Real vs. Personal Property (1997)

Pedro is the registered owner of a parcel of land situated in Malolos, Bulacan. In 1973, he mortgaged the land to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) to secure a loan of P100.000.00. For Pedro's failure to pay the loan, the PNB foreclosed on the mortgage in 1980, and the land was sold at public auction to PNB for being the highest bidder. PNB secured title thereto in 1987. In the meanwhile, Pedro, who was still in possession of the land, constructed a warehouse on the property. In 1988, the PNB sold the land to Pablo, the Deed of Sale was amended in 1989 to include the warehouse. Pedro, claiming ownership of the warehouse, files a complaint to annul the amended Deed of Sale before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, where he resides, against both the PNB and Pablo. The PNB filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for improper venue contending that the warehouse is real property under Article 415(1) of the Civil Code and therefore the action should have instead been filed in Malolos, Bulacan. Pedro claims otherwise. The question arose as to whether the warehouse should be considered as real or as personal property.

If consulted, what would your legal advice be? latter vacate the premises and deliver the same to the

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The warehouse which is a construction adhered to the soil is an immovable by nature under Art. 415 (1) and the proper venue of any case to recover ownership of the same, which is what the purpose of the complaint to annul the amended Deed of Sale amounts to, should be the place where the property is located, or the RTC of Bulacan.

Usufruct (1997)

On 1 January 1980, Minerva, the owner of a building, granted Petronila a usufruct over the property until 01 June 1998 when Manuel, a son of Petronila, would have reached his 30th birthday. Manuel, however, died on 1 June 1990 when he was only 26 years old. Minerva notified Petronila that the usufruct had been extinguished by the death of Manuel and demanded that the former. Petronila refused to vacate the place on the ground that the usufruct in her favor would expire only on 1 June 1998 when Manuel would have reached his 30th birthday and that the death of Manuel before his 30th birthday did not extinguish the usufruct. Whose contention should be accepted?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Petronila's contention is correct. Under Article 606 of the Civil Code, a usufruct granted for the time that may elapse before a third person reaches a certain age shall subsist for the number of years specified even if the third person should die unless there is an express stipulation in the contract that states otherwise. In the case at bar, there is no express stipulation that the consideration for the usufruct is the existence of Petronila's son. Thus, the general rule and not the exception should apply in this case.

Quieting of Title (2011)

(6) Which of the following is an indispensable requirement in an action for "quieting of title" involving real property? The plaintiff must

(A) be in actual possession of the property.

(B) be the registered owner of the property.

(C) have legal or equitable title to the property.

(D) be the beneficial owner of the property.

Absentee (2011)

(17) When can a missing person who left someone to administer his property be declared an absentee by the court? When he has been missing for

(A) 2 years from the receipt of the last news about him.

(B) 7 years from the receipt of the last news about him.

(C) 10 years from the receipt of the last news about him.

(D) 5 years from the receipt of the last news about him.

Usufruct (2011)

(39) X, the owner, constituted a 10-year usufruct on his land as well as on the building standing on it in Ys favor. After flood totally destroyed the building 5 years later, X told Y that an act of God terminated the usufruct and that he should vacate the land. Is X, the owner of the land, correct?

(A) No, since the building was destroyed through no fault of Y.

(B) No, since Y still has the right to use the land and the materials left on it.

(C) Yes, since Y cannot use the land without the building.

(D) Yes, since the destruction of the building without the Xs fault terminated the usufruct.

Use of Property(2011)

(83) The owner of a thing cannot use it in a way that will injure the right of a third person. Thus, every building or land is subject to the easement which prohibits its proprietor or possessor from committing nuisance like noise, jarring, offensive odor, and smoke. This principle is known as

(A) Jus vindicandi.

(B) Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas.

(C) Jus dispondendi.

(D) Jus abutendi.

Prescriptive Period of Reconveyance (2011)

(94) An action for reconveyance of a registered piece of land may be brought against the owner appearing on the title based on a claim that the latter merely holds such title in trust for the plaintiff. The action prescribes, however, within 10 years from the registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate of title of the property as long as the trust had not been repudiated. What is the exception to this 10-year prescriptive period?

(A) When the plaintiff had no notice of the deed or the issuance of the certificate of title.

(B) When the title holder concealed the matter from the plaintiff.

(C) When fortuitous circumstances prevented the plaintiff from filing the case sooner.

(D) When the plaintiff is in possession of the property.