in a
condominium, but all of the co-owners co-owns those
places which usable for everybody. In other words,
the co-owners own the stairs, the roofs, the parking
lot and including the alleys or corridors in the
condominium.
A person becomes a shareholder in a
condominium by purchasing a unit or units ah he
may deem necessary. The unit in a condominium
partakes as a real property. It must be noted that
the capacity to own is predicated from one’s
capacity to acquire. Hence, an alien may own a
unit in a condominium provided that 60% of the
owners are Filipino citizens. There is no question
about a Filipino owning or becomes a
shareholder of a condominium.(-3)
•In co-ownership, financial majority is of paramount
consideration. Therefore, the contention of Hope,
Faith and Charity is bereft of merit.
A co-ownership may be obliged to
contribute expenses incurred by one of the co-
owner if such expenses are useful and necessary
for the properties preservation.
The plurality contemplated by law is
that of who among the co-owners have bigger or
larger claim of ownership. As in the case Love
owns 50% of the property, when ownership or
claim over the property is already sufficient to
enforce for the repair and improvement upon the
property.
Again, reimbursement shall only be on
the useful and necessary expenses not those
luxurious expenses, as the latter will be borne by
the co-owner who made such luxurious
expenses.(-1.5)
•Yes, Love is entitled to reimbursement.
Love may claim reimbursement only
in so far as the co-ownership has been benefited.
She can claim in proportion to the share of the
other co-owners Hope, Faith, and Charity.
The repairs and improvements costing
1 million falls under the ambit of necessary or
useful expenses as contemplated under the Civil
Code which provides for the reimbursement of
the builder, sower or planter on the necessary
 expenses or useful expenses made by the former
for the preservation of the property.(-1)
• Accesion is not a mode of acquiring ownership.
There is accession when though a
natural cause a deposit of an alluvium or a __ is
produce thereby as a thing is incorporated or
attached thereto.
Although the law states that the rights
to accretion belongs to the owner of a property to
which something is produced thereby or
incorporated thereof, but that does not _ the
owner ipso facto the owner of the accretion. It
only creates a right for the owner to appropriate
the thing or to subject the accretion under the
Land Registration System.
Differently stated, the principal own
can only acquire ownership over the accretion
after subjecting the same to the proper
proceedings provided for under the Republic
Land Act. (CA141)
Property
Past Examination Question
In 1974 the government of Timbuktu donated to the Philippines a
parcel of land with an area of 10,000 sq. meters where the Philippine
Embassy would be built. But due to the worsening tribal conflict
between the Butsia and the Sibulo, the Philippine government
abandoned its intention to the use lot, and instead, the President sold
the property to the highest bidder. A whooping P500 million was
offered by a Tembukia billio0naire which the government accepted.
Accordingly, this amount would be enough to pay the salary increase
of government teachers for the year 1994. Congress earlier
approved the salary increase of teachers and provided for sources of
funds to raise the needed amount. One of the sources is for the
government to sell all its properties abroad.
If you are against the sale, what legal arguments would you
raise?
• The above described property was intended for the
Phil. Embassy. Thus, such is part of the public
domain. Being property of public dominion, it is
outside the commerce of man and is therefore not
subject to sale on private appropriation.
If you are the lawyer for the government, how would you
argue the validity of the sale?
• Art. 422 of the Civil code provides that property of
public dominion, when no longer intended for public
use or for public service shall form part of the
patrimonial property of the State.
It is clear in the case at bar that the Philippine
government has already abandoned its intention to
use the said lot for the establishment of the embassy
building. It had thereby been converted into the status
of patrimonial property and as such, it may be a valid
object of a contract of sale.
Aiko bought from Rufa several pieces of equipment which she
installed in her Sawmill plant. When Aiko failed sale of her finances,
a judgment was made against her. Aiko’s sawmill equipment were
levied as chattels and sold at public auction. Rufa was the highest
bidder. Aiko assailed the sale void. Decide.
