PROPERTY QUESTION & ANSWER ASSIGNMENT: Subject of Exam and/or Graded Recitation for July 2012.

Please study well. PART I: 1.) Enumerate the Classification of Things Based on Nature of Ownership and Give a minimum of 3 examples but not more than 5: Res nullius (belonging to one) Res communes (belonging to everyone) Res alicujus (belonging to someone) (a.) Res nullius (belonging to no one) Example: like fish still swimming in the ocean (not yet been appropriated) (b.) Res Communes (belonging to everyone) Ex: air we breathe, wind sunlight (c.) Res alicujus (belonging to someone) Ex: shares of stocks, parcel of land 2.) Differentiate the concept of a Thing from that of a Property in 1 or 2 sentences. -In Civil Code, the word thing is apparently synonymous with word property, however, technically thing is much broader in scope for it includes both appropriable and non- appropriable objects. Property as a subject in a law course is understood to be capable of appropriation. 3.) What are the different Classifications of Property based on the following: a.) Mobility and non-mobility Movable(personal property) v immovable (real property) b.) Ownership Public Dominion or ownership (like rivers) v private dominion or ownership ( like a fountain pen) c.) Alienability Within the commerceof man (or whuch may be the objects of contracts or judicial transactions) v outside the commerce of man (like prohibited drugs) d.) Existence Present property (res existentes) v future property (res future) e.) Materiality or Immateriality Tangible or corporeal (objects which can be seen or touched) v intangible or incorporeal (rights or credits) f.) Dependence or Importance Principal v accessory g.) Capability of Substitution Fungible (capable of substitution by other thingsof the same quantity and quality) v non-fungible (incapable of such substitution, hence, the identical thing must be given or returned) h.) Nature of Definiteness Generic v specific

i.) Whether in the Custody of the Court or Free in custodia legis v free 4.) From the enumeration in Art, 415, Real Properties are classified as: (a) Real Property by NATURE (like trees and plants) (b) RP by INCORPORATION (like a building) (c) RP by DESTINATION (like machinery placed by the owner of a tenement on it for direct use in an industry to be carried on therein) (d) RP by ANALOGY give examples (like the right of usufruct or a contract for public work, or easements and servitude, or sugar quorasunder RA 1825 and EO 873) 5.) What are the Three Tests to Determine whether Property is Movable or Immovable (according to Manresa) a. If the property is capable of being carried from place to place(test by description) b. If such change in location can be made without injuring the real property to which it may in the meantime be attached (test by description) c. If finally, the object is not one enumerated or included in Art. 415 (test by exclusion)

6. State or summarize in 1 or two sentences the legal principle or ruling by the Supreme Court relative to property in the following cases: 1.) Leung Yee v. Strong Machinery Co., 37 Phil. Reports 644 The building is real property, therefore, its sale as annotated in the Chattel Mortgage Registry not be given the legal effect of registration in the Registry of real property. The mere fact that the parties decided to deal with the building as personal property does not change its character as real property. Thus, neither the original registry in the chattel mortgage registry, nor the property had any effect on the building. However, since the land and the building had first been purchased by strong machinery (ahead of Leung Yee), and this fact was known to Leung Yee, it follows that Leung Yee was not a purchaser in good faith, and should therefore not be entitled to the property. Strong Machinery thus has a better right to property. 2.) Standard Oil v. Jaranillo 44 Phil. 631 Registrars duty is ministerial in character. There is no legal provision conferring upon him any judicial or quasi-judicial power to determine the nature of the document presented before him. He should therefore accept the legal fees being tendered, and place the document on record. 3.) Davao Sawmill Co., v. Castillo, 61 Phil.709 As a rule, the machinery should be considered personal, since it was not placed on the land by the owner of said land. Immobilization by destination or purpose cannot generally be made by a person whose possession of the property is only temporary, otherwise we will be forced to presume that he intended to give the property permanently away in favour of the owner of the premises. 4.) B.H Berkenkotter v. Cu Unjieng 61 Phil. 663

The mortgage of the parcel of land generally includes all the future improvements that may be found in said parcel. These improvements include real properties, like the additional machinery are real properties because they are essential and principal elements of the sugar central. Without them, the sugar central would be unable to carry out its industrial purpose. 5.) Ago v. Court of Appeals, et al., L-17898, Oct. 31, 1962 Sawmill machineries and equipments installed in a sawmill for use in the sawing of logs, a process carried on in the building, become real properties, and if they are judicially sold on execution without the necessary advertisement of sale by publication in a newspaper as required in section 16 of rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the sale by the sheriff would be null and void. 6.) Peoples Bank and Trust Co., v. Dahican Lumber Co., L-17500, May 16, 1967 After acquired properties had been immobilized by destination(they were used in the development of the lumber concession.) In this case, the parties to the real mortgage had treated the after acquired propertyies as real properties by agreeing that they would be automatically subject to the lien of the real estate mortgage executed by them. 7.) Board of Assessment Appeals Q.C. v. Meralco, 10 SCRA 68 Issue: are steel towers or poles of the MERALCO considered real or personal properties? Held: they are personal (not real) properties. Be it noted that: (a.) They do not come under par.1 of article 415 because they are neither buildings or constructions adhered to the soil; (b.) They donot come under par. 3 because they are not attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, that is, they can be separated without breaking the material or causing deterioration of the object to which they are attached; (c.) They do not come under par.5 because they are not machineries, receptacles, or instruments, but even if they are, they are not intended for an industry to be carried on in the premises. PART II: 1.) Enumerate the Property classified according to Ownership: Public capacity (dominio publico) Private capacity (propriedad privado) 2.) State the 3 Kinds of Property of Public Dominion and give at least 3 examples. For public use- like roads, canals( maybe used by anybody) For public service- (like national government buildings, Army rifles, army vessels (may be used by duly authorized officers) For the development of National Wealth- like our natural resources. 3.) State the other properties of similar character to those expressly declared as property of public dominion:

