Erika Mae M.

Tenorio

Re: In the matter, correcting the answer of Tracy Bago in Quiz No. 2 (Law On Property)

1. No, One Piece is not a treasure within the contemplation of Article 438.

In an avowed interpretation of Article 438 by Justice Paras, it was emphasized that for the
finder to be entitled to one-half, the discovery on another’s property must be “by chance,” that
there must be no purpose or intent to look for the treasure. The reason is evident: it is extremely
difficult to find hidden treasure without looking for it deliberately.

In the case at bar, the treasure was deliberately and intentionally being search by the
Pirates.
Thus, One Piece cannot be considered as hidden treasure under the law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Sabo is the riparian owner of the Alluvium.

Alluvium is the soil deposited or added to the lands adjoining the banks of rivers, and
gradually received as an effect of the current of the waters. By law, the accretion is owned by the
owner of the estate fronting the river bank which is the riparian owner.

In this case, Sabo is the riparian owner, it is not necessary also that the riparian owner
should make an express act of possession, the accession being automatically his the moment the
soil deposit can be seen at the same time Sabo could still register the same under his name for a
period of 50 years before it can be subjected to acquisition thru prescription by third persons.

Consequently Sabo has a better title over the Alluvium than Ace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. No. The principle of self-help is not applicable under the premise.

The doctrine of Self-help mandates that the owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the
right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof through force provided that
his act in taking the law into his own hands is justified.

However, in this case, Sakazuki’s act of bulldozing and demolishing what was built on his
land is not justified as it is necessary that he should have first resorted to the courts of justice and
file an action for ejectment, in a celebrated case it was held that force could be used only when
physical harm threatens the owner or protector of the property and with the exception under Art.
429 of the Civil Code that the force may be used even without such threatened bodily danger —
provided that defense, and not vengeance, is involved.

Thus, the acts Sakazuki’s act is characterized by vengeance and likewise not justified.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. A.) Dr. Kureha can demand appropriation of the work without paying for the labor or
the indemnity for the material plus damage from Dr. Vegapunk who is a worker in badfaith as
contemplated under Art. 474 of the Civil Code which states that “If in the making of the thing bad
faith intervened, the owner of the material shall have the right to appropriate the work to himself
without paying anything to the maker, or to demand of the latter that he indemnify him for the
value of the material and the damages he may have suffered. However, the owner of the material
cannot appropriate the work in case the value of the latter, for artistic or scientifi c reasons, is
considerably more than that of the material.”

B.) Yes, It would matter if it will increase the value of the confusion reactor. Thus, Dr.
Kureha may not avail the option of appropriating the same without paying for the labor.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.
A.)

B.)