The sale of the equipment is void. Sawmill equipment installed
in a sawmill plant is real property pursuant of Art. 415 par b.
Furthermore, the SC said in the case of Ago vs. CA, that judicial
sale of real property on execution requires the advertisement of
sale by publication in a newspaper as provided for under Sec.
16 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. In the present case, the
equipment were sold as chattels without the requisite
publication. Hence, the sale is void.
Enumerate the characteristics of property of public dominion.
1. They are outside the commerce of man and cannot be
leased, donated, sold or be the object of any contract.
2. They cannot be acquired by prescription no matter
how long the possession of the properties has been.
3. They cannot be registered under the Land
Registration Law or be the subject of a Torrens title.
4. They, as well as their usufruct, cannot be levied upon
by execution nor can they be attached.
5. In general, they can be used by anybody.
6. They may either be real or personal property.
Dr. Aga, a noted animal scientist, is the owner of 2 high breed
Arabian horses, which he keeps for experiments inside a stable.
One day he was surprised to find out that the horses were gone.
Later, they were recovered in the possession of Mr. Oki Doc. When
asked to explain, he contended that they were sold to him by a
certain Mr. Balbin.
1. How would you classify the horses, real of personal
property? Why?
• The horses should be classified as real property. Art.
415 par 6 provided in part that animal houses and the
animals inside them are considered as immovables.
In this case, since a stable is necessarily an animal
house, it follows that the horses which Dr. Aga kept
inside it are real properties.
2. How would you classify the sale to Oki Doc? Sale of real
or personal property?
• It is a sale of personal property. According to Justice
Paras, when the animals inside the permanent animal
house…… or gratuitously, it is believed that the
transaction is an alienation of personal property.
I would file the following animal cases:
Robbery or theft against Mr. Balbin and a violation of
Anti Fencing Law against Oki Doc.
 From the viewpoint of criminal law, the animals
described in Art. 415 par 6 must be considered as
personal property. Hence, the charges of robbery or
theft which concerns unlawful usurpation of personal
property.
What are the limitations on ownership? Give an example to each
limitation.
The following are the limitations on ownership:
1. Those given by the state police power, eminent domain,
taxation.
2. Those given by law, legal easements of waters or right of
way.
3. Those given by the owner himself: the owner pledges or
leases the property.
4. Those given by the person who gave the thing to its
present owner: the donor may prohibit the done from
partitioning the property for a period not exceeding 20
years.
Art. 422 of the Civil Code provides: Property of public dominion,
when no longer intended for public use or for public service shall
form part of the patrimonial property of the State. What do you
understand by patrimonial property? Give an example.
• Patrimonial property of the state is the property it
owns but which is not devoted to public use, public
service or the development of the national wealth. It is
a wealth owned by the state in its private
(MINISTERIAL) as distinguished from its public
capacity (GOVERNMENTAL).
• A good example is of this would be a municipal owned
waterworks system. While such system is open to the
public, still the system serves only to those who pay
the charges and rentals.
How would property of public dominion be converted to patrimonial
property? Explain.
• According to the tenor of the decision in Faustino Ignacio
vs. Dir. Of Lands, the executive and, possibly the
legislative department have the authority and power to
make the declaration converting property of public
dominion to patrimonial property. Stated otherwise, there
should be a formal declaration from the government, either
through the executive or legislative withdrawing the
intention to devote property to public use. After this
conversion, the property, which is now PATRIMONIAL, can
already be alienated.
The Municipality of Trese Percados leased to Mr. Molanida a portion
of Plaza Roman. The lease went on for 20 years. The leased
portion was no longer used by the public ever since a building
thereon was erected. Finally, the leased property was sold to Mr.
Molanida. Rule on validity of the sale.
