UNIVERSITY OF BOHOL

COLLEGE OF LAW
Tagbilaran City

CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1

Midterms – Part 1

1. Distinguish the following concepts: Accession, accretion, alluvion, avulsion.

Answer:
Accession is the right of the owner of a property to own everything which is produced,
incorporated, or attached either naturally or artificially. Example would be the owner of a
cow owns the baby in the womb although it was not yet born.
Accretion is the gradual increase in an adjoined land due to the natural course of the flow
of the water.
Avulsion is the gradual increase of the land of another while the land in which the soil
comes from diminishes in its size.
Alluvion is a gradual increase of land or a river bank due to the action of the water in
which these deposits were not known in which it came from.

2. Believing that a piece of land belonged to him, A erected thereon a building, using
materials belonging to C. B, the owner of the land, was aware of the construction being
made by A, but did not do anything to stop it.

What are the rights of A, B and C with respect to the building and as against each other?
Answer:
A’s right is reimbursement from B of the building he erected minus the materials used
since C owns the materials, as A acted in good faith believing he has the right as owner of
the land.
B’s right is to recover the land as he is the owner of it, but he must reimburse A of the
improvements made by A that was built in good faith.
C's right is reimbursement from A since C owns the materials used in erecting the said
building, or C can ask that the materials used by A that he owns be returned from him for
the reason that A acted in bed faith in using the materials owned by C.

3. Miguel, Carlos and Lino are neighbors. 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 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 to inform him of the previous sale to him (Carlos) of the said
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
favor 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.

To whom would the bungalow built by Lino on the property belong? Explain.
Answer:
The bungalow belongs to Lino as he is the builder of the bungalow and he has also the
claim of ownership of the land in question, although the certificate of transfer has an
annotation of adverse claim by Carlo. However, the ownership of the bungalow may
change in instance that Carlo contests the ownership of the land since Carlo as the first
buyer has also claim of the said land sold by Miguel to hum and Lino.
 -2-

4. Several families had erected their houses on the river bank portion of a lot owned by X.
The construction of the houses was with the knowledge and consent of X. The latter did
not collect rentals. About five years later, X being in need of the lot, demanded that the
families vacate. The latter refused contending that they were not squatters considering that
X had allowed their occupation and, therefore estopped from ejecting them.

a.) Are the families “squatters”?

Answer:
No. squatters is or are someone who deliberately enters a land property without the
consent of the owner of the land. In this case, as there is knowledge and consent
from X, these several families cannot be called squatter.
b) Do they have a right to continue in the occupation of the land? Explain your answers.
Answer:
No. the owner has the right to enjoy, exclude, to dispose, or destroy his property. In this
case, X has all the right to eject those families occupying the portion of hi property, even
though, X allowed them to build their houses in that said portion of land without payment
of rentals. Thus, these families cannot continue with their occupation of the property of X
since X has all the right of the said property.

5. Spouses A and B are registered owners of lot “1” consisting of 20,000 square meters
while spouses C and D are owners of lot “2”. These lots are separated by a river. For a
period of more than 40 years, the river overflowed its banks yearly and the property of the
spouses C and D gradually received deposits of soil from the effects of the current of the
river so that an alluvial depost of 29,000 square meters was added to their lot, 11,000
square meters of which used to be part of lot “1”. Spouses A and B contend that accretion
should not extend to registered land because to allow the spouses C and D to acquire title
over the accretion will be in derogation of the indefeasibility of the Torrens Title of
spouses A and B. Is this contention correct? Explain.
Answer:
No. Accretion is the gradual increase of an adjoined land in which the other side loses or
the land they possess diminished by the natural flow of the water. In this case, the land
added in the property of C and D were the result of the gradual deposits of soil due to the
natural flow of the water, therefore, there is no derogation of the indefeasibility of the
Torrens Title of spouses A and B.

6. Subsequent to the original registration of a parcel of land bordering a river, its area was
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 by third persons thru
prescription? Reasons.
Answer:
Yes. One mode of acquiring ownership is by prescription. In this case, as there was
accession that occurred which made the are bigger, though it were not declared in the
application of the title, it can be acquired by a third person through prescription.

