Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

Property (Final Exams) Name: ______________________

April 2, 2019
Instructions: DO NOT WRITE ON THE FIRST PAGE as this is reserved for my computations.
READ & ANALYZE THE PROBLEM VERY CAREFULLY before you answer. AVOID
ERASURES. WRITE LEGIBLY.

A. On Possession:
1. Xyrille owns a diamond ring which was stolen from her. The thief sold it to Yasi,
who later sold it Zeena. Xyrille saw the ring in possession of Zeena. Can Xyrille
recover the ring? Why? 5%
Answer:
Yes, Xyrille was unlawfully deprived of the possession of her diamond ring. Article 559 of
the Civil Code provides that the possession of movable property acquired in good
faith is equivalent to a title. Nevertheless, one who has lost any movable or has been
unlawfully deprived thereof, may recover it from the person in possession of the
same. If the possessor of a movable lost or of which the owner has been unlawfully
deprived has acquired it in good faith at a public sale, the owner cannot obtain its
return without reimbursing the price paid therefor. Xyrille can therefore recover
possession of the necklace from zeena without paying anything.

2. If Xyrille is able to recover from Zeena, does Xyrille have to reimburse Zeena for the
amount she paid Yasi? Reason. 5%
Answer:
Xyrille can therefore recover possession of the necklace from zeena without paying
anything. Art. 559 says so. Reimbursement will only be available to the possessor if
the thing was acquired at a public sale.

3. If Xyrille can no longer recover from Zeena, what circumstance or situation must
have happened that Xyrille can no longer recover? 5%
Answer:
Xyrille can no longer recover from Zeena if prescription has set in for 8 years.

4. Suppose Zeena acquired the ring from a public sale, can Xyrille still recover her ring?
Why? 5%
Answer:
Yes Xyrille can still recover but she has to reimburse Zeena for the price of the
ring she acquired at a public sale.

5. Adam purchased a brand new car from car dealer, Brando. Adam paid in checks.
The checks were all dishonored for payment. Can the car dealer, Brando recover the
car on the ground that he was unlawfully deprived of its possession? Reason. 5%
Answer:
No, Brando cannot recover the possession of the car on the ground that he was
unlawfully deprived thereof. What transpired between the parties was one of sale of motor
vehicle and delivery of the car effectively transferred the ownership to the buyer unless the thing
sold shall not pass to the buyer until full payment of the purchase price stipulated to that effect.
Non-payment only creates a right to demand payment or to rescind the contract, or to criminal
prosecution in the case of bouncing checks. But absent the stipulation above noted, delivery of
the thing sold will effectively transfer ownership to the buyer who can in turn transfer it to
another.

6. Mr. Santos has been in possession of a property in bad faith. After his death, his
daughter, Cindy, continued possessing the property. Will the bad faith of Mr. Santos
be also imputed to Cindy? Reason. 5%
Answer:
No Cindy will be presumed to have possessed the property in good faith; unless Cindy
already knew the bad faith of her father, in which case she will also be in bad faith.

7. Land owner Mr. Sy sold his land to Mr. Ty. After the execution of the Deed of
Absolute Sale, Mr. Ty accepted employment abroad. Two years later, realizing Mr.
Ty’s absence from the country, Mr. Sy sold the same land to Mr. Lee, who planted
fruit bearing trees on the property. 10 years later, Mr. Ty retired from work and went
back to the Philippines and discovered Mr. Lee’s possession of the property. He now
seeks recovery of possession of the property. Who between Mr. Ty and Mr. Lee is
the preferred possessor? Reason. 5%
Answer:
Mr. Ty is the preferred possessor. Possession is acquired by the material occupation of a
thing or the exercise of a right, or by the fact that it is subject to the action of our will, or by the
proper acts and legal formalities for acquiring such right and that the execution of a sale thru a
public instrument shall be equivalent to the delivery of the thing, unless there is stipulation to the
contrary. In the case at bar, the execution of a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Mr. Ty was
equivalent to the delivery of the thing; hence from that time on, he had possession of the property.
Hence, the later sale in favor of Mr. Lee failed to pass the possession of the property because there
is an impediment — the possession exercised by Mr. Ty.
Question arising from the fact of possession, the present possessor shall be preferred; if
there are two possessions, the one longer in possession, if the dates of possession are the same, the
one who presents a title; and if these conditions are equal, the thing shall be placed in judicial
deposit pending determination of its possession or ownership through proper proceedings.

B. On Usufruct:
8. X donated a real property to Y, who accepted it with a further condition that X will be
allowed to enjoy the property while he is alive. Is X obliged to make an inventory and
give security? Why? 5%
Answer:
No, X is not obliged to make an inventory or give security because he was the one who
donated the property to Y and therefore as donor thereof and now as a usufructuary, he is not
obliged to make an inventory and security.

