PROPERTY BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS and ANSWERS (1987-1992)

1987 BAR EXAMINATION Question No.1: Fred sold to Juan a parcel of land, belonging to his minor son, Lino, then under his guardianship, without judicial approval. After the sale, Juan immediately took possession of the land, built a house and religiously paid the taxes thereon, Nine years thereafter, Lino, no longer a minor, rented the ground floor of the house built by Juan. Lino paid the rent for the first month, and then stopped paying. Two years thereafter, when pressed for payment of the accrued rent, Lino refused, claiming ownership over the property, alleging that the sale of the property to Juan while he was a minor without approval of the guardianship court rendered the sale null and void. Is the claim of Lino valid and meritorious? Explain.

Question No.2: Miguel, Carlos and Lino are neighbours. Miguel owned a piece of registered land which both Carlos and Lino wanted to buy. Miguel sold the land to Carlos. The sale was not registered upon the request of Miguel. Later on, the same was property was sold by Miguel to Lino. Miguel told Carlos about the second sale. Carlos immediately tried to see Lino to discuss the matter and inform him of the previous sale to him (Carlos) of the same property but Lino refused to see Carlos. Thereupon Carlos annotated in the Registry of Property his adverse claim on the property. A week later, Lino registered the sale on his favour and had a new transfer certificate of title issued in his name. However, the adverse claim of Carlos was duly annotated in the title. Notwithstanding, Lino took possession of the property and built a small bungalow thereon. (a) Who is the rightful owner of the property? Explain. (b) To whom would the bungalow built by Lino on the property belong? Explain

Question No. 3: Rita owned a valuable painting which was stolen from her home. The theft was duly reposted to the authorities a year after. Rita saw the painting hanging in the office of Mario. When queried. Mario said that he bought the painting on a gallery auction. The painting was positively identified as the one stolen from the house of Rita. (a) Could Rita recover the painting? If so, would Mario be entitled to reimbursement of the amount he paid for the painting? Explain. (b) Supposing Mario bought the painting from a friend, would your answer be the same? Explain.

1988 BAR EXAMINATION Question No. 1: (a) Distinguish co-ownership from partnership. (b) Is the lease of the entire community property in co-ownership an act of administration or an act of ownership or alteration? Explain, in relation to the need of consent of the co-owners. (c) Since 1935, Janice possessed alone a parcel of land which she co-owned with Lenny. In 1970, with the knowledge of Leny, Janice obtained a torrens title over the land in her own name alone. On august 1, 1988, Lenny brought an action against Janice for reconveyance of her share. Janice set up the defense of laches. Will the defense prosper? Reasons Question No. 2: (a) How are easements acquired? (b) In acquiring easement by prescription, how shall the period of possession be computed? (c) About fifteen years ago, Adelaida constructed a house on her lot at Quezon City adjoining a lot owned by Bernie. She provided it with several windows overlooking Bernies lot half a meter away from the boundary line. A month ago, Bernie brought an action against Adelaida for the closure of the windows alleging that they violate the law on distances (1) Has Adelaida acquired an easement of light and view by prescription? (2) Will the action of Bernie prosper? (3) If the action will not prosper, will that not be tantamount to saying that Adelaida has already acquired an easement of light and view? Question No. 3: (a) What is mean by law as a mode of acquiring ownership? What are the different instances under the Civil Code whereby there is an acquisition of ownership by operation of law? State at least three. (b) A donated to X a parcel of land in 1975. The donation was made in a public instrument, while the acceptance made by X was embodied in the same public instrument. The Deed of Donation was entitled Donation Inter Vivos. There is however a provision in the ded to the effect that, although the land donated shall be delivered immediately to X upon the perfection of the donation with right to enjoy all of the fruits thereof, title shall pass to the done only upon the donors death. Upon the death of A, his widow and only heir, B, brought an action for the recovery of the property on the ground that the donation is a donation mortis causa and not a donation inter vivos. Will the action prosper? Give your reasons. Question No. 4: (a) 1) Is title to registered land subject to prescription? Explain your answer. 2) How about the right of the registered owner to recover possession, is it equally imprescriptible? Why? 3) What effect has the equitable principle of laches on the imprescriptibility of Torrens Title? Explain. (b) In passing upon the registrability of a document sought to be registered, what formal requisites is the Register of Deeds charged to determine, under his responsibility, whether or not they have been complied with?