7. After one week of torrential rains, a portion of A’s plantation, with an area of one (1)
hectare and planted to 100 coconut trees, was eroded, while to B’s farm, on the other bank
of the same river, a tract of land, also one (1) hectare in area, on which stood 50 coconut
trees, was added. An equal number of trees, their roots exposed, were found lying on the
ground in B’s property. Seven months later, A, alleging that the one-hectare lot and 100
coconut trees were his, demanded their return but B, who had previously taken possession
of them, refused, claiming that the land was formed by alluvion and, therefore, belongs to
him and that A has lost his right to the coconut trees because he did not lay claim to them
in due time. A thereupon sued B for the recovery of the land and the coconuts.

Will the action prosper? State the legal basis of your answer.
Answer:
 -3-

Yes. The owner of an eroded land may recover such land within two years from the
occurrence of the event. In this case, as an action were instituted after seven months from
the occurrence of the event A can still recover the eroded land.

8. Mr. Magabun and Mr. Ortelano each delivered 1,000 kilos of palay to Mr. Kono for
milling. Magabun’s rice was of better quality and was worth three times more per kilo than
the rice of Ortelano. Before Mr. Kono could mill the rice, an accidental fire broke out in
the mill. Kono was able to save one half of the rice of both Magabun and Ortelano but in
the confusion, the rice ended up mixed and commingled. What are the respective rights of
Magabun and Ortelano over the mixture? Explain.
Answer:
If the mixture occurred thru an accident or by chance, and things cannot be separated
without injury, each owner shall acquire a proportionate amount or value of his belonging.
In this case, if the rice were inside a sack though they were stock in the same place due to
the panic, Magabun and Ortelano can easily distinguish their own sack of rice, but if the
rice were not put in a container and they were mixed that separating the grains of rice
would cause time and effort, Magabun and Ortelano must divide their property according
to the proportionate value of their rice respectively.

9. Brothers A, B and C are co-owners of a two storey building which they inherited from
their deceased parents. A, the eldest, requested B and C to contribute for the repair of the
roof which was already leaking and for the renovation of the first floor of the building so
that the same cold be rented out B and C refused.

Nevertheless, A had the repair and renovation done at his own expenses. Consequently, the
brothers were able to lease out the first floor and generate rental income.

What are the rights of A, B and C with respect to the expenditures made by A and the
subsequent rental income? Explain.
Answer:
As co-owners, A, B, and C has equal rights of the civil fruits of the building which they
inherited, which in this case, a rental. However, as A spend his own money for the repair
of the building, he is entitled to be reimbursed by his co-heir, B and C, as they were also
co-owner of the said building in which they must contribute to any repair incurred.

10. 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.
Answer:
The lease of the entire community property in co-ownership is an act of administration. It
means that there must be concurrence of majority in a co-owned property, absent the
concurrence, there will be no lease of the entire property.
11. Three of four brothers, the sole heirs of their deceased parents, agreed to convert a
ricefield in the estate into a subdivision and spend the money, also left by their parents, for
developing the subdivision. The fourth son disagreed and brought suit to enjoin his
brothers from proceeding with the subdivision and spending the money they inherited for
its development.

Will the action prosper? Why?

No. The administration for the better enjoyment of the property owned in common, the
resolution of the majority of the co-ownership is binding. In this case, there are four
brothers in which three are in concurrence that the property will be converted into a
subdivision is binding. Thus, the action of the fourth son will not prosper.

12. X, Y and Z are co-owners in equal shares, pro indiviso, of a 9,000 square meter
residential lot in Quezon City. X needs money badly and sold a specified 3,000 square
meter portion of the lot, describing in the deed the metes and bounds of the part sold.
 -4-

When the buyer demanded the portion sold to him, Y and Z argued that under no
circumstances whatsoever may any part of the lot sold without the consent of the two other
co-owners. Is their contention correct? Explain.
Answer:
No. each co-owner shall be entitled to full ownership of his part of the property and the
fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, he may alienate, assign or mortgage or even sell the
proportionate part that is his. In the instant case, as X sold the third part of the residential
lot to a third party, it is valid. However, if settlement cannot be attain, disputes pertaining
to the portion of the lot sold, the buyer may raise such to the court.

