PROPERTY LAW: STUDY GUIDE - Articles.

414 – 426

For our PROPERTY LAW class on 07 July 2018, 1:00 – 5:00 p.m., Sat. please
study the following for our Lecture, Graded Recitation and Reporting.
(Textbook choices: Vol. 2, Civil Code – PARAS or, Tolentino or, Pineda)

I. ARTICLES 414 – 418

A. Know the following:
 Classification of Immovable or Real Properties in Art, 415 (NATURE ,
INCORPORATION, DESTINATION, ANALOGY) and their corresponding examples
 The 3 Tests in general to Determine whether a Property is Movable or
Immovable
 What are considered as Personal Property (Arts. 416-417)
 What are consumables & non-consumables (Art. 418)

B. DO CASE DIGEST ON THE FOLLOWING CASES:

o Know the facts, issues and rulings. You may glance at your notebook during
graded recitation.

ARTICLE 415 – 416 :

1. Biscerra v. Teneza, L-16218, Nov. 29, 1962
2. Lopez v. Oroso Jr. et al L-10817-18, Feb. 28, 1958;
3. Assoc. Inc. and Surety Co., Inc. v. Iya et al., L-10837-38, May 30, 1958 -
4. Tumalad v. Vivencio, G.R. No. L-30173 ,September 30, 1971
5. Board of Assessment Q.C. v. MERALCO 10 SCRA 68
6. Yap vs. Tanada, 163 SCRA 464, July 18, 1988
7. Evangelista v. Alto Surety, L-11139, April 23, 1958
8. Leung Yee v. Strong Machinery Co., 37 Phil. Reports 644
9. Standard Oil v. Jaranillo 44 Phil. 631
10. Lavarro v. Labitoria, 54 Phil. 788
11. Sibal v. Valdez, 50 Phil. 512
12. Davao Sawmill Co., v. Castillo, 61 Phil.709
13. People´s Bank and Trust Co., v. Dahican Lumber Co., L-17500, May 16, 1967
14. Hilado v. Reg.of Deeds, 49 Phil.542
15. H. Berkenkotter v. Cu Unjieng 61 Phil. 663
16. Burgos v. Chief of Staff, G.R. No. L-64261 December 26, 1984 (En Banc)
17. Ago v. Court of Appeals, et al., L-17898, Oct. 31, 1962
18. People´s Bank and Trust Co., v. Dahican Lumber Co., L-17500, May 16, 1967
19. Board of Assessment Appeals Q.C. v. Meralco, 10 SCRA 68
20. Meralco Securities Industrial Corporation vs. Central Board of Assessment
Appeals, 114 SCRA 260 , May 31, 1982
21. Caltex (Phil.) Inc. vs. Central Board of Assessment Appeals, 114 SCRA 296,
1982
1
 22. Ago v. Court of Appeals et, L-17898, Oct. 31, 1962
23. U.S. v. Carlos, 21 Phil. 543

ARTICLE 417 :
24. Involuntary Insolvency of Stochecker v. Ramirez, 44 Phil. 933

II. ARTICLES 419 – 426

A. PUBLIC DOMINION PROPERTIES [ Arts. 419 – 420; 423 - 424 ]

1. What are the Things Deemed as Properties of Public Dominion? (Art. 420)
2. What are the Public Dominion Properties which may be owned by the State (Art.
420)

3. What are the Public Dominion Properties which may be owned by the Local Govt. or
political subdivisions? (Arts. 424)

4. State the Characteristics of Properties of Public Dominion

5. If a private person or entity is able to have a portion of the beach or foreshore,

included in the transfer certificate of registration, will this mean that the said
property is now considered patrimonial or private property?

o RP v. LAT VDA. DE CASTILLO et al, GR 69002, June 30, 1988 –

REPORTER: ABELLANA, Jean Marie

6. A private estate adjoining a body of water (lake, river, stream, or sea, or pond,
lagoon) is inundated with water or flooded, and submerged for some time. If later
the water receded and the land is again uncovered and recovered, who will own the
land – the original private estate owner or the State?

o Govt. v. Cabangis, 53 Phil. 112 - Report: AMIGLEO, Christine Cheryl

o Govt. v. Colegio de San Jose, 53 Phil. 423 - Report: ANDOY, Pembraida
 Read & explain the difference in the 2 Supreme Court rulings.

7. A private estate owner constructed canal/s on his land and nearby residents are
allowed use thereof. Later, the landowner closed access to the canal by the public.
Complaint was filed to have the landowner open the canal and to allow use and
access by the public. What is the ruling of the Supreme Court on this issue?

Study and compare the rulings of the SC in these case:

i.) Santos v. Moreno, L-15829, Dec. 4, 1967 - Report: BANTILAN, Gladys
ii.) Mercado v. Mun. Pres. of Macabebe, 59 Phil. 592 - Report: BEBERO, Princess
 Reporters please read the full text of the case and coordinate with each other to
explain the difference in the Supreme Court rulings.

2
 READ also these CASES:
o Maneclang et al., v. IAC, G.R. 66575, Sept. 30, 1986
o Chavez v. PEA, 415 SCRA 403, 2003
o Hilario v. City of Manila, L-19570, April 27, 1967
o Tufexis v. Olaguera, 32 Phil. 654
o City of Manila v. Garcia, L-26053, Feb. 21, 1967 – Report: CAGATIN, Kristelle

B. PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY or PROPERTIES OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP (Arts. 421

– 425)

1) Study SC Jurisprudence about the 3 Kinds of Properties of Private Ownership:

i. PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY of the STATE,

o LAUREL v. GARCIA, G.R. No. 92013 July 25, 1990 - Report: DELA CRUZ, Ralph
(PIs. read the dissent of Justice Feliciano & include in the report)

ii. PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY of LOCAL GOVTS.

o City of Baguio v. NAWASA, G.R. No. L-12032, August 31, 1959 – Report: CUBELO,
Irvin
o Province of Zamboanga del Norte v. City of Zamboanga, L-24440, March 28,
1968 – Report: ESCALANTE, Leo

iii. PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY of PRIVATE PERSON or Entity.

2) Can public dominion properties be later converted to, or withdrawn from public use
and form part of the patrimonial property of the State and Local Govt.?

1. Faustino Ignacio v. Dir. Of Lands, L-12958, May 30, 1960

2. Municipality of Oas v. Roa, 7 Phil. 20
3. Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co., Inc. v. Bercilles, L-40474, Aug. 29, 1975
4. Municipality of Hinunang v. Director of Lands, 24 Phils. 125
5. Chavez v. NHA et al, G.R No. 164527, Aug. 15, 2007
6. Dacanay v. Asistio, Jr. 208 SCRA 404
7. Salas v. Jarencio, L-29788, Aug. 30, 1972 - Report: CIRUNAY, Hazel
8. Harty v. Mun. of Victoria, 13 Phil. 152 - Report: EVANGELISTA, Kent John

2) If a political subd. or local govt. has an unpaid debt to a private person or entity,
can the latter levy against the properties of the Local Govt.? What are the
limitations if any?

o Viuda de Tan Toco v. Mun. Council of Iloilo, 49 Phil. 52 - Report: CAYETANO, Elsie
o Mun. of Paoay, Ilocos Norte v. Manaois, et al., L-3485, June 30, 1950 – Report:
FERNANDEZ, Analyn

 Repoters read the full text of the Supreme Court rulings.