• The sale was valid. When a municipality no longer uses a
public plaza as such and instead constructed a building
thereon, it is clear that the property has become
patrimonial Act. 422. Being patrimonial, the same may
from that moment on…. sold to a private individual. (Mun.
of OAS vs. ROA, 7 Phil 20)
Joan Castañeda owns a parcel of land. He donated a portion of it to
the church for religious purposes. A part of the land was kept open
and used by the townspeople as a plaza. Later, the entire plaza was
donated by the town to the church. Who owns the land? Explain the
reasons.
• The state owns the land. Even if Marcelino was the
original owner, when he allowed the people to use the
same as a public plaza, he was in effect waiving his right
thereto, for the benefit of the townfolks. Being property for
public use, the town cannot be said to have validly donated
it in favor of the church. The plaza also could not have
been acquired by the church through prescription. (Harty
vs. Mun. of Victoria, 13 Phil 152)
A piece of land was registered in the name of phew phew. One side
of the land is upon this lot is built a stone for which had stood there
from time immemorial and was at times used as defense against the
inclusions of the Moros. The municipality claimed that it exercised
acts of ownership over the land by permitting it to be occupied and
consenting to the erection of private houses thereon. The Dir. Of
Lands…. Putol… sorry.
The plaintiff had obtained in a previous action a judgement for a sum
of money against the defendant municipality of Otot. Because of lack
of funds, the money judgment was not paid. Plaintiff then sought a
writ of execution on the following properties: 1 unit ambulance; 1 unit
police car; 1 unit bulldozer; one 250 sq m lot; and 1 police station
building. Is the action valid?
• No it is not. The attachment is not proper because
municipal-owned real and personal properties devoted to
public or governmental purposes may not be attached and
sold for the payment of a judgment against a municipality.
It is essential and justifiable to exempt property for public
use from execution, otherwise, governmental service would
be jeopardized or impaired. (Vda. De Tantoco vs. Municiap
Council of Iloilo)
Enumerate the 3 actions for recovery of a real property:
• Unlawful detainer, accion publiciana; accion
reinvindicatoria
Ms. Aye Remy Fabila while coming out of Las Malas gallera saw a
man about to carnap his all new Tayana trisikad. He immediately
pulled his Glock 19 and shot the man which resulted to the latter’s
death. When asked to answer for the death, he contended that his
action was justified under the doctrine of self-help. Decide.
• Her action was not justified under the doctrine of self help.
Art 429; enumerate requisites - The doctrine requires that
 reasonable means necessary to repel the force must be
used. Such is absent in this case.
What is an act in a state of necessity. Explain.
• Art. 432, enumerate requisites; expound.
In the above doctrine, is it necessary that the actor is free from
negligence in the creation of such situation?
• No, it is not necessary. Simple negligence is justified. The
law does not require that the person acting under such
doctrine be free from negligence in the creation of a state
of necessity. (Tolentino’s commentary)
When two persons are confronted with a situation where one would
act under the doctrine of self help and the other in a state of
necessity, there would be conflict of rights. Who has the superior
right? Explain.
• The one acting in a state of necessity has the superior
right. The right of self-help is not available against an act in
a state of necessity because there would be unlawful
aggression on the person acting pursuant to the doctrine of
state necessity.
[Putol]….owner. Cristeta, on the other hand, argued that she
owns the house where the treasure was found, ergo under the
law, the treasure belongs to her. Decide.
 One half of the treasure must go to Astro, the finder and
one half to Cristeta, the owner of the property. Had they
already been married at the time of the discovery, the
treasure would have belonged to the conjugal partnership
under Art. 117 of the PC. It is clear that they were still
“living in” at the time of the discovery by Cristeta.
 Rea is believed to be entitled to no share at all. Art. 438
provides that hidden treasure belongs to the owner of the
land, building or other property on which it is found.
Therefore, since the treasure was found in the basement of
Cristeta’s mansion,then the same belongs to him. When
the building and the land belongs to two different persons,
each is considered separate from the other, and the
property found in the building will belong to the owner of
the building.
