Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 318 views

    Items 7&8 2016 Civil BarQs

    Uploaded by

    Frances May Realino
    The document discusses two legal cases. The first case involves a riparian landowner claiming ownership over an alluvial deposit, but the court found that the deposit did not become registered land and the other party had possessed it for over 30 years acquiring ownership through extraordinary prescription. The second case involves land that was forcibly transferred through deception, and the original owners seek to reclaim the land after many years away, but laches and prescription are not valid defenses given the land's registered status.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Items 7&8 2016 Civil BarQs

    Uploaded by

    Frances May Realino
    318 views2 pages
    The document discusses two legal cases. The first case involves a riparian landowner claiming ownership over an alluvial deposit, but the court found that the deposit did not become registered land and the other party had possessed it for over 30 years acquiring ownership through extraordinary prescription. The second case involves land that was forcibly transferred through deception, and the original owners seek to reclaim the land after many years away, but laches and prescription are not valid defenses given the land's registered status.

    Original Description:

    2016 Civil Law Bar questions items 7 and 8

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses two legal cases. The first case involves a riparian landowner claiming ownership over an alluvial deposit, but the court found that the deposit did not become registered land and the other party had possessed it for over 30 years acquiring ownership through extraordinary prescription. The second case involves land that was forcibly transferred through deception, and the original owners seek to reclaim the land after many years away, but laches and prescription are not valid defenses given the land's registered status.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    318 views2 pages

    Items 7&8 2016 Civil BarQs

    Uploaded by

    Frances May Realino
    The document discusses two legal cases. The first case involves a riparian landowner claiming ownership over an alluvial deposit, but the court found that the deposit did not become registered land and the other party had possessed it for over 30 years acquiring ownership through extraordinary prescription. The second case involves land that was forcibly transferred through deception, and the original owners seek to reclaim the land after many years away, but laches and prescription are not valid defenses given the land's registered status.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    VII

    Benjamin is the owner of a titled lot which is bounded on the north by the
    Maragondon River. An alluvial deposit of two (2) hectares was added to the
    registered area. Daniel took possession of the portion formed by accretion and
    claims that he has been in open, continuous and undisturbed possession of said
    portion since 1923 as shown by a tax declaration. In 1958, Benjamin filed a
    Complaint for Quieting of Title and contends that the alluvium belongs to him as the
    riparian owner and that since the alluvium is, by law, part and parcel of the
    registered property, the same may be considered as registered property. Decide the
    case and explain. (5%)

    Benjamins action shall not prosper.

    In Grande vs CA (115 Phil 521), the Supreme Court held that the
    accretion does not automatically become registered land just because the
    land which receives it is covered by a Torrens Title thereby withdrawing
    the alluvial property from the scope and purview of our rules with respect
    to prescription acquisitiva. Ownership of a piece of land is one thing;
    registration under the Torrens system of that land is one thing;
    registration under the Torrens system of land is quite another.

    In this case, Benjamin never sought registration of the alluvial


    property. The increment therefore, never became registered property.
    Hence the right which Benjamin acquired by virtue of Article 457 of the
    NCC is not entitled to the protection of imprescriptibility. It was therefore
    possible for Daniel to become the absolute owner of the alluvial deposit by
    extraordinary prescription. Since obviously he was in bad faith, at least 30
    years of continuous, public and open possession in the concept of an
    owner would be necessary in order that he shall become the absolute
    owner of the accretion by prescription. Here, he took possession of the
    property in 1923; the action of Benjamin to quiet title was filed in 1958.
    That means Daniel has been in continuous possession for 35 years, hence
    he has better right over the property by virtue of extraordinary
    prescription.

    VIII

    Joven and Juliana are the owners of a 30-hectare plantation in Cotabato, covered by
    a title. One day, a group of armed men forcibly entered their house and, at gun
    point, forced them to sign a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Romeo. Romeo got the
    title from them and they were ejected from the house and threatened not to come
    back or else they will be killed. The spouses went to Manila and resided there for
    more than 35 years. They never went back to Cotabato for fear of their lives. Word
    came to them that peace and order have been restored in their former place of
    residence and they decided to reclaim their land for the benefit of their
    grandchildren. Joven and Juliana filed a suit for reconveyance of their property. This
    was opposed by the grandson of Romeo to whom the title was eventually
    transferred, on the ground of laches and prescription. Decide the case and rule on
    the defenses of laches and prescription. Explain your answer. (5%)

    The defenses of laches and prescription are untenable.

    In the case of Spouses Ocampo vs Heirs of Dionisio, GR No. 191101


    October 1, 2014 the Supreme Court held that prescription and laches can
    not apply to registered land covered by the Torrens system" because
    "under the Property Registration Decree, no title to registered land in
    derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by
    prescription or adverse possession.

    Thus, as owners of the subject property, Joven and Juliana have the
    right to recover the possession thereof from any person illegally
    occupying their property. This right is imprescriptible. Assuming arguendo
    that the respondents indeed have been occupying the subject property for
    a considerable length of time, the respondents, as lawful owners, have the
    right to demand the return of their property at any time as long as the
    possession was unauthorized.

    You might also like