9. Barbi was granted usufruct of a car as a medical representative. She changed the mug
wheels to more expensive ones as well as installed a high end stereo system to
enhance the car. After 3 years, she was laid off from work and was ordered to return
the car. She refused unless the expenses for the enhancement of the car will be
reimbursed to her. Is she entitled to reimbursement? Reason. 5%
Answer:
No, Barbi is not entitled to reimbursement of useful or luxurious improvements. He is
NOT entitled to a REFUND. But, he may either: 1.Remove the improvements if no substantial damage to
the property is caused; OR 2.Set-off the improvements against damages for which he may be liable under
Art. 580

10. A, B and C were given the usufruct of a parcel of land by X. A and B died, leaving C
alone. What is the effect of A and B’s death on the usufruct? Explain. 5%
Answer:
The usufruct in favor of C continues until C’s death. Art. 603.

C. On Easement:
11. A and B are owners of a party wall. Suppose A makes an opening on the party wall in
1991, within what period should B close the same? Would your answer be the same if
A opened the window on his own estate? 5%
Answer:
B may close the opening at any time because it was made in the party wall within 10
years. After 10 years, he may no longer close it because A has already acquired prescription No,
my answer would not be the same if A made a window on his own estate and within 2 meters
from the wall, A can increase the height of his own property if there is no notarial prohibition
with notice to him prohibiting him from obstructing the view from A’s estate. Hence, if there is
a formal prohibition, the period of prescription will run within 10 years after which, B may no
longer increase the height of his own property.

12. X was granted a right of way by Y. At the time of the grant, X was using a cart and a
carabao to transport his products from his farm to the market. Ten years after, X
asked for a widening of the easement as he has resorted to the use of a jeep to
transport his product. Can he demand a wider easement? State your basis. 5%
Answer:
Yes, X can demand a wider easement according to the needs of his estate from time to
time for proper indemnity.

13. A’s land is only 164 square meters. B would like to establish an easement of right of
way consisting of 100 square meters. Can B compel A to grant an easement of right of
way? Why? 5%
Answer:
No, to compel A to give B easement of right of way consisting of 100 square meters will
unduly burden his 164 square meter property.

14. Can you consider the Torre de Manila a nuisance per se? Why? 5%
Answer:
No, Torre de Manila is not nuisance per se. It is not a “DIRECT MENACE TO PUBLIC
HEALTH OR SAFETY.” First, Condominium project is a commonplace in the city of Manila. Also DMCI-
PDI was granted permits and clearances prior to starting the project. It had a Height Clearance Permit from
the Civil Aviation Authority, Development Permit from the HLURB, Zoning Certificate from the HLURB,
Environmental Compliance Certificate among others. Knights of Rizal vs. DMCI Homes.

15. The residents near a cold storage and ice plant complained that the smoke emanating
from the plant was injurious to the health and comfort of the people residing nearby.
After investigation, the Municipal Council passed a resolution requiring the ice plant
owner to raise the smokestacks of its plant, otherwise, it would be closed or its
operation suspended, hence, a petition for injunction was filed to prevent the council
from carrying out such resolution. Will the petition prosper? Why? 5%
Answer:
Yes the petition for injunction to stop the Municipal Council from carrying out or
implementing the resolution may be granted. This is so because the business of cold storage or ice
plant is a legitimate business. It is not a nuisance per se. It may also be not a nuisance per accidens
depending on the circumstances and only upon findings of facts by the court.

D. On Donation:
16. There was a donation by the spouses to their children and granddaughter denominated
as “Donation Mortis Causa” stating that it is irrevocable. It had no attestation clause,
and had only two (2) witnesses. The donees accepted the donation. After the death of
one of the donors, the donation was submitted to probate but the RTC ruled it to be a
donation inter vivos due to its irrevocability. The CA, on appeal, ruled it to be one of
mortis causa and since it did not comply with the formalities of a will, it is void. Is the
ruling of the CA correct? Why? 5%
Answer:
No. The designation of the donation as mortis causa is not controlling. Since the
donation is IRREVOCABLE and hence, immediately the donation took effect and the ownership
was immediately transferred, the donation was therefore a donation inter-vivos.

E. On Prescription:
17. Richard gave a car to his girlfriend Cindy but there was no written donation attendant
to it. After 2 years, they broke off and Cindy married Harry. After 2 more years
Richard marries Lucy but thereafter met an accident which caused his death. It was at
this time when Lucy learned about the car given by her husband. Lucy now demands
the return of the car saying there was no written document to prove the donation
hence the donation was ineffective? What defense/s can you think so that Lucy will
not be able to get back the car? 5%
18. Within what period should an action to revive judgment be filed? 5%
19. What is good faith? 5%
20. When is there just title? 5%
Answer:
17. Her acquisition of the car by prescription may be a valid defense. Considering that
she was in possession of the car in good faith and for a title since the car was delivered to her by
her boyfriend, Richard, this may be a valid defense for she had already acquired the ownership of
the car by prescription.
18. Within 10 years. Art. 1144
19. Art. 526. He is deemed a possessor in good faith who is not aware that there exists in
his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it.
Art. 1127. The good faith of the possessor consists in the reasonable belief that the
person from whom he received the thing was the owner thereof and could transmit his
ownership.
20. Art. 1129..There is just title when the adverse claimant came into possession of the
property through one of the modes recognized by law for the acquisition of ownership or other
real rights but the grantor was not the owner or could not transmit any right.
G O O D L U C K !!!

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen