2022 Bar — Civil Law

Ranza and Junsi got married in 2015 and were blessed with two children, Zarah and Mica. In 2020, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the entire family had to spend 24 hours together every day in their small house. Ranza observed that although Junsi continued to work from home to support the family, he began to exhibit paranoia, and constantly kept making sure that they always washed their hands and rubbed them with alcohol ten times before eating. Junsi also always wore a face mask, face shield and hazmat in the house, except when he was alone in the room. Junsi began sleeping separately from Ranza and their children. He believed that other people who wanted to meet him in person were actively trying to harm him by exposing him to the virus. In early 2022, Ranza filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Junsi on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code, citing his atypical behavior. She presented the testimony of a doctor, who proved that Junsi was suffering from psychotic paranoia due to intense stress, which accounted for his belief in things that are not real. Should Ranza's petition be granted? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Miguel, who died single and childless, was survived by his two legitimate brothers Romy and Rolly, and his nephews Arno and Pabs, the legitimate sons of his predeceased legitimate brother Edgar. Before his death, Miguel executed a one-page notarial will, inclusive of an attestation clause and a notarial acknowledgement, with only one testamentary disposition bequeathing his entire estate to Romy and Rolly. The will was not paginated and was attested by four witnesses: Uno, Dos, Tres, and Quatro. It was the eve of Quatro's 17th birthday when the will was executed. The will was written in the Ilocano dialect which Miguel knew and understood, but the witnesses did not. Miguel and the witnesses signed at the end of the testamentary disposition. The attestation was also written in the Ilocano dialect which, when translated to the English language, read as follows: "This will of Miguel was written in ONE page. We, the attesting witnesses, signed at the end of the will and at the bottom of this attestation in the presence of Miguel and of each of us." Each of the four witnesses signed below the attestation clause. Because none of the witnesses knew and understood the Ilocano dialect, the attestation was interpreted to them by Miguel's lawyer who was present to notarize the will. (b) May the will nonetheless be admitted to probate? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Luz is the owner of a parcel of land consisting of 500 square meters located in San Miguel, Bulacan and covered by TCT No. R-248016. Luz agreed to sell to Minda the land for Php 500,000.00 payable in ten monthly installments, with the first installment payable upon execution of the contract to sell, to which Minda acceded. They also agreed that the title to the land shall only transfer to Minda upon full payment of the considerations, and that any and all taxes, fees, and expenses incidental to the sale will be paid by Minda. Draft a notarized contract to sell between Luz and Minda. (5 points)

In 2013, Agaton, then 70 years old, executed a will wherein he bequeathed his entire estate to his acknowledged illegitimate son Karl. Agaton entrusted the original copy of the 2013 will to Karl. In 2014, Karl joined a group of mercenaries to fight in Crimea alongside the Russians. After Russia's annexation of Crimea, Karl did not return to the Philippines and was never heard of. Five years later, in 2019, Agaton executed a codicil which provided the following: "Because of the death of Karl, I revoke my 2013 will. I hereby recognize Gian as my other illegitimate son and hereby bequeath to him my entire estate." Agaton died in 2020. During the probate of Agaton's 2019 codicil, Karl appeared in court, presented the 2013 will, contested the validity of its revocation, opposed the probate of the 2019 codicil, and sought the probate of the 2013 will. Both the 2013 will and 2019 codicil were immaculate as to form. (a) Did the 2019 codicil revoke the 2013 will? Explain briefly.

Leon is the owner of a condominium unit located directly above the condominium unit owned by Anj. In 2014, Leon undertook renovations in his unit's bathroom, which caused water to leak from his bathroom down to Anj's unit, and caused extensive damage to Anj's belongings. As Anj had obtained property insurance on her unit and its contents from Proverbial Insurance Co. (PIC), Anj was able to recover the value of the damage in September 2016. In October 2022, PIC, as subrogee of Anj, sued Leon to recover the insurance proceeds it paid to Anj. Leon interposed prescription to dismiss the suit of PIC. PIC counters that the payment of the insurance proceeds in 2016 created, by way of legal subrogation, a 10-year period within which to file the suit against Leon. Is PIC correct? Explain briefly. (5 points)