1989 BAR EXAMINATION Question No. 1: 1. What is USUFRUCT? How is usufruct extinguished?

Question No. 2: X mortgaged his land to the Philippines National Bank (PNB) to secure a promissory note. He defaulted in the payment of the loan so that the land was sold at public auction on January 30, 1960, for P 3,500 with the PNB as the highest bidder. On January 20, 1970, X offered to redeem the property in the amount if P 3,500. He enclosed a a postal money order for P 1,000 as partial payment and stated that the balance is to be paid in 12 monthly instalments. The PNB then discovered that the sheriffs certificate of the sale prepared after the public auction of the land was not the registered so that it causes the same to be registered on January 30, 1970. The PNB refused the offer of X contending that the offer to redeem was beyond the one-year period provided under Act No. 3135 and that it was not accompanied by an actual and simultaneous tender of the entire repurchase price. In view of the refusal of the PNB, X filed an action to repurchase on February 20, 1970. Will the action prosper? Give your reasons. Question No. 3: May the owner of a building constructed on an unregistered land belonging to another apply for the registration of such building under the Land Registration Act and P.D. 1529? What should he do to protect his rights in case the owner of the land applied for registration thereof? Give your reasons. 1990 BAR EXAMINATION Question No. 1 B donated to M a parcel of land in 1980. B made the deed of donation, entitled Donation Inter Vivos, in a public instrument and M accepted the donation in the same document. It was provided in the deed that the land donated shall be immediately delivered to M and that M shall have the right to enjoy the fruits fully. The deed also provided that B was reserving the right to dispose of said land during his (Bs) lifetime, and that M shall not register the deed of donation until after Bs death. Upon Bs death, W, Bs widow and sole heir, filed an action for the recovery of the donated land, contending that the donation made by B is a donation mortis causa and not a donation inter vivos. Will said action prosper? Explain your answer. Question No. 2 In 1960, an unregistered parcel of land was mortgaged by owner O to M, a family friend, as collateral for a loan. O acted through attorney-in-fact, son S, who was duly authorized by way of a special power of attorney, wherein O declared that he was the absolute owner of the land, that the tax declarations/receipts were all issued in his name, and that he has been in open, continuous, and adverse possession in the concept of owner. As O was unable to pay back the loan plus interest for the past five (5) years, M had to foreclose the mortgage. At the foreclosure sale, M was the highest bidder. Upon issuance of the sheriff`s final deed of sale and registration in January, 1966, the mortgaged property was turned over to M`s possession and control. M has since then developed the said property. In 1967, O died, survived by sons S and P.

In 1977, after the tenth (10th) death anniversary of his father O, son P filed a suit to annul the mortgaged deed and subsequent sale of the property, etc.., on the ground of fraud. He asserted that the property in question was conjugal in nature actually belonging, at the time of the mortgage, to O and his wife, W, whose conjugal share went to their sons (S and P) and to O. a) Is the suit filed by P barred by prescription? Explain your answer. b) After the issuance of the sheriff`s final deed of sale in 1966 in this case, assuming that M applied for registration under the Torrens System and was issued a Torrens Title to the said property in question, would that added fact have any effect on your conclusion? State your reason. Question No. 3 Bruce is the registered owner of a parcel of land with a building thereon and is in peaceful possession thereof. He pays the real estate taxes and collects the rentals there from. Later, Catalino, the only brother of Bruce, filed a petition where he, misrepresenting to be the attorney-in-fact of Bruce and falsely alleging that the certificate of title was lost, succeeded in obtaining a second owner`s duplicate copy of the title and then had the same transferred in his name through a simulated deed of sale in his favor. Catalino then mortgaged the property to Desiderio who had the mortgage annotated on the title. Upon learning of the fraudulent transaction, Bruce filed a complaint Catalino and Desiderio to have the title of Catalino and the mortgage in favor of Desiderio declared null and void. Will the complaint prosper, or will the title of Catalino and the mortgage to Desiderio be sustained? Question No. 4 In 1950`s, the Government acquired a big landed estate in Central Luzon from the registration owner for subdivision into small farms and redistribution of bona fide occupants. F applied to buy the said land in accordance with the guidelines of the implementing agency. Upon full payment of the price in 1957, the corresponding deed of absolute sale was executed in his favor and was registered, and in 1961, a new title was issued in his name. In 1963, F sold the said land to X; and in 1965 X sold it to Y. New titles were successively issued in the names of the said purchasers. In 1977, C filed an action to annul the deeds of sale to F, X and Y and their titles, on the ground that he (C) had been in actual physical possession of the land, and that the sale to F and the subsequent sales should be set aside on the ground of fraud. Upon the motion of defendants, the trial court dismissed the complaint, upholding their defenses of their being innocent purchasers for value, prescription and laches. Plaintiff appealed. (a) Is the said appeal meritorious? Explain your answer. (b) Suppose the government agency concerned joined C in filing in the said action against the defendants, would that change the result of the litigation? Explain.