PROPERTY
(Hot tips for mid-term exams)
Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law (provided that
such ignorance is not gross and therefore inexcusable) may be the
basis of good faith. (Kasilag vs. Rodriguez). It is true that “ignorance
of the law shall excuse no one” but error in the application of the law,
in the legal solutions arising from such application, and the
interpretation of doubtful doctrine can still make a person a
transgressor, violator, or possessor in good faith. For indeed
ignorance of the law may be based on an error of fact.
I.
Art. 537. Acts merely tolerated and those executed clandestinely
and without the knowledge of the possessor of a thing, or by
violence, do not affect possession.
Art. 534. One who succeeds by hereditary title shall not suffer the
consequences of the wrongful possession of the decedent, if it is
not shown that he was aware of the flaws affecting it; but the
effects of possession in good faith shall not benefit him except
from the date of death of the decedent.
Explanation:
If the father of the decedent was in bad faith, it does necessarily
mean that the son was also in bad faith. The son presented to be in
GOOD FAITH. However, since the father was in BAD FAITH, the
consequences of the GOOD FAITH of the son should be counted
only from the date of the decedent’s death.
Query:
Father possessed in bad faith for 3 years Diana Zubiri’s land,
after which the property was presumably inherited Dodong, the
father’s son. Dodoong was in good faith. If Diana within 4 years
brings an action to recover the property and fruits, should Diana’s
action prosper?
Answer:
Regarding the land, YES, because Dodong has not yet become
the owner. Regarding the fruits---
a. Dodong does not have to reimburse the value of the fruits
for the 4-year period he was in possession, since he is a
possessor of GOOD FAITH.
b. But, if Dodong obtained any cash or benefit from the fruits
harvested by his father, said value must be returned (minus
the necessary expenses for cultivation, gathering and
harvesting) because the father was in bad faith, and the
effects of Dodong’s good faith, it must be remembered,
should only commence from the father’s death.
VII.
Case: AZNAR vs. YAPDIANGCO
Held: You may acquire title if there was in fact delivery of the
subject matter.
RULE ON IRREIVINDICABILITY
CLANDESTINE POSSESSION is a secret possession by stealth.
For clandestine possession to affect the owner’s possession, the
possession must also be unknown to the owner. If it is secret to
many but known to the owner, his possession is affected. There is
a presumption however that when possession is clandestine, it is
also unknown to the owner.
Case: CUAYCONG vs. BENEDICTO (37 P 781)
Held: A permissive use by an adjacent proprietor of a road or path
over the land of another no matter how long continued, could not
create an easement of way by prescription. The mere fact that a
tract of land has been used for a long time as a road will not give the
presumption that it has been dedicated to the public. Further, an
easement of right of way is a continuous and apparent easement and
thus cannot be acquired by prescription.
 Art. 545. If at that time the good faith ceases, there should be
any natural or industrial fruits, the possessor shall have a right to a
part of the expenses of cultivation, and to a part of the net harvest,
both in proportion to the time of possession.
The charges shall be divided on the same basis of two
possessors.
The owner of the thing may, should he so desires, give the
possessor in good faith the right to finish the cultivation and gathering
of the growing fruits, as an indemnity for his part of the expenses of
cultivation and the net proceeds; the possessor in good faith who for
any reason whatever should refuse to accept this concession, shall
have the right to be indemnified in any other matter.
The article refers to the rights about pending fruits, if there is no
harvest, the expenses shall be divided in proportion respectively.
Therefore, the owner has two options.
• To take possession of the land but he is obliged to share
with the expenses incurred in the cultivation and a part of
the net harvest, OR
• To allow the possessor in good faith to finish the cultivation
and gathering of the growing crops as an indemnity for his
part of the expenses of cultivation and net proceeds.
MODES OF EXTINGUISHMENT OF EASEMENTS
1. by merger
2. by non-user for 10 years
3. by impossibility of use or bad condition of the tenement
4. by expiration of the term or fulfilment of the condition
5. waiver or renunciation of the dominant estate
6. redemption agreed upon
7. other causes.
