Long Quiz in Property RW9 I.

Name: _____________________________________

True or False (If the statement is false, state your arguments) 30% 1. If under certain circumstances, immovable properties may be treated by parties as movable, in the like manner, movable properties may be treated as immovable. False. Unlike in the case of immovable property, where parties may treat the same as movable and hence, may be the object of a chattel mortgage as long as 3rd persons are not prejudiced and that the parties are estopped from claiming otherwise, movable are always treated as such and that no real estate mortgage may be constituted therefrom. 2. Patrimonial properties of the city or municipality are outside the commerce of man and cannot be leased, donated, sold or be the object of any contract. False. Patrimonial properties of the city or municipality may be the subject of contracts for profits or otherwise.

3. A building may be validly mortgaged separately from the land upon which it is built. True. 4. The human body, during lifetime and in death cannot be the object of appropriation. False. When alive, a person may donate blood or organs of his body subject to special laws. When in death, the cadaver may be an object of appropriation for medical or scientific purposes but the same should not be for any monetary consideration.

5. Shares of Stocks in a Realty Development Corporation is a personal property. True. 6. Electricity may be appropriated, hence it can be the object of theft. True.

7. Property of the public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the state. True. Art. 422 8. Patrimonial properties of the state cannot be sold if there is no law authorizing the same. True. (Laurel vs. Garcia, Reponggi Property in Japan) 9. A town plaza loses its public character when the town ceases using it as such and subjects it to patrimonial use. True. (Municipality of Oas vs.Roa) 10. The right to recover stolen property such as a celfone and promissory notes is a personal property. True. 11. Money is a personal property. When it is used as a currency, it is not a merchandise. When it is exported or is taken out of circulation, it becomes a merchandise. True. 12. For purposes of taxation, immovable property may include things which should generally regarded as personal property. True.

13. Under the doctrine of self-help, the same cannot be availed by a possessor who has lost the right to possess the property. Thus, assume that the lessee has continued to occupy the leased premises despite the expiration of the contract of lease, the lessor, nevertheless, is not permitted to avail of the doctrine of self-help in this case. True. (The reason being, we cannot take the law into our own hands)

14. In like manner, still under the doctrine of self-help, if the possession is wrongful, an attack against the possessor may not be unlawful. True. (Especially so, if the attach comes from the owner or lawful possessor applying the doctrine of self-help) 15. Again, under the doctrine of self-help, preventive force to forestall or prevent future aggression is not authorized. True.

II.

Enumeration: 20% A. Give at least five (5) characteristics of property of the public dominion:

1. Outside the commerce of man of both the State and its citizens, (Municipality of Cavite vs. Rojas); 2. Cannot be acquired by prescription (Land formed by the action of the sea forms part of the public domain) 3. Cannot be encumbered, altered or be the subject of levy or sold at public action; 4. Cannot be burdened by easement; 5. Cannot be registered under the land registration law.

B. Accession is the right which ownership of property gives over everything which the same produces, or which is attached or incorporated thereto, naturally or artificially. Give at least 5 basic principles of accession over immovable property. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. No unjust enrichment Bad Faith must be penalized Bad Faith of both neutralizes each other, hence both are treated in good faith Good Faith may be held responsible but not to be penalized. Accessory follows the principal. No substantial injury to principal when in certain circumstances, separation is to be done.

C. Give 5 legal remedies to recover ownership/possession of real and/or personal property: 1. Action for Replevin for Personal Property under Rule 60 2. Forcible Entry or Unlawful Detainer as the case may be 3. Accion Publiciana or the plenary action to recover who has the better right to possession 4. Accion Reinvindicatoria 5. Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction 6. Writ of Possession D. Give at least 5 enumerations of personal property as defined by Arts. 416 -418: 1. Those susceptible of appropriation but not included in the enumeration under Real or Immovable Property 2. Real property which by special provision of the law is considered PERSONALTY. 3. Forces of Nature brought under the control of Science like Electricity, Oxygen, Solar Energy, Sunlight, nitrogen, etc. 4. Those that can be transported from place to place without impairment to the immovable to which they are attached. 5. Patent, trademark, copyright, right to invention, or other intellectual property rights. 6. Personal Effects 7. Obligations and actions which have for their object, movable or demandable sums like actions to recover money or upon a promissory note; 8. Shares of Stocks in a commercial, industrial, agricultural, realty corporation. 9. Consumables and fungibles

III.

