property reviewer-1

ANSWER KEY. FINALS SAMPLEX

PROPERTY REVIEWER- Atty. Dechavez

DISCLAIMER: WE MADE USE OF A SUPER OLD SAMPLEX

QUESTION NO. 1

For José to acquire an easement of right of way, it is imperative that the following requisite concur that the land is surrounded by other immovables; that there is no outlet to the nearest public highway; that such isolation was not due to his fault; that such way is the shortest route to the highway; there is payment and proper indemnity; it causes least damage or prejudice.

Jose did not acquire an easement of right of way. First, it states that it is very convenient for jose, what the law provides is the necessity and not the convenience. Second, easement of right of way, generally, cannot be acquired through prescription. Moreover, there was no payment of indemnity by jose to juan. It has not been proven that such conditions were present so as to allow jose to obtain the easement of right of way.

QUESTION NO. 2

Possession may be in the concept of an owner or a holder. In the given case, it may be seen that cipriano and felibon are in the possession of the land.

Felibon, though not staying there and a mere kasama, he is deemed in possession of the property as a mere holder in the name of another because he is only hired by cipriano to cultivate the land. Hence, he may be deemed as an agent of the alleged owner.

On the other hand, Cipriano is a possessor in his own name because he is a sublessor or has the right to possess the same. Such right arose from the sublease contract between him and teofilo.

QUESTION NO. 3

Mere possession of an immovable is a presumption of his right of ownership. However, when an immovable is lost or the owner is unlawfully deprived thereof, the owner may ask for the return of the object lost, even if the possessor obtained it in good faith, unless such object is acquired in a public sale, then there is a need for a reimbursement prior to the return of the object who is in actual possession thereof.

In the given case, Roberto, through purchased the thing in good faith, is obliged to return the diamond ring to rosauro, if he cannot prove that he purchased it in a public sale, merchant store, or through orders under register and mortgage laws. If he can prove that he obtained such ring through such modes, reimbursement is necessary on the part of rosauro before the former may return such ring.

QUESTION NO. 4

Law as a mode of acquiring ownership means that a person acquires or obtain ownership on the ground that it is stated as provided for in the law itself. If the law provides that a person shall acquire ownership if such requisite as provided in the

EXCLUSIVE FOR: LEAGUE OF LADY BARRISTERS and ALPHA PHI BETA-SAN BEDA LAW


law are followed, then such person ipso facto becomes the owner of such objet by the operation of the law.

An instance wherein ownership is acquired by operation of law is when a person finds a hidden treasure thereby acquiring ownership thereof.

Another instance is when a person found an object without a known owner after 6 months from depositing it in the custody of the mayor which the latter publishes the lost goods for two weeks.

Lastly, is when a riparian owner acquires the land when the bank is abandoned due to the sudden change of the river.

QUESTION NO. 5

It depends. A donation is an act of liberality whereby one person, gratuitously gives to another a thing or right in favor of the latter. It is provided under the civil code that acceptance is an element of donation, in the given case Ding did not expressly responded to the donation of dina. Moreover if the sum of money dina received from tina is more than P 5ooo, the donation of rina should be in writing, otherwise it is void. In the given case, there was no indication of the amount or that donation was given in an instrument and accepted in the same instrument and accepted in the same instrument or in another instrument to perfect the act of donation.

On the other hand, if the donation or some of money received from tina is less than P5ooo, the donation need not be in writing so as to give effect to the validity or formalities of donation.

QUESTION NO. 6

As a usufructuary, one is obliged to take care of the object of the usufruct as a good father of a family. Moreover, he is obliged to pay the damages, taxes or more liens or the fruits of the usufructuary. On the other hand, the owner is obliged to settle the actual or taxes imposed on the property.

In the given case, norma did not take care of the usufruct and shall be liable for its loss if it is proven that it is due to her fault or negligence. The absence of the diligence of the good father of the family on her part would give rise to an action or liability. Moreover, it is her duty to pay the taxes, liens or the fruits as provided for in the civil code.

As a usufructuary, she is also obliged to notify norma of the extraordinary repairs that is needed to be addressed immediately by the owner.

Norma is also tasked to inform Normita if she acquires knowledge of acts or plans of third persons that may prejudice the usufruct. Moreover, she is obliged to use the usufruct in the manner by which it is intended as agreed upn by the parties and make sure that his actions will not diminish or destroy the usufruct due to is negligence or fault.

Since there was no insurance on the lost building, the usufruct on the land shall continue and the usufructuary may use the materials from the land.

QUESTION NO. 7



As provided in the civil code, nuisance is an act or omission, business, establishment, or any kind of property which endures or endangers persons or property; annoys or offends the senses; obstruct the use or passage of any street or body of water; hinders the use of any property; insults the decency or morals.

In the given case, Hondo kim may not claim damages against maria for being a nuisance because the law provides for insatances where nuisance may arise and the act of maria is not included in such acts. Moreover, nuisance cannot be presumed and must be proven that such alleged nuisance caused the dellure of the volume of the customers. In the instant case, it was not proven. It must be proven that it is injurious.

However, Maria may be liable under art 19 and 20 which provides that every person must in the exercise of his rights or in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith and that every person who willfully acts contrary to law, morals, good customs and public policy may be liable for damages.

QUESTION NO. 8

As provided for in art 624 of the civil code, that when there is an apparent sign in an immovable, and such immovable was subsequently alienated, such apparent sign shall give rise to the right of the subsequent owner, if there is no prohibition to the contrary or stipulations to the effect or if it was removed.

In the given case, Art 624 may be applied. The land of bers was subsequently divided into two, the southern portion with the house with demanding that the northern portion build the land three meters from the boundary line.

However, grace did not prohibit balse prior to the construction, such prohibition must be in a public instrument notarized by a notary public and delivered to blaise. Such act that would give rise grace’s right to prohibit blaise from constructing and raising the defense that she acquired an easement of view was absent, hence blaise may construct his building.

QUESTION NO. 9

(A). The donation to princes is inter vivos. It is effective during the lifetime of the donor and that the ownership thereof is transferred immediately to princess. Otherwise, princess would be constructing a house which is not her property and is prohibited by law.

The statement that it is mortis causa is not binding if the nature of the donation may be deduced by constructing the deed as a whole. It can be construed that ownership or control is transferred immediately because there is stipulation that the done must construct a house within two years from the date of the donation.

(B). The donation in the given case is inter vivos which is based on the services rendered by princess. Such donation is renumeratory wherby it is given due to the previous acts or services rendered by a person to the donor.

(C). In the given case, the donation shall be deemed a modal donation. The condition by which princess will defray some amount for the donor constitutes a modal donation. Moreover it takes effect during the lifetime of the donor, hence it



constitutes a donation inter vivos which is modal in nature. Modal because such donation is given with a burden which is less than the amount of the donation.


property reviewer-1

Documents