III.
ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE. This is any contrivance which is very
attractive to children but very dangerous to them.
An attractive nuisance is not illegal. It may be legal or legitimate
thing but because of its nature, it can easily injure a child that is
why it is called attractive nuisance.
If one is an owner of an attractive nuisance, he is required to
exercise the highest degree of diligence to prevent it from being
played by children.
IV.
REQUISITES FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RIGHT OF WAY
• That the dominant estate is surrounded by immovables and
there is no adequate way to the public highway
• That there is no payment of indemnity
• That the isolation is not caused by proprietor’s act
• That the right way claimed is at a point least prejudicial to
the servient estate.
Art. 579. The usufructuary may make on aproperty held in
usufruct such useful improvements or expenses for mere pleasure as
he may deem proper, provided he does not alter its form or
substance; but he shall have no right to be indemnified therefor. He
may, however, remove such improvements, should it be possible to
do so without damage to the property.
A usufructuary introduced useful improvements, which he can
remove without damage, but he does not want remove them. Can he
be compelled by the naked owner to make removal?
• No, for the law says “may” and therefore he may or may
not remove, the right being potestative.
A usufructuary introduced useful improvements which he can
remove without damage. He wants to remove them but the owner
wants to retain them and offers to reimburse them. Who should
prevail?
• The usufructuary prevails for the right of removal is granted
to him by the law.
On a parcel of land held by A in usufruct, A constructed a
building and planted some trees. Upon the termination of the
usufruct, may A destroy the building and cut down trees?
• Yes, because he after all owned the improvements and he
could thus remove them for the land would not be injured. However,
he must leave the land in the way it had been before construction of
the building and the planting of the trees.
In the case of a sale of condominium, the buyer is not deemed
the owners of the separate interest and the undivided interest in the
lot and other common areas until FULL PAYMENT is made. Full
payment is a \n action sine qua non to of which, which in turn ipso
facto makes him a shareholder of the condominium corporation
incited in the case of SUNSET VIEW vs. CAMPOS.
Accession is the right pertaining to an owner of a property to
everything produced attached or incorporated to it naturally or
artificially. As a general rule, accessory follows the principal.
However, accession is not made of acquiring ownership for
accession presupposes ownership.
Instances when the owner of the land does not own the fruits:
1. Possessor in good faith of the land. He owns the fruits
already received.
2. Usufructuary
3. Lessee gets the fruits of the land (owner gets the civil fruits
from the rentals)
4. In the contract of antichresis, the antichretic creditor gets
the fruits, although of course, said fruits should be
complied first to the interest, if any is owing, and then to the
principal amount of the loan.
Characteristics of CO OWNERSHIP
• Plurality of subjects
• Singularity of objects
• Designation of ideal shares
Sources of CO OWNERSHIP
• Law
• Contract
• Chance
• Occupation
• Wll
 33. Unlawful deprivation. Aznar vs. Yapdiangco case. EDCA
RECURRING QUESTIONS and Tagactac case.
34. Extinguishment of usurfructuary and its conditions.
1. Chattel mortgage of building is valid between parties. 35. Restrictions in easements. Should not add burden.
2. Building subject of a chattel mortgage. Valid between the 36. Violations of restrictive easements
parties on the ground of estoped. 37. Distance, requisites, construction of building adjoining
3. Non-compliance with the law on execution. Valid groud to estates
question the validity of the sale. 38. Easement of right of way. Gauge – Necessity and not
4. Painting placed in a house temporarily, considered as a convenience
movable property. 39. Donations. Inapplicability
5. A. After lease, machineries shall pertain to the lesee, 40. Computation of inofficious donation
movable. 41. Mere tolerance, not equivalent to ownership
B. Machineries placed by the owner in an industry, 42. Extinguishment of easement, enumerate
movable. 43. Easement of right of way. How established? Requisites.