4.) State in summary certain General Rules/Principles/Characteristics regarding Lands of Public Domain (minimum of 5, maximum of 10). It is believed that forest and mining are properties of public dominion, properties for the development of the national wealth. Upon the other hand, the public agricultural lands before being made available to the general public should also be properties of public dominion for the development of the national wealth (and as much may not be acquired by prescription); but after being made so available, they become patrimonial property of the state, and therefore subject for prescription. Moreover, once already acquired by private individuals, they become private property. One cannot claim to have obtained his title by prescription if the application filed by him necessarily implied an admission that the portion for is part of the public domain which cannot be acquired by prescription unless the law expressly permits it. Possession of forest land, however long, cannot ripen into private ownership. 5.) Define or characterize Patrimonial property. patrimonial property of the state is the property it owns by which is not devoted to public use, public service, or for the development of the national wealth. It is wealth owned by the state in its private, as distinguished from its public capacity. 6.) What happens to property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for public service under Art. 422. Art 422 of the CC provides property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for public service, shall form part the patrimonial property of the Philippines. 7.) Who has the power to effect the change or conversion of Property of Public Dominion to Patrimonial Property?. In the case of Natividad v Dir. of Lands (CA), said that only the executive and possibly the legislative departments have the authority and power to make the declaration that any land so gained by the sea is not necessary for the purpose of public utlity. If no such declaration has been made by said departments, the lot in question forms part of the public domain. Consequently, until there is formal declaration on the part of the Government thru executive department or the legislature, the parcel in question continues to be part of the public domain, and cannot be subject to acquisitive prescription. 8.) Read and summarize in not more than 5 sentences the rulings on the following cases: a.) Province of Zamboanga Del Norte v. City of Zamboanga, et al.,Mar. 28, 1968 the court held that, if we follow the CC classification, only the highschool playgrounds are for public use (in the sense that generally, they are available to the general public), and all the rest are patrimonial(since they are not devoted to public use but for public service; since they are not for public use, under Art. 424 of the CC, they are patrimonial. But if we follow thelaw of the Municipal Corporations and not the civil code, as long as the purpose is for a public service, the property should be considered for public use. If the CC classification is used, since almost all the properties involved are patrimonial, the law would be unconstitutional since the province would be deprived of its own property without just compensation. If the law on municipal corporation would be followed, the properties would be of public dominion, and therefore no compensation would be required. It is the law of on municipal corporations that should be followed. Firstly, while CC may classify them as patrimonial, they should not be regarded as ordinary private property. They

should fall under the control of the state, otherwise certain governmental activities would be impaired. Secondly, art 424,prg2 itself says without prejudice to the provisions (or principles) of special laws. b.) Salas v. Jarencio Aug. 30, 1972 there being no proof that the lot had been acquired by the city with its own funds, the presumption is that it was given to it by the state in trust for the benefit of the inhabitants. Residual control remained in the state, and therefore the state can lawfully dispose of the lot. Thus, RA 4118 is valid and constitutional and this is so even if the City of Manila will receive no compensation from the state. c.) Viuda de Tan Toco v. Mun. Council of Iloilo 49 Phil. 52 the attachment is not proper because municipal-owned real and personal properties devoted to public or governmental purposes may not be attached and sold for the payment of a judgement against the municipality. Just as it is essential to exempt certain properties of individuals (like the bare essentials) from execution, so it is also essential and justifiable to exempt property for public use from execution, otherwise governmental service would be jeopardized. d.) Mun. of Pasay v. Manaois et al., June 30, 1950 e.) Harty v. Mun. of Victoria 13 Phil. 152 the church cannot be regarded as the owner of the plaza. Assuming that Tanedo was its original owner, still when he allowed the people of the town to use as a public plaza, he was in effect waiving his right thereto for the benefit of the town folks. Being property for public use, the municipality cannot be said to have validly donated it in favour of the church. Then again, because of its being for public use, the plaza could not have validly donated it in favour of the church thru prescription. Incidentally, the act planting fruit trees on the plaza cannot regarded as an act private ownership. It was simply an act intended to enhance the beauty of the plaza for the benefit of the people in the community.

f.) Chavez v. Public Land Authority 415 SCRA 403 (2003) the approval of the contracts, in the case at bar, clearly and unambiguously attested to the lands in question were no longer intended for public use or public service. When the conversion activity such as co-production, joint venture or production-sharing agreements is authorized by the Government thru a law, the qualified party to the agreement may own the converted product or part of it, when so provided in the agreement. If there is any doubt as to the prestation in this case, the supreme court opined that the interpretation which would render the contract valid is to be favoured. 9.) Under Art. 423, the property of provinces, cities and municipalities is divided into property for public use and patrimonial property. If a city reclaimed a Land from the sea, how is this classified? If no such declaration has been made by said departments, the lot in question forms part of the public domain. Consequently, until there is formal declaration on the part of the Government thru executive department or the legislature, the parcel in question continues to be part of the public domain, and cannot be subject to acquisitive prescription.