1991 BAR EXAMINATION Question No. 1. Spouses Michael and Linda donated a 3-hectare residential land to the City of Baguio on the condition that the city government would build thereon a public park with a boxing arena, the construction of which shall commence within six (6) months from the date the parties ratify the donation. The donee accepted the donation and the title to the property was transferred in its name. Five years elapsed but the public park with the boxing arena was never started. Considering the failure of the donee to comply with the condition of the donation, the donorspouses sold the property to Ferdinand who then sued to recover the land from the city government. Will the suit prosper? Question No. 2. Maria Enriquez failed to pay the realty taxes on her unregistered agricultural land located in Magdugo, Toledo City. In 1989, to satisfy the taxes due, the City sold it at the public auction to Juan Miranda, an employee at the Treasurer`s Office of said City, whose bid at P10, 000.00 was the highest. In due time, a final bill of sale was executed in his favor. Maria refused to turn-over the possession of the property to Juan alleging that (1) she had been, in the meantime, granted a free patent and on the basis thereof an Original Certificate of Title was issued to her, and (2) the sale in favor of Juan is void from the beginning in view of the provision in the Administrative Code of 1987 which prohibits officers and employees of the government from purchasing directly or indirectly any property sold by the government for nonpayment of any tax, fee, or other charges. a) Is the sale to Juan valid? If so, what is the effect of the issuance of the Certificate of Title to Maria? b) If the sale is void, may Juan recover the P10, 000.00? If not, why not? c) If the sale is void, did it not nevertheless, operate to divert Maria of her ownership? If it did, who then is the owner of the property?

1992 BAR EXAMINATION Question No. 1 A owns a parcel of residential land worth P500,000.00 unknown to A, a residential house costing P 100,000.00 is built on the entire parcel by B who claims ownership of the land. Answer all the following questions based on the premise that B is a builder in good faith and A is a landowner in good faith. a) May A acquire the house built by B? If so, how? b) If the land increased in value to P500,000.00 by reason of the building of the house thereon, what amount should be paid by A in order to acquire the house from B? c) Assuming that the cost of the house was P90,000.00 and not P100,000.00, may A require B to buy the land? d) If B voluntarily buys the land as desired by A, under what circumstances may A nevertheless be entitled to have the house removed? e) In what situation may a "forced lease" arise between A and B. and what terms and conditions would govern the lease? Give reasons for your answers. Question No. 2 What are the essential requisites or elements for the allowance of the reopening ore review of a decree of registration?

Question No. 3 A owned a parcel of unregistered land located on the Tarlac side of the boundary between Tarlac and Pangasinan. His brother B owned the adjoining parcel of unregistered land on the Pangasinan side. A sold the Tarlace parcel to X in a deed of sale executed as a public instrument by A and X. After X paid in full the price of the sale, X took possession of the Pangasinan parcel in the belief that it was the Tarlace parcel covered by the deed of sale executed by A and X. After twelve (12) years, a controversy arose between b and X on the issue of the ownership of the Pangasinan parcel. B claims a vested right of ownership over the Pangasinan parcel because B never sold that parcel to X or to anyone else. On the other hand, X claims a vested right of ownership over the Pangasinan parcel by acquisitive prescription, because X possessed this parcel for over ten (10) years under claim of ownership. Decide on these claims, giving your reasons.

1987 BAR EXAMINATION ANSWER KEY Answer No. 1: No, Linos claim is not valid and not meritorious because Lino is in estoppels. A lessee cannot assail the right and title of the lessor and cannot claim ownership as against the lessor. The fact that the sale was made while Lino was a minor is of no moment because he recognized and ratified the contract after he was already of majority age. Alternative Answer No. 1: No, Linos claim is not valid and not meritorious because Juan has already become the owner of the land by ordinary acquisitive prescription through adverse possession of the land for over ten (10) years. Alternative Answer No. 2: No, Linos claim is not valid and not meritorious. Lino can no longer recover the land because of laches.