Hypothetical Cases: (Do NOT write anything beyond the lines provided for) 20%

A. Mr. Cruz purchased a 500 sq. meter residential lot in Sta. Mesa Manila valued for 5 million . In good faith, he built a residential house on the lot of Mr. Uy, which is valued at 5.3 million. The construction was unknown to Mr. Uy. Upon Mr. Uys discovery. Questions: (a) Who has the better right over the constructed residential house? Mr. Uy. Why? Under Art. 418, Mr. Uy has an option whether to appropriate the house to himself upon payment of proper indemnity or ask Mr. Cruz to buy the lot since the value of the lot is not considerably higher than the house. (b) Can Mr. Uy compel Mr. Cruz to remove the residential house? No. Why? There are only two options given to him. Should Mr. Uy choses the option of asking Mr. Cruz to purchase the lot, and Mr. Cruz, refused, then if Mr. Cruz fails to pay the rent, only then can he compel the removal of the house. (c) Can Mr. Uy compel Mr. Cruz to buy the land? Yes Why? Because the price of the lot is NOT considerably higher than the house, hence Mr. Uy may compel Mr. Cruz to buy the land. (d) Assume that Mr. Cruz agrees to buy the land but fails to comply, may Mr. Uy demand removal of the house? Yes Why? As stated under answer b, Mr. Cruz should not be allowed to use the house because of his refusal to buy the land. (e) Before a settlement is reached between the parties, may Mr. Uy demand rental from Mr. Cruz? No.. Why? Mr. Cruz was in good faith therefore he has the right of retention prior to Mr. Uys exercise of his option. (f) Will your answers be the same Mr. Cruz was a lessee? No. Why? A lessee is a builder in bad faith because he knows the property is not his. (g) Will your answers be the same if Mr. Cruz was a co-owner and he built the residential house prior to the partition? No. Why? A co-owner prior to the partition builds on his own land, hence Art. 448 does not apply
B. Mr. Arthur Rivera, a licensed geologist and working with the DENR came into possession of a map believed to contain the location of a part of the Yamasita treasures. The location of the map when plotted will reveal the treasures were hidden in a property owned by Sps. Carlos & Nida Romana. However, upon further investigation, Mr. Rivera discovered that the property has become a river bed due to the natural change in the course of the river. Without permission from the DENR or the government or from the spouses Romana, Mr. Rivera pursued his searched and successfully found therein the treasures believed to be so worth several billions of pesos. a) Is Mr. Rivera entitled to the treasures? Yes. Why? Although Mr Rivera did not ask permission, the property where the treasure was found is a property of the public dominion, hence, he is not considered a stranger to the property. (another answer may be: No he is not entitled because he should have asked permission from DENR, and having not done so, he is therefore considered a trespasser, thus, he is not entitled to the property) b) If yes, how is his share to be apportioned and with whom? He shares it with the state;50% belongs to him and the other 50% to the state. c) Assuming he is not entitled, how would you justify said position? Notwithstanding that the property is a property of the public dominion, he should have asked permission from the government, thus his failure to ask permission will make him a stranger and he will not be entitled to the treasure. Also he made a deliberate search, which may not be within the purview of by chance.

C. When is the builder considered in good faith? 3% The builder is in good faith if he builds upon a land which he believes to be his or he makes use of the materials which he believes he has a right thereto. D. What is the rationale for the right of the state to limit or restrict the right of ownership of individuals in the following: 7%

A. Police Power: The State has the right to restrict or limit, even interfered with or destroy property if the same the same is injurious or pose a danger to the welfare of the community or the people. Any holder of the property does so on the manner not injurious to the right of others. B. C. Taxation: The State has the right to exact additional burden on those who have more than those who have less so that the State may be able to continue its responsibilities and for the betterment of its services to its people. D. Eminent Domain: The State may expropriate private property upon payment of just compensation for the general welfare and for public use. Thus if ones property is expropriated under the Eminent Domain power of the State, the private individual must yield in favor of the State BUT only after he has been justly compensated. IV. State whether Real / Immovable Property OR Personal / Movable Property:10pts.