13. A lot containing an area of 1,561 square meters located in J.A. Clarin and Sikatuna Sts
in Tagbilaran City is owned in common by six (6) persons. One of the co-owners asked for
a physical segregation of his 1/6 share. The five other co-owners objected on the ground
that the lot being commercial, its value would be greatly impaired should there be a
physical partition. Decide.
Answer:
I will grant the partition of the lot, or the breaking down of the sixth part of the said
property, since a co-owner shall enjoy the full ownership of his part of the property.
Therefore, as the owner of the sixth part of the said lot, he may choose what he want to do
as long as it only concern his part of the property.

14. In a partition between brothers of inherited property, brother A got the property north
of the river. Brother B received the property south of the river. Without the knowledge of
the brothers, squatters had moved into the property north of the river allotted to A.

A wanted B to join him in the ejectment case against the squatters and share in the
litigation expenses. B refused. Was B’s refusal valid? Why?
Yes. As a rule, after inherited property is already in partition, each has his own separate
properties. Each interest will only be within the portion they own respectively. In this case,
as A and B already partitioned their c-owned property, they only have interest to the part of
the property they own. Thus, A cannot compel B to contribute in an ejectment case as the
squatters only squat to A’s property. B has no interest since it is not his own property.

15. Discuss briefly the effects of possession in good faith and possession in bad faith with
respect to the fruits, the charges, the expenses and deterioration or loss.
Answer:
The effect of possession in good faith in relation to fruits, the possessor in good faith has
the right to enjoy the fruits before his possession is interrupted legally. As a possessor in
good faith, he is entitled to be reimbursed for the improvement he introduced, as well as
the necessary expenses. He will not be liable for the deterioration or the loss of the thing.
While, the effect of possession in bad faith with respect to the fruits, the owner of the
property may demand the proceeds of the fruits during the possession in bad faith. Though
possessor in bad faith, he is still entitled for reimbursement for the improvement,
preservation and necessary expenses. He is liable to the deterioration and loss of the thing.

16. A, a squatter who is sought to be evicted by the landowner, B, seeks reimbursement

from the latter for the improvements he made on the property, while B demands the value
of all the fruits A gathered from the land during his occupancy thereof.

Is A entitled to the indemnity he prays for. Is he bound to pay for the fruits he received?
Why?
Answer:
Yes. Possessor in bad faith is still entitled for reimbursement for all the expenses incurred
in the improvements and preservations made on the property. In this case, A is entitled to
be indemnified by B for the improvement he introduced to the property.
 -5-

Yes. Possessor in bad faith in relation to the fruits shall be obliged to return the fruits
collected from the time he entered the property until he is evicted since the owner has the
right to enjoy the share of the fruits of his property.

17. Mahinhin lost her diamond ring when the bus she was riding on was held up by a band
of brigands who divested the passengers of all their money and valuables. The ring found
its way to the Pasanglaan pawnshop, where one of the robbers had pawned it. The
pawnshop, in due time, foreclosed the pledge and sold the ring at public auction to
Mayaman, the highest bidder.

Three years after the loss, Mahinhin was able to trace the ring to Mayaman and demanded
that the latter give the ring back to her. Mayaman refused, saying that he had acquired the
ring in good faith.

Who has the better right to the ring? Explain.

Will your answer be the same if the ring was acquired in a private sale?
In a fair, market or merchant’s store?
Answer:
The one who has the better right of the ring would be Mayaman for the fact that he
acquired the ring through a public auction, though Mahinhin can recover the said ring only
if she reimburse Mayaman of the purchase amount of the ring.
No, my answer would be different in a sense that if it is a private sale, there will be no
chance that the original or the real owner would have knowledge of the said sale of the ring
as the private sale wherein the seller and the buyer are the only people who have
knowledge about the sale being made, it would be binding only to the two of them not with
Mahinhin. Therefore, Mahinhin as the original owner has the right to recover the property
stolen from her.
If in a fair, market or merchant store, my answer will be the same in a sense that, the one
who bought the ring in the fair, market or merchant store acted in good faith, so as the
buyer does not have idea about the origin of the ring, he merely adored it that’s why he
bought it, have the better right over the ring, though Mahinhin can also recover through
reimbursing Mayaman.
-END OF FIRST PART-