Answer No. 2: a. In double sales, under Article 1544, the land sold belongs to the first registrant in good faith. If none it belongs to the person with the oldest title, provided there is good faith. Carlos, who has the oldest title, is therefore the rightful owner of the property, because there was no registration in good faith by Lino. b. The bungalow built by Lino belongs to Carlos. Lino is a builder in bad faith. Article 449 provides that he who builds in bad faith on the land of another loses what is built without right to indemnity.

Answer No.3: a. Yes, Rita could recover the painting, but Mario is not entitled to reimbursement because a gallery auction is a public sale. b. Yes, insofar as recovery of the painting is concerned Rita can recover it. No, as regard reimbursement, because the painting was not bought at a public sale as provided under Article 559 of the Civil Code. Mario is entitled to reimbursement.

1988 BAR EXAMINATION ANSWER KEY Answer No. 1: Co-ownership is distinguished from an ordinary partnership in the following ways: (1) As to creation: Whereas co-ownership may be created by law, contract, succession, fortuitous event or occupancy, partnership is always created by contract. (2)As to purpose: Whereas the purpose of co-ownership is the common enjoyment of the thing or right owned in common, the purpose of a partnership is to obtain profits. (3) As to personality: Whereas a co-ownership has no juridical personality which is separate and distinct from that of the owners, a partnership has. (4) As to duration: Whereas an agreement not to divide the community property for more than 10 years is not allowed by law, such an agreement would be perfectly valid in the case of partnerships. (5) As to power of members: Whereas a co-ownership, unless there is an agreement to that effect, a partner has the power to represent the partnership, unless there is stipulation to the contrary. (6) As to effect of disposition of shares: If a co-owner transfers his share to a third person, the latter becomes automatically a co-owner, but if a partner transfers his share to a third person, the latter does not become a partner, unless agreed upon by all of the partners. (7) As to division of profits: Whereas in co-ownership the division of the benefits and charges is fixed by law, in a partnership the division of profits and losses may be subject to the agreement of the partners. (8) As to effect of death: Whereas the death if a co-owner has the effect upon the existence of a coownership, the death of a partner shall result in the dissolution of the partnership. (b) Lease of personal property is a mere act if administration, and, therefore, requires the resolution of the majority of the co-owners. However, lease of real property may be an act of administration or an act of alteration depending upon the circumstances of each particular case. (1) If the lease is recorded in the Registry of Property, whatever may be the duration thereof, it is an act of ownership, and therefore, requires the unanimous consent of all the co-owners, since under the unanimous consent if all the co-owners, since under the law, a special power of attorney is required. (3) If the lease, however, i not recorded in the Registry of Property and the duration thereof is only one year or less, it is an act of administration and therefore, merely requires the resolution of the majority of the co-owners. (c) It is submitted that the defense of laches will prosper. As held by the Supreme Court in several notable decisions, in order that the doctrine of laches or stale demands can be applied, the following elements must concur: (1) Conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation of which complaint seeks a remedy; (2) delay in asserting the complainants rights, the complainant having had knowledge or notice, of the defendants conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to institute a suit (3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which he bases the suit; (4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief if accorded to the complainant, or the suit is not held to be barred ( Miguel vs. Catalino, 26 SCRA 234). All of these elements are present in the instant case. As a matter of fact, the doctrine was applied to a case wherein a co-heir and another were able, through fraud. To register a tract of land in their names. According to the Supreme Court, the action for reconveyance brought by the other co-heirs more than twenty year later is now barred not by extinctive prescription but also by laches. (Fabian vs. Fabian, 22 SCRA 231)