During Remy's pregnancy, her father Gavin executed a will bequeathing his rest house in Calatagan, Batangas to Remy's unborn child. While Gavin and Remy, who was then seven months pregnant, were on their way to Calatagan, they figured in a car accident on December 1, 2021 which resulted in the instantaneous death of Gavin and the premature delivery of Remy on the same day. At 8:30 a.m. on December 3, 2021, the newborn baby died. Is the devise in favor of the baby valid? Explain briefly. (5 points)

How does the New Civil Code distinguish between immovable and movable properties? Explain briefly and give two examples for each. (5 points)

Noel is the son of spouses Marie and Benedict. Benedict has passed away. For Noel's 7th birthday, his paternal grandparents offered to organize and pay for his birthday party. In coordination with Marie, the grandparents booked the party venue, signed the contracts with the caterer and the entertainers, finalized the guest list, and paid all amount due. Marie promised them to bring Noel to the party. A week before the scheduled birthday party, Marie decided that she would not bring Noel to the party, and that she would instead take him on an out-of-town trip on the day of the party. Marie could not forget that her parents-in-law initially opposed Benedict's marriage to her because she was a former burlesque dancer. Marie did not notify the grandparents of her plan to skip the birthday party. During the party, the grandparents kept trying to get in touch with her but she ignored all their calls. The grandparents and the guests who went to the party were very dismayed that Noel was not present. When the grandparents asked Marie why she did not bring Noel to the party, she simply replied, "I am his mother, and I decide where he goes!". To which, Noel's grandmother retorted, "Anak mo lang s'ya! Hindi mo s'ya pag-aari!". The grandparents seek your advice on whether there is legal basis to hold Marie liable for the damages that they have suffered as a result of her acts. What is your advice? Explain briefly. (5 points)

In 2017, Alma orally sold a parcel of unregistered land to the spouses Ray and Shane for Php 500,000.00. Upon receipt of the initial payment of Php 350,000.00, Alma delivered possession of the land to the spouses. Shortly thereafter, Alma died. In order to formalize the sale, Ray and Shane convinced Josie, one of Alma's children, to sign a notarized deed of confirmation of sale. In consideration thereof, Josie received Php 150,000.00 representing the balance of the purchase price. On the strength of the notarized confirmation of sale, the spouses were able to transfer the tax declaration of the property in their names. Later, Josie died. In 2020, the surviving children of Alma discovered the oral sale of the land to Ray and Shane. They demanded the return of the property on the following grounds: (i) the oral contract of sale is void because it does not appear in a public instrument; and (ii) assuming the sale is not void, it is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. Ray and Shane insisted that the sale of the land to them was both valid and enforceable. Are the contentions of the heirs of Alma tenable? Explain briefly. (5 points)

In 2013, Agaton, then 70 years old, executed a will wherein he bequeathed his entire estate to his acknowledged illegitimate son Karl. Agaton entrusted the original copy of the 2013 will to Karl. In 2014, Karl joined a group of mercenaries to fight in Crimea alongside the Russians. After Russia's annexation of Crimea, Karl did not return to the Philippines and was never heard of. Five years later, in 2019, Agaton executed a codicil which provided the following: "Because of the death of Karl, I revoke my 2013 will. I hereby recognize Gian as my other illegitimate son and hereby bequeath to him my entire estate." Agaton died in 2020. During the probate of Agaton's 2019 codicil, Karl appeared in court, presented the 2013 will, contested the validity of its revocation, opposed the probate of the 2019 codicil, and sought the probate of the 2013 will. Both the 2013 will and 2019 codicil were immaculate as to form. (b) Distribute the estate of Agaton. Explain briefly. (5 points)

