You are on page 1of 8

Property; Easement; Nuisance; Abatement (2002)

Lauro owns an agricultural land planted mostly with fruit trees. Hernando owns
an adjacent land devoted to his piggery business, which is two (2) meters higher
in elevation. Although Hernando has constructed a waste disposal lagoon for his
piggery, it is inadequate to contain the waste water containing pig manure, and it
often overflows and inundates Lauros plantation. This has increased the acidity
of the soil in the plantation, causing the trees to wither and die. Lauro sues for
damages caused to his plantation. Hernando invokes his right to the benefit of a
natural easement in favor of his higher estate, which imposes upon the lower
estate of Lauro the obligation to receive the waters descending from the higher
estate. Is Hernando correct? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Hernando is wrong. It is true that Lauros land is burdened with the natural
easement to accept or receive the water which naturally and without interruption
of man descends from a higher estate to a lower estate. However, Hernando has
constructed a waste disposal lagoon for his piggery and it is this waste water that
flows downward to Lauros land. Hernando has, thus, interrupted the flow of
water and has created and is maintaining a nuisance. Under Act. 697 NCC,
abatement of a nuisance does not preclude recovery of damages by Lauro even
for the past existence of a nuisance.
The claim for damages may also be premised in Art. 2191to time. As Tomas'
business grows, the need for use of (4) NCC.
ANOTHER ANSWER: Hernando is not correct. Article 637 of the New Civil Code
provides that the owner of the higher estate cannot make works which will
increase the burden on the servient estate. (Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. CA,
330 SCRA 145 [2000]). The owner of the higher estate may be compelled to pay
damages to the owner of the lower estate.

Ownership; Co-Ownership; Prescription (2002)


Senen and Peter are brothers. Senen migrated to Canada early while still a
teenager. Peter stayed in Bulacan to take care of their widowed mother and
continued to work on the Family farm even after her death. Returning to the
country some thirty years after he had left, Senen seeks a partition of the farm to
get his share as the only co-heir of Peter. Peter interposes his opposition,
contending that acquisitive prescription has already set in and that estoppel lies
to bar the action for partition, citing his continuous possession of the property for
at least 10 years, for almost 30 years in fact. It is undisputed that Peter has never
openly claimed sole ownership of the property. If he ever had the intention to do
so, Senen was completely ignorant of it. Will Senens action prosper? Explain.
(5%).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Senens action will prosper. Article 494 of the New Civil Code provides that no
prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or
co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the coownership nor
notified Senen of his having repudiated the same.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Senens action will prosper. This is a case of implied trust. (Art 1441, NCC) For
purposes of prescription under the concept of an owner (Art. 540, NCC). There is
no such concept here. Peter was a co-owner, he never claimed sole ownership of
the property. He is therefore estopped under Art. 1431, NCC.

Ownership; Co-Ownership; Redemption (2002)


Antonio, Bart, and Carlos are brothers. They purchased from their parents
specific portions of a parcel of land as evidenced by three separates deeds of
sale, each deed referring to a particular lot in meter and bounds. When the deeds
were presented for registration, the Register of Deeds could not issue separate
certificates of Title had to be issued, therefore, in the names of three brothers as
co-owners of the entire property. The situation has not changed up to now, but
each of the brothers has been receiving rentals exclusively from the lot actually
purchased by him. Antonio sells his lot to a third person, with notice to his
brothers. To enable the buyer to secure a new title in his name, the deed of sale
was made to refer to undivided interest in the property of the seller (Antonio),
with the metes and bounds of the lot sold being stated. Bart and Carlos reacted
by signifying their exercise of their right of redemption as co owners. Antonio in
his behalf and in behalf of his buyer, contends that they are no longer co-owners,
although the title covering the property has remained in their names as such.
May Bart and Carlos still redeem the lot sold by Antonio? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, they may not redeem because there was no Coownership among Antonio,
Bart, and Carlos to start with. Their parents already partitioned the land in selling
separate portions to them. The situation is the same as in the case Si v. Court of
Appeals, (342 SCRA 653 [2000]).