Answer No. 2: (a) Continuous and apparent easements are acquired either by virtue of title or by prescription of ten year ( At. 620 , CC), while continuous non apparent easements and discontinuous easements whether apparent or non apparent, can only be acquired by virtue of a title (Art. 622, CC) (b) In order that an easement may be acquired by prescription, the time of possession shall be computed thus: In positive easements, from the day on which the owner of the dominant estate, or the person who may have made use of the easement, commenced to exercise it upon the servient estate; and in negative easements, from the day on which the owner of the dominant estate forbade, by an instrument acknowledged before a notary public, the owner of the servient estate, from executing an act which would be lawful without the easement. (Art. 621, CC). (c) (1) Adelaida has not acquired an easement of light and view by prescription after ten years. There are two reasons for this. In the first place, there was no formal prohibition as required by law. This should have been done by means of an instrument acknowledged before a notary public wherein she should have prohibited Bernie from obstructing his light and view. She did not. In the second place, she did not observe the legal requirement that there should eb a distance of at least two meters between the windows and Bernies lot, since the view is direct. According to the Civil Code, non-observance of this distance foe not gives rise to prescription. (2) The action will not prosper because more than ten years has already elapsed from the time of the opening of the windows. Bernies rights of action has already prescribed. (3) This is not tantamount to saying that Adelaida has already acquired an easement of light and view. Under the Civil Code, nobody can prevent Bernie from obstructing Adelaidas light and view by constructing a building on his lot or by raising a wall thereon contiguous to the windows of Adelaida. Answer No. 3: (A) When the Civil code speaks of law as a distinct mode of acquiring ownership, it refers to those instances where the law, independently of the other modes of acquiring ownership, automatically and directly vests the ownership of the thing in a certain individual once the prescribed requisites or conditions are present of complied with. Examples of this are: (1) Land which belongs exclusively to either of the spouses where a building is constructed with conjugal funds. Here, the ownership of the land is vested automatically in the conjugal partnership one the condition that its value has been reimbursed to the owner has been complied with ( Art. 158, par. 2, CC) (2) Hidden treasure which a stranger discovers by chance on anothers property. Here, one half of the treasure belongs by right of occupation to the stranger, while the other half belongs by operation of law to the proprietor. ( Art. 438, par. 2, CC) (3) Abandoned beds, when a river or stream suddenly changes its course to traverse private lands. The former owners of the new bed shall be the owners of the abandoned bed in proportion to the area lost by each. (Art. 58, P.D. No. 1067) (4) Fruits neutrally falling from a tree upon adjacent land. Here, the ownership of the fruits is vested automatically in the owner of the adjacent land.( Art. 681, CC). (B) Yes, the action will prosper. In Bonsato vs. Court of Appeals, and Howard vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court declared that in order that a donation will be considered a disposition post mortem, it should reveal any or all of the following characteristics:

(1) Convey no title or ownership to the transferee before the death of the transferor; or, what amount to the same thing, that the transferor should retain the ownership, full or naked, and control the property while alive; (2) That before his death the transfer should be revocable by the transferor at will, ad nutum; but revocability may be provided for indirectly by means of a reserved power in the donor to dispose of the property conveyed; (3) That the transfer should be void if the transferor should survive the transferee. It is clear from the facts stated in the problem that the donation reveals the first characteristics. Hence, it is a disposition, post mortem. Therefore, in order that the donation can take effect it is essential that it must be made in a will executed in accordance with all of the formalities prescribed by law (Art. 728, CC). Since this requisite has not been complied with, the donation in the instant case is void or inexistent. Committees Recommendation Re: No. 4 (a) and (b) (a) It is recommended that the following be likewise considered as instances whereby there is acquisition of ownership by operation of law: (1) The acquisition of property in co-ownership under a marriage governed by the absolute community regime. (2) Estoppel under article 1434 of the Civil Code which provides that: When a person who is not the owner of a thing sells or alienates and delivers it, and later the seller or grantor acquires title thereto, such title passes by operation of law to the buyer or grantee; and (3) Registration of land under Act 496 where the applicant is not the real owner. (b) It is recommended that the mention of the first characteristic of the three mentioned above, should merit a full credit for this question. Answer No. 4: (a) 1) No because under Section 47, P.D. 1529, no title to registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. A similar provision is found in the Civil Code. The reason is that once a piece of land is registered under the Torrens System, it operates as a notice to the whole world. All persons are bound by it. No one can please ignorance of the registration. (2) The right to recover the land from another person holding it is equally imprescriptible, the reason being that possession is a mere consequence of ownership. (3) While Torrens Title is imprescriptible, under certain exceptional circumstances, it may yield to the equitable principle of laches. In other words, certain circumstances such as inaction or utter neglect on the part of the owner and the intervention of rights by third paties may, for reasons of equity, convert the claim of imprescriptibility into a stale demand. (Meijia vs. Gamponia, 100 Phil. 277; Miguel vs. Catalino, G.R. L-23072, Nov. 29, 1968; Heirs of Batiog Lacamen vs. Heirs of Laruan, G.R. L-27058, July 31, 1985).