6. China Bank ownership of the land, void. Alien cannot own Can it be acquired thru prescription?
real property. 44. Equipments, movable or immovable? Would an action for
7. Rights of a person over his property. Enjoy, dispose, replevin prosper? It depends.
recover. 45. Inherent powers of the state as a limitation on ownership.
8. Hidden treasure. Ownership is with the owner and under Police, eminent domain, taxation
who is not a trespasser. Requisites. 46. Doctrine of self help; requisites, mere disturbance mere
9. Limitations on the right if ownership. Imposed by the state, possession
donor, law, owner. 47. Doctrine of necessity; requisites
10. Tanks and water pumps are personal properties, can be 48. Patrimonial property of the state
separated without breaking the material. 49. Property of public dominion when converted to patrimonial.
11. Basement of a party wall. Party wall is the servient estate. Executive act pursuant to a law.
Distinguish between servient and dominant easements. 50. Electric posts are not immovables, not permanently
12. Rule on finder’s keepers. If owner is known/unknown. attached thereto and can be separated from the land.
When ownership conferred. 51. Characteristics of pulbic properties. Can’t be subject of
13. Noises. Nuisance. Concept. Proof is required. attachment/execution.
Disturbance/injury beyond what is reasonable. 52. Prescription to lie against a co-owner; requisites
14. Limitations imposed… the donor who wants to dispose … 53. Co-ownership. Partition of property. Prescription.
or his property by donation in vivos. Nature/rights of co-owner over the property.
15. Doctrines. Trademark. Functions of trademarks. Tests 54. Would an issue on registration bar an action for recovery of
used. Dominancy, similarity, dissimilarity. possession? No.
16. Donations prohibited by law. Donations between spouses. 55. Fruits falling in adjacent lands. Branches that go beyond
Exceptions. boundaries. Roots that extend to another’s land.
17. Ownership of land by an alien. Void. 56. Lessee not entitled to right of retention. Bad faith.
18. Revocation/reduction of donation. 57. Infringement. Similarity and dissimilarity tests. Del monte
19. Right of retention of lessee under Art. 448. None. When and San Miguel cases.
Art. 448 applicable. 58. Can parties classifiy a peroperty as movable when
20. Penalties of donation. Personal property. Real property. classified by law as immovable. General rule: No.
21. Easements, how created. By the court? Easement, should Exception requisites: (1) Agree (2) No one will be injured
not depart from its purpose. thereby.
22. Failure to ascertain true identity of the seller is bad faith. 59. Machinery, receptacles, instruments, when immovable?
When in good faith. When movable?
23. Right to collect rent. Pertains only to the owner. 60. Separation of properties under Par 4 and 5. of 415
24. Clandestine possession. Not ripen into ownership. (immovable). Distinguish.
25. A. Removal of useful improvements belong to the 61. Legal guardianship over a dead person, valid?
usufructuary. 62. Enumerate properties aquired by accession.
B. Usufructuary has the option to remove the improvement Discreta/Continua
of not. 63. Construction of pumpling station, nuisance? Public use.
26. Mistake in law. Good faith. Kasilag vs. Roque case. No, but it may be considered as one if beyond normal.
27. Ownership not transferred, want of delivery.
28. Concept of irreivindicability. General rule. Exceptions.
Exceptions to except. Remedy.
29. A. Occupation vs. Possession
B. Land not acquired by occupation. Regalian Doctrine.
30. What is usufruct? Purpose. In a usufructuary, building
was destroyed, effects.
31. Presumptions of ownership. Enumerate.
32. Just title vs. Colorable title. Just title in “possession” and in
“prescription”.

RECURRING QUESTIONS
Chattel mortgage of building is valid between parties.
Building subject of a chattel mortgage. Valid between
the parties on the ground of estoped.
Non-compliance with the law on execution. Valid
groud to question the validity of the sale.
Painting placed in a house temporarily, considered as a
movable property.
After lease, machineries shall pertain to the lesee,
movable.
Machineries placed by the owner in an industry,
movable.
