Long qu iz on Co-ownership & Possession Property RW9 February 9, 2013

____________________________________

Instructions: You are about to answer essay type hypothetical questions. Write legibly and in double space. Cite the applicable law or jurisprudence, if possible. Think before you answer. When making erasures, simply overwrite a one bar line over the answer you wish to change. State your answers to each number in no more than 5 sentences. Do not make unnecessary markings on either the question or the answer. Make your answers brief, concise and straight to the point. Do not re-state the questions in your booklet. Good luck. I. 20%

A, B, C, D & E are co-owners of a parcel of land, 2,000 sq. meter more or less, situated in Manila by hereditary succession. They are all residents of the United States. Incidentally, all the heirs except E, 10 years old, are of legal age. Problem I. In the above facts, A, the eldest, came back to Manila and obtained the loan from the bank using as collateral the 2,000 square meter lot and the loan proceeds thereof was used to construct a mid-rise condominium project. Upon full construction of the condominium, he then proceeded to sell the units. Questions: 1. 2. Was the loan and the mortgage of the land valid? If so, what are the requirements to make the loan and mortgage of the land valid? Assume that B did not want to loan the property and to construct a condominium project on the said property, may he validly object considering that the project redounded for the benefit of the co-ownership? Notwithstanding Bs objection, can the other co-owners proceed with the loan and mortgage and the construction of the condominium project? Assume that E, the minor, was thrilled with the idea of his other siblings and consented to the acts of A, may he validly do so? If yes, under what circumstances? If no, why? Assume that the mortgage debt was not paid and the bank now goes after the property, may the bank validly do so considering that B did not consent to the actions of his siblings and considering further that E is a minor? Assume that all the siblings all agreed to secure a loan and constructed the Condominium project? May partition still be made prior to the sale of the units to the public? Assume that the sale to the public had all been done, may partition still be done among the heirs. II. 15%

3. 4.

5. 6.

X, a student, urgently needed money to fund his valentines date. He gave his Iphone to his classmate, Y with instructions to sell it. Unfortunately, Y could not sell the same because of the high price and instead pawned the same to Z, a pawnshop. y pocketed the money. Upon discovery, X decided to claim the Iphone from the Z. Z refused. 7. Can Z validly refuse to return the Iphone to X? Why Case in point is Dizon vs. Suntay. One who has lost or has been unlawfully deprived of a movable may recover the same from the person in possession of the same and the only defense the latter may have is if he has acquired it in good faith at a public sale in which case the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the price paid therefore. In the present case, not only has the ownership and the proceeds of the pledge misappropriated, it has also been unquestionably proven but also that Y has fraudulently and in bad faith, disposed of and pledged them contrary to agreement. X is not estopped when his property has been unlawfully pledged by another. 8. Assume that the Iphone was already auctioned and is now with A, can X validly recover the same? If yes, under what circumstance/s?

If the Iphone has already been auctioned and is now with A, X can still recover BUT ONLY IF HE REIMBURSE TO A THE AMOUNT HE PAID TO Z, the pawnshop. 9. Assume that the Iphone was sold and delivered by Y to A, who paid in full but Y did not give the proceeds of the sale to X, may the latter still recover from A?

The possession of movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to a title. A has acquired title to the movable property. Remember that the agreement between X and Y was for the latter to sell the Iphone, which he did, only then he did not give the proceeds of the sale. Ys liability does not affect the good faith of A.
10. Assume that the Iphone was stolen from X by C who sold to D who sold to E, can X still recover the Iphone from E? The rule states that whomever may have been deprived of his property in consequence of a crime is entitled to the recovery thereof, even if such property is in possession of a third party who acquired it by legal means other than those expressly stated in article 464 of the Civil Code. Thus X may still be able to acquire the Ipone even from E.

III.

20%

Representing himself to be the Dean of the College of Law of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines, A ordered for a complete set of SCRA from REX bookstore for which the latter prepared an invoice and delivered to the address of A, who in turn paid a check. Within the day, A in turn sold the complete set of SCRA TO B, who paid in cash. Before As check cleared, he again ordered another set of SCRA from REX bookstore but this time the latter refused. After three days, As check was dishonored. REX bookstore sought the assistance of the police and accosted A for questioning who later divulged the name and address of B, his buyer. Rex Bookstore now sues B for recovery of the complete set of SCRA allegedly for having bought the stolen merchandise. B refused. Can Rex Bookstore compel B to deliver the SCRA to REX Bookstore? DECIDE using as your arguments the principles of possession.

A contract of sale is perfected once agreement is reached between the parties on the subject matter and the consideration. Moreover, in a contract of sale of movables, delivery or even constructive delivery will vest ownership to the vendee even though the contract price IS NOT YET PAID unless there is a stipulation to the effect that ownership shall not pass to the vendee until full payment. Article 559 of the Civil Code provides that the possession of movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to a title. Non-payment only creates a right to demand payment or to rescind the contract, or to criminal prosecution in the case of bouncing checks. Thus delivery to A transferred to him ownership of the SCRA and thus he may validly transfer the same to another.