(b) To be registrable, a voluntary document affecting registered land must be sufficient in law. (Section 51, P.D. 1529) Sufficiency refers to both substance and form. As to form, it is the RODs responsibility to check such items as the full name and signature of vendor or grantor, the marital consent of the wife if the land sold is conjugal, the full name, nationality, the civil status, the name of spouse, if married, the resident and postal address of the grantee. If the grantee is a corporation, the deed must be accompanied with the Articled of Incorporation, a board resolution authorizing the corporation to buy and another resolution of the board naming the corporate officer authorized to execute and sign the contract. This is to to mention the proper observance of the requirements in the acknowledgement portion of the deed.

1989 BAR EXAMINATION ANSWER KEY Answer No.1: Usufruct gives a right to enjoy the property of another with the obligation of preserving its form and substance, unless the title constituting it or the law otherwise provides. Usufruct is extinguished: 1) By the death of the usufructuary, unless a contrary intention clearly appears; 2) By the expiration of the period for which it was constituted, or by the fulfillment of any resolutory condition provided in the title creating the usufruct; 3) By merger of the usufruct and ownership in the same person; 4) By renunciation of the usufructuary; 5) By the total loss of the thing in usufruct; 6) By the termination of the right of the person constituting the usufruct; 7) By prescription. Recommendation of the Committee: An enumeration of four (4) should be given full credit. Answer No. 2: Yes, the action will prosper. The one (1) year period of redemption is counted from the registration of the sheriffs certificate of the sale hence the action has not yet prescribed. However, there nee nit be tender of the redemption price because the filing of the judicial action to enforce the right of redemption within the redemption period suffices. (2) Subsequent to the original registration of a parcel of land bordering a river, it area increased by accession. This additional area was not included in the technical description appearing on the Torrens Certificate of Title having been acquired subsequent to the registration proceedings. May such additional area be acquired be acquired by third persons thru prescription? Give your reasons.

Answer No. 2: The Land Registration Law provides that no title in derogation of the registered owner may be acquired by adverse possession or acquisitive prescription. Since the law refers to registered lands, the accession mentioned in this question may be acquired by a third person through adverse possession or acquisitive prescription. Alternative answer: If the accession is manmade, then it cannot be considered as private property. It belongs to the public domain, and, therefore, cannot be acquired by adverse possession or acquisitive possession.

Answer No. 3: The Land Registration Act and PD 1529 apply to registration of land only. It may include the building as an accessory but the building cannot be registered independently o the land because registration contemplated under this Act refers only to ownership of land. The owner of the building should file an opposition or answer o the application for registration and ask the court that right to the building be annotated in the decree and later in the certificate of title. (2) A is the owner of a registered land. The Torrens Title is entrusted to B, his clerk secretary, who forges As signature on a deed of the sale of said land in his B, upon registration. Does B have a valid title over the land? If B sells the property to C, do the latter acquire a valid title over it? Answer No. 3: A forged deed is an absolute nullity and conveys no title but it can be the root of a title. If title to the land has been transferred to a party based upon a forged deed, and later on after the issuance of such title the property is transferred to another who is an innocent purchaser for value, then the latter acquires a valid title.

1990 BAR EXAMINATION KEY Answer No. 1 Yes, the action will prosper. The donation is a donation mortis causa because the reservation is to dispose of all the property donated and, therefore, the donation is revocable at will. Accordingly, the donation requires the execution of a valid will, either notarial or holographic (Arts 755, 728 NCC). Answer No. 2 a) Under Art. 173 of the Civil Code, the action is barred by prescription because the wife had only ten (10) years from the transaction and during the marriage to file a suit for the annulment of the mortgage deed, Alternative Answer to a) First Alternative Answer: a) The mortgage contract executed by O, if at all, is only a voidable contract since it involves a conjugal partnership property. The action to annul the same instituted in 1977, or eleven (11) years after the execution of the sheriff`s final sale, has obviously prescribed because: 1) An action to annul a contract on the ground of fraud must be brought within four (4) years from the date of discovery of the fraud. Since this is in essence an action to recover ownership, it must be reckoned from the date of execution of the contract or from the registration of the alleged fraudulent document with the assessor`s office for the purpose of transferring the tax declaration, this being unregistered land. (Bael v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. L-74423 Jan. 30, 1989 169 SCRA 617) 2) If the action is to be treated as an action to recover ownership of land, it would have prescribed just the same because more than 10 years have already elapsed since the date of the execution of the sale. Second Alternative Answer: a) The action to recover has been barred by acquisitive prescription in favor of M considering that M has possessed the land under a claim of ownership for ten (10) years with a just title. b) If M had secured a Torrens Title to the land, all the more S and P could not recover because if at all their remedies would be: 1) A Petition to Review the Decree of Registration. This can be availed of within one (1) year from the entry thereof, but only upon the basis of actual fraud. There is no showing that M committed actual fraud in securing his title to the land; or 2) An action in personam against M for the reconveyance of the title in their favour. Again, this remedy is available within four (4) years from the date of the discovery of the fraud but not later than ten (10) years from the date of registration of the title in the name of M. Answer No. 3 The complaint for the annulment of Catalino`s Title will prosper. In the first place, the second owner`s copy of the title secured by him from the Land Registration Court is void ad initio, the owner`s copy thereof having never been lost, let alone the fact that said second owner`s copy of the title was fraudulently procured and improvidently issued by the Court.