China Bank ownership of the land, void. Alien cannot
own real property.
Rights of a person over his property. Enjoy, dispose,
recover.
Hidden treasure. Ownership is with the owner and
under who is not a trespasser. Requisites.
Limitations on the right if ownership. Imposed by the
state, donor, law, owner.
Tanks and water pumps are personal properties, can
be separated without breaking the material.
Basement of a party wall. Party wall is the servient
estate. Distinguish between servient and dominant
easements.
Rule on finder’s keepers. If owner is known/unknown.
When ownership conferred.
Noises. Nuisance. Concept. Proof is required.
Disturbance/injury beyond what is reasonable.
Limitations imposed… the donor who wants to dispose
… or his property by donation in vivos.
Doctrines. Trademark. Functions of trademarks. Tests
used. Dominancy, similarity, dissimilarity.
Donations prohibited by law. Donations between
spouses. Exceptions.
Ownership of land by an alien. Void.
Revocation/reduction of donation.
Right of retention of lessee under Art. 448. None.
When Art. 448 applicable.
Penalties of donation. Personal property. Real
property.
Easements, how created. By the court? Easement,
should not depart from its purpose.
Failure to ascertain true identity of the seller is bad
faith. When in good faith.
Right to collect rent. Pertains only to the owner.
Clandestine possession. Not ripen into ownership.
Removal of useful improvements belong to the
usufructuary.
Usufructuary has the option to remove the
improvement of not.
Mistake in law. Good faith. Kasilag vs. Roque case.
Ownership not transferred, want of delivery.
Concept of irreivindicability. General rule. Exceptions.
Exceptions to except. Remedy.
Occupation vs. Possession
Land not acquired by occupation. Regalian Doctrine.
What is usufruct? Purpose. In a usufructuary, building
was destroyed, effects.
Presumptions of ownership. Enumerate.
Just title vs. Colorable title. Just title in “possession” and
in “prescription”.
Unlawful deprivation. Aznar vs. Yapdiangco case.
EDCA and Tagactac case.
Extinguishment of usurfructuary and its conditions.
Restrictions in easements. Should not add burden.
Violations of restrictive easements
Distance, requisites, construction of building adjoining
estates
Easement of right of way. Gauge – Necessity and not
convenience
Donations. Inapplicability
Computation of inofficious donation
Mere tolerance, not equivalent to ownership
Extinguishment of easement, enumerate
Easement of right of way. How established? Requisites.
Can it be acquired thru prescription?
Equipments, movable or immovable? Would an action
for replevin prosper? It depends.
Inherent powers of the state as a limitation on
ownership. Police, eminent domain, taxation
Doctrine of self help; requisites, mere disturbance
mere possession
Doctrine of necessity; requisites
Patrimonial property of the state
Property of public dominion when converted to
patrimonial. Executive act pursuant to a law.
Electric posts are not immovables, not permanently
attached thereto and can be separated from the land.
Characteristics of pulbic properties. Can’t be subject of
attachment/execution.
Prescription to lie against a co-owner; requisites
Co-ownership. Partition of property. Prescription.
Nature/rights of co-owner over the property.
Would an issue on registration bar an action for
recovery of possession? No.
Fruits falling in adjacent lands. Branches that go
beyond boundaries. Roots that extend to another’s land.
Lessee not entitled to right of retention. Bad faith.
Infringement. Similarity and dissimilarity tests. Del
monte and San Miguel cases.
Can parties classifiy a peroperty as movable when
classified by law as immovable. General rule: No.
Exception requisites: (1) Agree (2) No one will be
injured thereby.
Machinery, receptacles, instruments, when immovable?
When movable?
Separation of properties under Par 4 and 5. of 415
(immovable). Distinguish.
Legal guardianship over a dead person, valid?
Enumerate properties aquired by accession.
Discreta/Continua
Construction of pumpling station, nuisance? Public use.
No, but it may be considered as one if beyond normal.