Aida, for the consideration of Php 5,000,000.00, sold her parcel of land to Lorna, as evidenced by a notarized Deed of Sale. Lorna, however, failed to deliver the amount in full, paying only Php 500,000.00 as down payment. Because of the non-payment of the balance, Aida simply sold the same parcel of land to Fe with the intention of returning to Lorna the Php 500,000.00 down payment. Who among Aida, Lorna, and Fe owns the property? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Laica and Jessica, who are best friends, are both engaged in money lending at predatory interest rates. Running out of funds, Laica borrows Php 2,000,000.00 from Jessica for two months at a monthly interest rate of 10%. Jessica releases the borrowed amount after Laica signs a promissory note. Laica then relends to Monica the borrowed amount of Php 2,000,000.00 for two months, at an interest rate of 30%. After two months, Laica fails to pay Jessica, prompting Jessica to file a collection suit against the former, for the Php 2,000,000.00 principal and 10% interest per month pursuant to their agreement. Laica counters that the monthly interest rate of 10% is exorbitant and should be reduced to the legal rate of interest at 6% per annum. Which between the positions of Laica and Jessica is tenable? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Miguel, who died single and childless, was survived by his two legitimate brothers Romy and Rolly, and his nephews Arno and Pabs, the legitimate sons of his predeceased legitimate brother Edgar. Before his death, Miguel executed a one-page notarial will, inclusive of an attestation clause and a notarial acknowledgement, with only one testamentary disposition bequeathing his entire estate to Romy and Rolly. The will was not paginated and was attested by four witnesses: Uno, Dos, Tres, and Quatro. It was the eve of Quatro's 17th birthday when the will was executed. The will was written in the Ilocano dialect which Miguel knew and understood, but the witnesses did not. Miguel and the witnesses signed at the end of the testamentary disposition. The attestation was also written in the Ilocano dialect which, when translated to the English language, read as follows: "This will of Miguel was written in ONE page. We, the attesting witnesses, signed at the end of the will and at the bottom of this attestation in the presence of Miguel and of each of us." Each of the four witnesses signed below the attestation clause. Because none of the witnesses knew and understood the Ilocano dialect, the attestation was interpreted to them by Miguel's lawyer who was present to notarize the will. (a) Does the fact that the will was written in a dialect known only to Miguel invalidate the will? What about the absence of the marginal signatures of the testator and the witnesses? Explain briefly.

Atoy is one of the five children of Jawo. Jawo was the registered owner of a four-hectare parcel of land in Sta. Cruz, Laguna covered by TCT No. 77347. When Jawo died, the owner's duplicate of the TCT was kept by Jawo's daughter, Akiko (sister of Atoy), who resided in the said property. Wanting to have the said four-hectare property registered under his name, Atoy got in touch with Franz who had special connections with the Register of Deeds of Sta. Cruz, Laguna. TCT No. 77347 was then cancelled and TCT No. 84660 was issued in Atoy's name on January 29, 2013. Atoy immediately mortgaged the property to the Rural Bank of Sta. Cruz (RBSC). Upon default and after being declared the winning bidder in the extrajudicial foreclosure sale, RBSC consolidated ownership with the issuance of TCT No. 94477 in its name. How will Akiko and the other heirs of Jawo be able to successfully argue that RBSC is not an innocent purchaser for value? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Thea, Vanessa, and Sophia are siblings who are co-owners of a 600-sq. m. parcel of land covered by TCT No. 12345 situated along Bangkal Road, Makati City. Thea decided to sell her share, an undivided 200-sq.m. portion of the property, to Alyssa, a Filipino nurse who has been living in Canada for the last ten years. Alyssa, without the knowledge of Sophia and Vanessa, built a modest house on the 200-sq.m. portion abutting the road and leased it to Sell for Php 15,000.00 per month. (a) Could Thea legally transfer her share of the property to Alyssa without the consent of Vanessa and Sophia? Explain briefly.

With the intent to develop a subdivision, Oliver bought a parcel of land adjacent to a subdivision owned by Phil. Oliver's land had no direct access to the highway, as it was blocked by a kamote plantation owned by Josh. Phil's subdivision, on the other hand, already has a direct access to the highway. To facilitate the release of the license from the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development, Oliver presented a contract to sell between him and Josh over the kamote plantation, on the representation that he would construct an access road thereon. Pending approval of the license, Oliver sought the consent of Phil to connect the road that would be built by him with the main road of Phil's subdivision. Phil allowed him to do this pending their negotiation on the compensation to be paid. With the eventual grant of the license, Oliver began the development of his subdivision. To preserve the right of way over Phil's subdivision, Oliver was able to cause an annotation of adverse claim on Phil's property. However, when Oliver's subdivision was already completed, and with the adverse claim annotated, Oliver believed that he no longer needed to buy the kamote plantation and accordingly rescinded the contract to sell with Josh. When Oliver and Phil failed to arrive at an agreement on the consideration for the easement, Phil built a wall blocking the road constructed by Oliver that connected Oliver's subdivision with his. Oliver filed a complaint seeking the establishment of an easement of right of way through Phil's subdivision which Oliver claimed to be the most adequate and convenient access to the highway. On the other hand, Phil filed a petition to have the adverse claim cancelled. (b) Is there basis to have the adverse claim cancelled? Explain briefly. (5 points)