In the second place, the Transfer Certificate of Title procured by Catalino is equally null and void, it having been issued on the basis of a simulated or forged Deed of Sale. A forged deed is an absolute nullity and conveys no title. The mortgaged in favor of Desiderio is likewise null and void because the mortgagor is not the owner of the mortgaged property. While it may be true that under the Mirror Principle of the Torrens System of Land Registration, a buyer or mortgagee has the right to rely on what appears on the Certificate of Title, and in the absence of anything to excite suspicion, is no obligation to look beyond the certificate and investigate the mortgagor`s title, this rule does not find application in the case at hand because here Catalino`s title suffers from two fatal infirmities namely: 1. The fact that it emanated from a forged deed of a simulated sale; 2. The fact that it was derived from a fraudulently procured or improvidently issued second owner`s copy, the real owner`s copy being still intact and in the possession of the true owner, Bruce. The mortgage to Desiderio should be cancelled without prejudice to his right to go after Catalino and/ or the government for compensation from the assurance fund.

Answer No. 4 (a) The appeal is not meritorious. The trial court ruled correctly in granting defendant`s motion to dismiss for the following reasons: 1) While there is the possibility that F, a former lessee of the land was aware of the fact that C was the bona fide occupant thereof and for this reason his transfer certificate of title may be vulnerable, the transfer of the same land and the issuance of new TCT`s to X and Y who are innocent purchasers for value, renders the latter`s titles indefeasible. A person dealing with the registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title and the law will not in any way oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine the condition of the property in search for any hidden defect or inchoate right which may latter invalidate or diminish his right to the land. This is the mirror principle of the Torrens System. 2) The action to annul the sale was instituted in 1977 or more than ten (10) years from the date of execution thereof in 1957, hence, it has long prescribed. 3) Under Section 45 of Act 496, the entry of a certificate of title shall be regarded as an agreement running with the land, and binding upon the applicant and all his successors in title that the land shall be and always remain registered land. A title under Act 496 is indefeasible and to preserve that character, the title is cleaned anew with every transfer for value. (b) Even if the government joins C, this will not alter the outcome of the case so much because of estoppels as an express provision in Section 45 of Act 496 and Section 31 of PD No. 1529 that the decree of registration and the certificate of title issued in pursuance thereof shall be conclusive upon and against all persons, including the national government and all branches thereof, whether mentioned by name in the application or notice, or not.

1991 BAR EXAMINATION ANSWER KEY Answer No. 1 Ferdinand has no right to recover the land. It is true that the donation was revocable because of breach of the conditions. But until and unless the donation was revoked, it remained valid. Hence, Spouses Michael and Linda had no right to sell the land to Ferdinand. One cannot give what he does not have. What the donors should have done first was to have the donation annulled or revoked. And after that was done, they could validly have disposed of the land in favour of Ferdinand. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER (1): A. Until the contract of donation has been resolved or rescinded under Article 1191 of the Civil Code or revoked under Art. 764 of the Civil Code, the donation stands effective and valid. Accordingly, the sale made by the donor to Ferdinand cannot be said to have conveyed title to Ferdinand, who, thereby, has no cause of action for recovery of the land acting for and in his behalf. B. The donation is onerous, and being onerous, what applies is the law on contracts, and not the law on donation (De Luna us. Abrigo, 81 SCRA 150). Accordingly, the prescriptive period for the filing of such an action would be the ordinary prescriptive period for contacts which may either be six or ten depending upon whether it is verbal or written. The filing of the case five years later is within the prescriptive period and, therefore, the action can prosper, Alternative Answer (2): The law on donation lays down a special prescriptive period in the case of breach of condition, which is four years from non-compliance thereof (Article 764 Civil Code). Since the action has prescribed, the suit will not prosper.