IV.

20%

B bought a parcel of land from A with an evidence Deed of Sale. B planted a few fruit bearing trees therein but did not construct nipa hut therein. Unknown to B, A again sold the parcel of land to X, who was persuaded to buy the same because X found out that indeed no one possessed the property. X established a resort in the property. Upon discovery, B sued X for recovery of possession. DECIDE.

Possession is acquired by the material occupation of a thing or the exercise of a right, or by the fact that it is subject to the action of our will ,or by the proper acts and legal formalities for acquiring such right." And that the execution of a sale thru a public instrument shall be equivalent to the delivery of the thing, unless there is stipulation to the contrary. It is clear that possession passed from A to B by virtue of the Deed of Sale. The latter sale to X suffers from infirmity because of the possession of B. (Possession as a fact cannot be recognized at the same time in two different personalities except in the cases of co-possession. Should a question arise regarding the fact of possession, the present possessor shall be

preferred; if there are two possessions, the one longer in possession, if the dates of possession are the same, the one who presents a title; and if these conditions are equal, the thing shall be placed in judicial deposit pending determination of its possession or ownership through proper proceedings.)
V. 25%

A. Give at least 5 characteristics of Co-ownership: 5% 1.More than 1 subject or owner 2. 1 physical whole divided into ideal (undivided) shares 3.Each ideal share is definite in amount but is not p h y s i c a l l y segregated from the rest 4.Each co-owner holds almost absolute control over ideal share. 5.Each co-owner must respect each other in t h e c o m m o n u s e , enjoyment, or preservation of the physical whole. 6.Not a juridical person, no juridical personality. 7.Co-owner a trustee for the other co-owners. Thus, he may not ordinarily acquire exclusive ownership of the property h e l d i n common thru prescription. B. Give the requirements for consent in co-ownership in case of: 5% a) Acts of Preservation ------Even 1 co-owner b) Acts of Administration ----------Financial majority c) Acts of Alteration -------------- All the co-owners C. Give at least 3 effects of partition: 5%

1. mutual accounting for benefits received 2. mutual reimbursement for expenses 3. indemnity for damages in case of negligence or fraud 4. reciprocal warranty for defects of title (or eviction); or quality (or hidden defects) 5. each former co-owner is deemed to have had exclusive possession of the part allotted to him for the entire period w/c the co-possession lasted 6. partition confers upon each, the exclusive title over his respective share
D. Give at least 5 grounds for Extinguishment of Co-ownership 5%

1. judicial participation 2. extrajudicial participation 3. when by prescription, one co-owner has acquired the whole property by adverse possession as against all the others, and repudiating unequivocally the co-ownership of the other 4. when a stranger acquires by prescription the thing owned in common 5. merger in co-owner 6. loss or destruction 7. expropriation
E. Give at least 5 presumptions in favor of possession : 5%

1) GOOD FAITH Good faith is always presumed. (Art. 527). (2) OF CONTINUITY OF INITIAL GOOD FAITH (Art. 528)

(3) CONTINUITY OF CHARACTER OF POSSESSION (whether in good faith or bad faith It is presumed that possession continues to be enjoyed in the same character in which it was acquired, until the contrary is proved. (Art. 529). (4) NON-INTERRUPTION OF POSSESSION The possession of hereditary property is deemed transmitted to the heir without interruption, and from the moment of the death of the decedent, in case the inheritance is accepted. One who validly renounces an inheritance is deemed never to have possessed the same. (Art. 533). (5) PRESUMPTION OF JUST TITLE A possessor in the concept of owner has in his favor the legal presumption that he possesses with just title, and he cannot be obliged to show or prove it. (Art. 541). (6) NON-INTERRUPTION OF POSSESSION OF PROPERTY UNJUSTLY LOST BUT LEGALLY RECOVERED One who recovers, according to law, possession unjustly lost, shall be deemed for all purposes which may redound to his benefit, to have enjoyed it without interruption.(Art. 561).

(7) POSSESSION DURING INTERVENING PERIOD It is presumed, that the present possessor who was also the possessor at previous time, has continued to be in possession during the intervening time, unless there is proof to the contrary. (Art. 1138[2]) . (8) POSSESSION OF MOVABLES WITH REAL PROPERTY The possession of real property presumes that of the movables therein, so long as it is not shown or proved that they should be excluded. (Art. 542). (9) EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION OF COMMON PROPERTY Each one of the participants of a thing possessed in common shall be deemed to have exclusively possessed the part which may be allotted to him upon the division thereof, for the entire period during which the co-possession lasted. (Art. 543).