The spouses Santos are the registered owners of Lot 2 located in Umaga Subdivision, Caramoan, Camarines Sur, covered by TCT No. 1369. Lot 2, which has been occupied by the spouses Santos for about 11 years, has a one-storey residential house which was already erected thereon when Lot 2 was purchased by them from the spouses Cruz in 2005. At the time of the acquisition of Lot 2, the adjoining lot, Lot 1, which was also owned by the spouses Cruz, was an idle land without any improvements. Lot 1 remained empty until the spouses Cruz started the construction of a two-storey residential house thereon in 2018. The house constructed on Lot 1 being taller than the spouses Santos' one-storey residential house, the spouses Cruz's two-storey residential house obstructed the light, air, and view of the spouses Santos' residential house. The spouses Santos bemoaned how, prior to the construction on Lot 1, they received enough bright and natural light from their windows. The construction rendered their house dark such that they are unable to do their normal activities in their house without switching on their lights. Have the spouses Santos acquired an easement of light and view with respect to Lot 1 owned by the spouses Cruz? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Being an overseas worker, Salvador issued to Ronaldo a duly notarized Special Power of Attorney (SPA) authorizing the latter to enter into a contract of lease over Salvador's property covered by TCT No. 122433 for a period of three years with SISI Corp. Salvador entrusted to Ronaldo the owner's duplicate of the TCT in case SISI Corp. needed to verify the same. Hearing rumors that the subject property was sold, Salvador went to the Register of Deeds and was shocked to find out that TCT No. 122433 had been cancelled and TCT No. 334388 had been issued in Eduardo's name. To vindicate his property rights, Salvador filed a complaint for cancellation of title and reconveyance. Salvador was able to prove that he was out of the country when the purported sale was executed. On the other hand, Eduardo claims to be an innocent purchaser for value, stating that he paid the fair market value to Ronaldo and that he relied on the fact that Ronaldo presented the original owner's duplicate of Salvador's TCT. He likewise inspected the property and determined that Salvador was indeed the owner. If you were the judge, decide. Explain briefly. (5 points)

Brenda saw the online advertisement of Evelyn, who sells limited edition sneakers. Through an exchange of text messages, Evelyn and Brenda agreed that: (i) Evelyn will sell to Brenda a pair of brand-new sneakers for Php 25,000.00; (ii) Brenda will deposit the purchase price in Evelyn's bank account; and (iii) Evelyn will deliver the sneakers within ten days from deposit. Brenda deposited the purchase price and Evelyn acknowledged receipt thereof. Before the delivery of the sneakers, Evelyn received an offer from Rosela to buy the same sneakers for Php 35,000.00. Evelyn candidly tells Brenda that she is selling the sneakers at a higher price to another buyer, and sends this next message to Brenda: "Sis, may iba pala akong buyer na mas malaki yung offer, sorry! Balik ko nalang bayad mo, keri?" Evelyn claims that since the sneakers have not yet been delivered to Brenda, she can still withdraw the offer. Is Evelyn's contention tenable? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Ely borrows Php 2,000,000.00 from Mia and mortgages a parcel of land to secure the loan. The mortgage provides for a 5% monthly interest, a five-year maturity period, a default provision in case of non-payment of interest or principal, and an extrajudicial foreclosure provision. On the fourth year, Ely fails to pay interest for three consecutive months. After sending a demand letter, Mia declares Ely in default and extrajudicially forecloses the mortgage. Mia is the highest bidder in the foreclosure sale and consolidates ownership upon the lapse of the redemption period. Can Ely have the foreclosure annulled and recover the property? Explain briefly. (5 points)

In 2014, a wealthy young couple, the spouses Tan, moved by the spirit of generosity and love for their hometown in Siquijor, decided to donate a one-hectare lot in favor of the province of Siquijor. The Deed of Donation pertinently provides: "The herein DONORS hereby voluntarily and freely give, transfer and convey, by way of unconditional donation, unto said DONEE, all of the rights, title and interest which the aforesaid DONORS have or which pertain to them and which they owned exclusively in the above-described real property over a one hectare portion of the same, solely for hospital site only and for no other purpose, where a provincial government hospital shall be constructed." The donation was recorded in the Registry of Deeds, and a certificate of title to the property was transferred to the province of Siquijor. In accordance with the Deed of Donation, the construction of a hospital building was started in the following year. However, for reasons unknown, only the foundation of the hospital building has, to this day, been completed. Do the spouses Tan have valid grounds to revoke the donation? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Joey was the legitimate son of Ron and May. Joey died intestate and was survived by his wife Kathy and their legitimate children, Luis and Clarisse. Several months after Joey died, Ron also died intestate. Ron was survived by his wife May, daughter Mercy (full-sibling of Joey), and the children of Joey (Luis and Clarisse). Distribute the estate of Ron. Explain briefly. (5 points)

