UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE – RECOLLETOS

COLLEGE OF LAW

Civil Law Review 1

August 16, 2019

Dear CLR1 Students,

For the 5th Lecture week, we will start discussing Civil Code
provisions on Property. We will focus on the concepts of Property, Real
and Personal, and on Ownership, its nature, permutations, and
implications, on the one hand, and its application to solve concrete
problems, on the other hand. We will also have dialogue / discussion /
recitation on Supreme Court cases, to strengthen our grasp on the
concepts. To help prepare for these classes, please study the following
topics:

1. The Property Code, specifically, Articles 414 – 483 of the New

Civil Code.

2. Civil Law Reviewer by Rabuya, Volume 1, pp. 311-420;

3. The following cases:

(a) Marcelo R. Soriano vs. Sps. Ricardo and Rosalina Galit, G.R.
No. 156295, September 23, 2003;
(b) Serg's Products vs. PCI Leasing and Finance, GR# 137705,
Aug. 22, 2000;
(c) FELS Energy, Inc. vs. Province of Batangas, GR Nos. 168557,
Feb. 16, 2007;
(d) Francisco I. Chavez vs. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No.
133250, July 9, 2002;
(e) Manila Electric Company v. The City Assessor, G.R. No.
166102, August 5, 2015
(f) Philippine Ports Authority vs. City of Iloilo, G.R. No. 109791,
July 14, 2003;
(g) Francisco I. Chavez vs. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No.
133250, Nov. 11, 2003;
(h) Mactan Cebu International Airports Authority v. City of
LapuLapu, G.R. No. 181756, June 15, 2015;
(i) In Re: Reversion/Recall of Reconstituted Titles in Tarlac
Registry of Deeds, G.R. No. 171304, Oct. 10, 2007;
(j) Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 179987, April 29,2009
(k) Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 179987, September 3, 2013;
(l) Dream Village Association v. Bases Conversion Development
Authority, G.R. No. 192896, July 24, 2013;

Civil Law Review, S.Y. 2019-2020, 1st Semester

Jennoh H. Tequillo
(m) Candelaria Dayot vs. Shell Chemical Co. (Phils.), Inc., G.R. No.
156542, June 26, 2007;
(n) Sps. Dario and Matilde Lacap vs. Jouvet Ong Lee, G.R. No.
142131, Dec. 11, 2002;
(o) National Housing Authority vs. Grace Baptist Church, G.R.
No. 156437, Mar. 1, 2004;
(p) PNB vs. Generoso De Jesus, G.R. No. 149295, September 23,
2003;
(q) Luis Marcos P. Laurel v. Hon. Zeus Abrogar, et. al., G.R. No.
155076, February 27, 2006; Please contrast with the SC
decision on MFR, Luis Marcos P. Laurel v. Hon. Zeus Abrogar,
et. al., G.R. No. 155076, January 13, 2009;
(r) Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, v. Abigail
Razon Alvarez, et. al., G.R. No. 179408, March 5, 2014;
(s) Alfredo Yasay Del Rosario vs. Sps. Jose and Concordia
Manuel, G.R. No. 153652, January 16, 2004;
(t) National Housing Authority vs. Grace Baptist Church, G.R.
No. 156437, Mar. 1, 2004;
(u) Rachel C. Celestial vs. Jesse Cachopero, GR# 142595, Oct. 15,
2003;
(v) General Mariano Alvarez Services Cooperative, Inc., v.
National Housing Authority, et. al., G.R. No. 175417, February
9, 2015;
(w) Sps. Beder Morandarte & Marina Febrera. vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 123586, August 12, 2004;
(x) Julita V. Imuan, Et. Al., vs. Juanito Cereno, Et. Al., G.R. No.
167995, Sept. 11, 2009;
(y) Heirs of Susana De Guzman Tuazon vs. CA, G.R. No. 125758,
January 20, 2004;
(z) Agnes Gapacan, vs. Maria Gapacan Omipet, G.R. No. 148943,
August 15, 2002;
(aa) Lucio Robles vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123509, March 14,
2000
(bb) Efren Tandog, et al. vs. Renato Macapagal, et al., G.R. No.
144208, Sept. 11, 2007;
(cc) Rosalina Clado-Reyes vs. Sps. Julius and Lily Limpe, G.R. No.
163876, July 9, 2008;
(dd) Heirs of Enrique Diaz v. Virata, G.R. No. 162037, August 7,
2006;
(ee) Rosalina Clado-Reyes vs. Sps. Julius and Lily Limpe, G.R. No.
163876, July 9, 2008; and
(ff) Heirs of Enrique Diaz v. Virata, G.R. No. 162037, August 7,
2006;
(gg) Ayala Corporation v. Rosa Diana Realty and Development
Corp., G.R. No. 134284, Decebmer 1, 2000;
(hh) Department of Eductation v. Delfina C. Casibang, et. al., G.R.
No. 192268, January 27, 2016VSD
(ii) Heirs of Victorino Sarili v. Pedro F. Lagrosa, G.R. No.193517,
January 15, 2014;
(jj) Heirs of Cipriano Trazona v. Heirs of Dionisio Canada, et. al.,
G.R. No.175874, December 11, 2013;
(kk) Sps. Marcos Esmaquel and Victoria Soldevilla v. Maria
Coprada, G.R. No. 152423, December 15, 2010;
(ll) Communities Cagayan, Inc. v. Sps. Arsenio Nanol, et. al., G.
R. No. 176791, November 14, 2012;