Answer No. 2 a) The sale of the land to Juan is not valid, being contrary to law. Therefore, no transfer of ownership of the land was effected from the delinquent taxpayer to him. The original certificate of title obtained by Maria thru a free patent grant from the Bureau of Lands (Chapter VII, CA 141) is valid but in view of her delinquency, the said title is subject to the right of the City Government to sell the land at public auction. The issuance of the OCT did not exempt the land from tax sales. Section 44 of PD 1529 provides that every registered owner receiving a Certificate of Title shall hold the same free from all encumbrances, subject to certain exemptions. b) Juan may recover because he was not a party to the violation of the law. c) No, the sale did not divest Maria of her title precisely because the sale is void. It is as good as if no sale ever took place. In tax sales, the owner is divested of his land initially upon award and issuance of the Certificate of Sale, and finally after the lapse of the 1 year period from the date of registration, to redeem, upon execution by the treasurer of an instrument sufficient in form and effects to convey the property. Maria remained owner of the land until another tax sale is to be performed in favor of a qualified buyer.

1992 BAR EXAMINATION ANSWER KEY Answer No. 1 At this point in time, X cannot claim the right vested ownership over the Pangasinan parcel by acquisitive prescription. In addition to the requisites common to ordinary and extraordinary acquisitive prescription consisting of uninterrupted, peaceful, public, adverse and actual possession in the concept of owner, ordinary acquisitive prescription for ten (10) years requires (1) possession in good faith and (2) just title. Just title means that the adverse claimant came into possession of the property through one of the modes recognized by law for the acquisition of ownership but the grantor was not the owner or could not transmit any right (Art. 1129, Civil Code). In this case, there is no just title and no mode that can be invoked by X for the acquisition of the Pangasinan parcel. There was no constructive delivery of the Pangasinan parcel because it was not the subject-matter of the deed of sale. Hence, B retains ownership of the Pangasinan parcel of land. Answer No. 2 The essential elements are: 1) that the petitioner has a real or dominical right; 2) that he has been deprived thereof through fraud; 3) that the petition is filed within one (1) year from the issuance of the decree; and 4) that the property has not yet transferred to an innocent purchaser (Rublico vs Orellana 30 SCRA 511; Libudan vs Gil 45 SCRA 17). Optional extended answer: Petition for review of the Decree of Registration. A remedy expressly provided in Section 32 of PD 1529, this remedy has the following elements: a) The petition must be filed by a person claiming dominical or other real rights to the land registered in the name of respondent. b) The registration of the land in the name of respondent was procured by means of actual, (not just constructive) fraud, which must be extrinsic. Fraud is actual if the registration was made through deceit or any other intentional act of downright dishonesty to enrich oneself at the expense of another. It is extrinsic when it is something that was not raised, litigated and passed upon in the main proceedings. c) The petition must be filed within one (1) year from the date of the issuance of the decree. d) Title to the land has not passed to an innocent purchaser for value (Libudan vs Gil 45SCRA27, 1972; Rublico vs Orrelana, 30 SCRA 511, 1969; RP vs CA, GR No. 40402, March 16, 1987).

1. The buyer in good faith of a registered parcel of land does not have to look beyond the Torrens title in search for any hidden defect or inchoate right which may later invalidate or diminish his right to what he purchased (Lopez vs CA GR. 49739, Jan. 20, 1989).

Answer No. 3 At this point in time, X cannot claim the right vested ownership over the Pangasinan parcel by acquisitive prescription. In addition to the requisites common to ordinary and extraordinary acquisitive prescription consisting of uninterrupted, peaceful, public, adverse and actual possession in the concept of owner, ordinary acquisitive prescription for ten (10) years requires (1) possession in good faith and (2) just title. Just title means that the adverse claimant came into possession of the property through one of the modes recognized by law for the acquisition of ownership but the grantor was not the owner or could not transmit any right (Art. 1129, Civil Code). In this case, there is no just title and no mode that can be invoked by X for the acquisition of the Pangasinan parcel. There was no constructive delivery of the Pangasinan parcel because it was not the subject-matter of the deed of sale. Hence, B retains ownership of the Pangasinan parcel of land.

Submitted by:

Noel Sinco Rushell Parcon