a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Shares of Stocks in a Real Estate Corporation Business. Personal Trademarks over hospital equipment placed on hospital. Personal Meralcos steel pipes. Personal Sugar quotas. Real Repair machineries of a bus transport company. Personal Property Elevated Gas Tank of a Gasoline Station. Real Property (Caltex Case) Chocolate making machines in a chocolate factory. Real (Sergs v. PCI Leasing) h. Contract of lease of a building. Real i. Contract of Usufruct. Real j. Solar Energy stored on a building. Personal
IV. Match the doctrine with the case citation. 10% 01. While it is true that the controverted properties appear to be immobile, a perusal of the contract of REM and CM executed by the parties gives a contrary indication. In the case at bar, both the trial and appellate courts show that the intention was to treat the machineries as movables or personal property. Assuming that the properties were considered immovable, nothing detracts the parties from treating it as chattels to secure an obligation under the principle of estoppel. TSAI V. COURT OF APPEALS

02 .The equipment and machinery as appurtenances to the gas station building or shed owned by Caltex and which fixtures are necessary to the operation of the gas station, for without them the gas station would be useless, and which have been attached and fixed permanently to the gas station site or embedded therein, are taxable improvements and machinery within the meaning of the Assessment Law and the Real Property Tax Code. CALTEX PHILS. V. CENTRAL BOARD OFASSESSMENT APPEALS 03. The advantage in Art. 448 is accorded the landowner because his right is older, and because, by the principle of accession, he is entitled to the ownership of the accessory thing. There can be no preemptive right to buy even as a compromise, as this prerogative belongs solely to the landowner. No compensation can be legally forced on him, contrary to what petitioners ask from this Court. Such an order would certainly be invalid and illegal. Spouses Rafael Benitez and Avelina Benitez v. CA

04. Plaintiffs and defendant are co-owners pro indiviso of a lot in the proportion of 2/3 and 1/3 each, respectively. An appointed commissioner submitted a partition. The house built by defendants, however, happened to be in the portion given to plaintiffs. However, when as in this case, the co-ownership is terminated by the partition and it appears that the house of defendants overlaps or occupies a portion of 5 sq.m. of the land pertaining to plaintiffs which defendants obviously built in good faith, then the provisions of Art. 448 of the new Civil Code should apply. Fernandez Del Campo v. Abeisa 05. The owner of the land does not ipso facto become the owner of what had been planted on his land by another. Firstly, we have to determine whether the planter was in good faith or bad faith. Secondly, assuming that the planter was in good faith, the landowner, should he desire to get the crops, must first give the proper indemnification to the planter. InterRegional Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals

06. A creek is a recess or arm extending from a river and participating in the ebb and flow of the sea. It is a property belonging to the public domain. It is not susceptible to private appropriation and acquisitive prescription. As a public water, it cannot be registered under the Torrens System in the name of any individual. Hence, a compromise agreement adjudicating the ownership of such property in favor of an individual is null and void. It has no legal effect. It is contrary to law and public policy. Mun. of Cavite v. Rojas 07. The lease is null and void, because streets and plazas are outside the commerce of man, since they are properties for public use. In creating the lease, the municipality exceeded its authority because it did something it was not empowered to do. The lessee must therefore vacate the premises. 08. The squatters never really became tenants. The property being a public one, the Manila mayors did not have the authority to give permits, written or oral, to the squatters. The permits granted are, therefore, considered null and void. City of Manila v. Garcia 09. The fact that the Roppongi site has not been used for a long time for actual Embassy service does not automatically convert it to patrimonial property. Any such conversion happens only if the property is withdrawn from public use (Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co. v. Bercilles, 66 SCRA 481 [1975]). A property continues to be part of the public domain, not available for private appropriation or ownership until there is a formal declaration on the part of the government to withdraw it from being such. Laurel vs. Garcia 10. As provided for under Section 6 of Commonwealth Act 141, which was lifted from Act 2874, the classification or reclassification of public lands into alienable or disposable, mineral or forest lands is now a prerogative of the executive department of the government and not of the courts. There should be no room for doubt that it is not the court which determines the classification of lands of the public domain into agricultural, forest or mineral but the executive branch of the government, thru the Office of the President. Bureau of Forestry, et al. v. CA Laurel vs. Garcia Bureau of Forestry, et al. v. CA TSAI V. COURT OF APPEALS Villongco vs. Moreno, et al. City of Manila v. Garcia Mun. of Cavite v. Rojas Maneclang, et al. v. IAC Fernandez Del Campo v. Abeisa

Inter-Regional Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals Spouses Rafael Benitez and Avelina Benitez v. CA CALTEX PHILS. V. CENTRAL BOARD OFASSESSMENT APPEALS