Civil Law Review, S.Y. 2019-2020, 1st Semester

Jennoh H. Tequillo
 (mm) Automat Realty and Development Corporation, et. al., v.
Spouses Marciano and Ofelia dela Cruz, G.R. No. 192026,
October 1, 2014;
(nn) Rodolfo and Lily Rosales v. Miguel Casteltort, et. al., G.R. No.
157044, October 5, 2005;
(oo) Spouses Crispin and Teresa Aquino v. Spouses Eusebio and
Josefina Aguilar, G.R. No. 182754, June 29, 2015; and
(pp) VSD Realty & Development Corp., v. Uniwide Sales, Inc., G.R.
No. 170677, October 24, 2012; but note the SC’s Resolution on
Motion for Reconsideration in VSD Realty & Development
Corp., v. Uniwide Sales, Inc., G.R. No. 170677, July 31, 2013;

Lastly, please also rehearse answering the following sample Final

Exams questions:

1. Lucio owns a giant barge docked at the Mactan Channel and accessible
through his private beach resort in Mactan. He borrowed money from
PNB, issuing a real mortgage on the barge; and with the loan proceeds,
Lucio converted the barge into a floating hotel and casino, anchoring it
adjacent to the foreshore of his beach property. Lucio, however, failed to
pay his obligations; hence PNB sued for foreclosure. In his defense,
Lucio’s lawyer argued that the real mortgage was invalid and mistaken,
since the floating hotel and casino was obviously movable. Is the giant
barge, in fact, a movable?
2. Adam, a building contractor, was engaged by Blas to construct a house on
a lot which he (Blas) owns. While digging on the lot in order to lay down
the foundation of the house, Adam hit a very hard object. It turned out to
be the vault of the old Banco de las Islas Filipinas. Using a detonation
device, Adam was able to open the vault containing old notes and coins
which were in circulation during the Spanish era. While the notes and
coins are no longer legal tender, they were valued at P 100 million
because of their historical value and the coins’ silver and nickel content.
The following filed legal claims over the notes and coins: (a) Adam, as
finder; (b) Blas, as owner of the property where they were found; (c)
Bank of the Philippine Islands, as successor-in-interest of the owner of the
vault; and (d) The Philippine Government because of their historical value.
Who owns the notes and coins? Explain.
3. Ignacio owns a large tract of land located right smack in Cebu Business
Park. 100 families occupy this property. He sued them for ejectment and
he won the case. He also obtained not only a writ of eviction against them
but also a writ of demolition. These settlers then sought help from the
Mayor. To court their votes the City of Cebu sued Ignacio for expropriation
and pursuant to said complaint with the intention of establishing a
socialized housing project therein for the distribution to these settlers, and
the court issued a Writ of Possession in favor of the City of Cebu. For lack
of funds the City of Cebu did not, however, deposit any form of just
compensation corollary to the writ of possession. The settlers now sued
Ignacio for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Writ of Preliminary and
Permanent Injunction, to prevent him from taking possession of his
property or from disturbing their possession thereof, on account of the
expropriation proceedings already initiated by the City of Cebu and the
writ of possession issued by the court. You are the honorable presiding
judge, would you grant these settlers’ prayer for an injunction and a TRO?