Property, Buyer in Bad Faith (2002)


Sancho and Pacifico are co-owners of a parcel of land. Sancho sold the property
to Bart. Pacifico sued Sancho and Bart for annulment of the sale and
reconveyance of the property based on the fact that the sale included his one
half pro-indiviso share. Pacifico had a notice of lis pendens annotated on the title
covering the property. After trial, the court declared Bart the owner of the property
and ordered the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens. The notice of lis
pendens could not be cancelled immediately because the title over the property
was with a bank to which the property had been mortgaged by Bart. Pacifico
appealed the case. While the appeal was pending and with the notice of lis
pendens still uncancelled, Bart sold the property to Carlos, who immediately
caused the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens, as well as the issuance of a
new title in his name.
Is Carlos a) a purchaser in good faith, or b) a transferee pendente lite? If your
answer is a) how can the right of Pacifico as co-owner be protected? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Carlos is a buyer in bad faith. The notice of the lis pendens was still annotated
at the back of the title at the time he both the land from Bart. The uncancelled
notice of lis pendens operates as constructive notice of its contents as well as
interests, legal or equitable included therein. All persons are charged with the
knowledge of what it contains.
In an earlier case, it was held that a notice of an adverse claim remains
effective and binding notwithstanding the lapse of the 30 days from its inscription
in the registry. This ruling is even more applicable in a lis pendens.
Carlo, is a transferee pendente lite insofar as Sanchos share in the coownership in the land is concerned because the land was transferred to him
during the pendency of the appeal .
A. Pacifico can protect his right as a co-owner by pursuing his appeal; asking the
Court of Appeals to order the re-annotation of the lis pendens on the title of
Carlos; and by invoking his right of redemption of Barts share under article 1620
of the NCC.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A. Carlos is a purchaser in good faith. A possessor in good faith has been
defined as one who is unaware that there exists a flaw which invalidates the
acquisition of the thing (Article 526, NCC). Good faith consists in the
possessors belief that the person from whom he received the thing was the

owner of the same and could convey his title. In the case, in question, while
Carlos bought the subject property from Bart while a notice of lis pendens was
still annotated thereon, there was also an existing court order cancelling the
same. Hence, Carlos cannot be considered as being aware of a flaw, the notice
of lis pendens, was already being ordered cancelled at the time of the purchase.
On this ground alone, Carlos can already be considered a buyer in good faith.
B. To protect his right over the subject property, Pacifico should have timely filed
am action for reconveyance and reinstated the notice of lis pendens.

Property; co-ownership vs. partnership (1988) No. 2


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.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. Co-ownership is distinguished from an ordinary partnership in the following
ways:
1. As to creation; co-ownership may be created by law, contract, succession,
fortuitous event or occupancy, partnership is always created by contract
2. As to purpose: the purpose of co-ownership is the common enjoyment of
the thing or right owned in common, the purpose of partnership is to obtain
profits.
3. As to personality; co-ownership has no juridical personality which is
separate and distinct from that of the owners, a partnership has.
b. Lease of personal property is a mere act of 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 co-owners, since under the
law, a special power of attorney is required (Article 1647, CC)
2. If the lease is not recorded in the Registry of Property, but the
duration thereof is more than one year, it is also an act of
ownership, and therefore, requires the unanimous consent of all coowners since again under the law a special power of attorney is
required (Article 1878 No. 8, CC)
3. If the lease, however, is 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.

Property; Easements; Light and View; (1988)


Question No. 3:
(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?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. Continuous and apparent easements are acquired by virtue of a tile or by
prescription of 10 years (Article 620, CC), while continuous non-apparent
easements and discontinuous easements whether apparent or non-apparent can
only be acquired by virtue of a tile (Aricle 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 (Article 621, CC)
c. 1. Adelaida has not acquired an easement of light and view by prescription
after 10 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 be 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 does not give
rise to prescription.

2. The action will not prosper because more than 10 years has already elapsed
from the time of the opening of the windows, Bernies right 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.

You might also like