Civil Law Review, S.Y. 2019-2020, 1st Semester

Jennoh H. Tequillo
4. Pecson owned a commercial lot on which he built a four-door two-storey
apartment building. For failure to pay realty taxes, the lot was sold at
public auction by the City Treasurer of Quezon City to B, who in turn sold
it to Nuguid. Pecson then challenged the validity of the auction sale before
the RTC of Quezon City. In its Decision dated February 8, 1989, the RTC
upheld Nuguid’s title, but declared that the four-door two-storey apartment
building was not included in the auction sale. This was affirmed by the SC.
Nuguid then moved for delivery of possession of the lot and the apartment
building. Is Art 448 applicable entitling Pecson of reimbursement of the
value of the building?
5. Ferdinand saw a very beautiful mansion beside the Malacanang Palace.
In the dead of night he sent his goons to drive all the occupants of that
Mansion out of the place, allowing them to carry nothing with them except
their clothes. Ferdinand asked his architects and structural engineers to
assess the place and he was told that the posts and the beams of the
Mansion needed to be repaired because they were about to collapse.
Ferdinand spent 5 Million Pesos for the repairs. Then he had the interior
designs completely changed. He spent another 5 Million Pesos for that.
The owners thereafter sued Ferdinand for Forcible Entry. Ferdinand
replied that they have no right to oust him from this property until they
reimbursed all his expenses for the repairs which he had made on the
Mansion, for otherwise the owners would be unjustly enriched at his
expense. You are the Honorable Presiding Judge. Does Ferdinand, in
fact, hold a right of retention?
6. Before migrating to Canada in 1992, the spouses Teodoro and Anita
entrusted all their legal papers and documents to their nephew, Atty. Tan.
Taking advantage of the situation, Atty. Tan forged a deed of sale, making
it appear that he had bought the couple’s property in Quezon City. In
2000, he succeeded in obtaining a TCT over the property in his name.
Subsequently, Atty. Tan sold the same property to Luis, who built an auto
repair shop on the property. In 2004, Luis registered the deed of
conveyance, and title over the property was transferred in his name. In
2006, the spouses Teodoro and Anita came to the Philippines for a visit
and discovered what had happened to their property. They immediately
hire you as lawyer. What action or actions will you institute in order to
vindicate their rights? Explain fully.
7. The properties of Jessica and Jenny, who are neighbors, lie along the
banks of the Marikina River. At certain times of the year, the river would
swell and as the water recedes, soil, rocks and other materials are
deposited on Jessica’s and Jenny’s properties. This pattern of the river
swelling, receding and depositing soil and other materials being deposited
on the neighbors’ properties have gone on for many years. Knowing this
pattern, Jessica constructed a concrete barrier about 2 meters from her
property line and extending towards the river, so that when the water
recedes, soil and other materials are trapped within this barrier. After
several years, the area between Jessica’s property line to the concrete
barrier was completely filled with soil, effectively increasing Jessica’s
property by 2 meters. Jenny’s property, where no barrier was constructed,
also increased by one meter along the side of the river. Can Jessica and
Jenny legally claim ownership over the additional 2 meters and one meter,
respectively, of land deposited along their properties? Explain.

Civil Law Review, S.Y. 2019-2020, 1st Semester

Jennoh H. Tequillo
8. Oscar, owner of Lot A, learning that Japanese soldiers may have buried
gold and other treasures at the adjoining vacant Lot B belonging to
Nelson, excavated in Lot B where he succeeded in unearthing gold and
precious stones. How will the treasures found by Oscar be divided?
Explain.
9. XYZ, the subdivision management decided to widen its subdivision road.
In doing so, it encroached upon the property Mr. A, one of the subdivision
land owners. The value of the land when it was purchased by Mr. A was
only P50,000. The current fair market value of the land is P500,000. Mr. A
filed a complaint against the subdivision management to recover the value
of this land. (a) Is Mr. A allowed to do so? If Yes, how much should be
reimbursed to him? (b) If instead of a road, the subdivision management
built a building worth P250,000, can Mr. A compel the management to buy
the encroached portion of his land? Explain.

10. In November 2003, Mr. X of the PLDT's Quality Control Division, together
with the operatives of the PNP, conducted an ocular inspection and
discovered that PLDT telephone lines were connected to several pieces of
equipment, the same being unauthorized by PLDT. A search warrant was
then issued against Mr. Y for the crime of theft. According to PLDT, Mr. Y
has made a business out of his illegal connections to PLDT lines and has
engaged in a form of network fraud known as International Simple Resale
– a method of routing and completing international long distance calls
using lines, cables, etc. – which amounts to theft under the Revised Penal
Code. Mr. Y moving for the quashal of the search warrants, countered that
international long distance calls, that us, PLDT's service are not personal
property that can be appropriated and necessarily cannot be subject of
theft thus there was no probable cause for such crime. Can the taking of
international long distance calls be subject of theft?

Thanks,

J.H. Tequillo

Civil Law Review, S.Y. 2019-2020, 1st Semester

Jennoh H. Tequillo