Gio, single, joined a marathon organized by Takbo Co. For lack of alternative routes, the marathon course included a public road which was not blocked-off from vehicles. Takbo Co. solicited the sponsorship of Kotse Corp. for added financial support. Gio was hit by a jeepney driven by JD on the public road and died. The parents of Gio sued Takbo Co. and Kotse Corp. for damages. The court ruled that Kotse Corp. is solidarily liable for damages with Takbo Co. for being one of the principal movers of the event due to its sponsorship. Is the court correct? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Before they married in 2000, Nonoy and Daday signed a marriage settlement wherein they agreed that their property relations as husband and wife would be governed by the conjugal partnership of gains. While the marriage was subsisting, they acquired a parcel of land using conjugal funds. The Register of Deeds issued a Transfer certificate of title over the said land in the name of "Nonoy, married to Daday". Nonoy sold the parcel of land to Barby without Daday's consent. Daday was not aware of the sale and did not sign the contract of sale. A year after Nonoy and Barby signed the contract of sale, Daday died. When the children of Nonoy and Daday learned about the sale to Barby, they questioned its validity since Daday had not consented to the sale. Nonoy's position is that Daday's consent was not required because the property was registered in his name. Is the sale to Barby valid? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Pepe and Pilar are adjoining lot owners. Suppose Pepe's lot is titled and without his knowledge, it was encroached upon by Pilar whose lot is untitled but who honestly believed that the encroached portion, where she built a small bungalow house, is still within her property. (a) Is Pilar a builder in good faith? Discuss Pepe's right as against Pilar. Explain briefly.

Jungkook, who owns a building, leases the same to Gel with the following terms: (i) the lease is for a period of ten years; (ii) the yearly rental is Php 1,200,000.00 payable within the first ten days of the current year; and (iii) in case of breach of any of the provisions of the lease, Gel is liable to pay Jungkook five monthly rentals and attorney's fees. Five years into the lease, Gel sends a notice to terminate the lease and offers to pay five monthly rentals. Despite Jungkook's objections, Gel vacates the premises. Jungkook sues Gel for the rentals due for the remaining five years of the lease. Gel takes the position that her liability should only be limited to five monthly rentals and attorney's fees. (a) Is there a penalty clause in the lease agreement? Explain briefly.

Eka, a Filipina, and Du-guil, a Korean, married in the Philippines. Thereafter, they moved to Seoul, South Korea. While there, Du-guil began to ignore Eka. He was always out with his friends and usually came home drunk. When Eka could not take their marital situation anymore, she asked for a divorce. Du-guil agreed on the condition that Eka would be the one to file for divorce, and that the ground should be "no fault", meaning, neither of them is at fault or neither would be accused of any wrongdoing. After the divorce, Eka went back to the Philippines and filed a case to have the judgment of divorce recognized. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied Eka's petition because she alone filed for divorce, in violation of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code. According to the RTC, Article 26 requires that either the foreign spouse alone initiates the filing of the divorce or, at the very least, Eka and Du-guil should have filed for divorce jointly. Is the RTC correct? Explain briefly. (5 points)

With the intent to develop a subdivision, Oliver bought a parcel of land adjacent to a subdivision owned by Phil. Oliver's land had no direct access to the highway, as it was blocked by a kamote plantation owned by Josh. Phil's subdivision, on the other hand, already has a direct access to the highway. To facilitate the release of the license from the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development, Oliver presented a contract to sell between him and Josh over the kamote plantation, on the representation that he would construct an access road thereon. Pending approval of the license, Oliver sought the consent of Phil to connect the road that would be built by him with the main road of Phil's subdivision. Phil allowed him to do this pending their negotiation on the compensation to be paid. With the eventual grant of the license, Oliver began the development of his subdivision. To preserve the right of way over Phil's subdivision, Oliver was able to cause an annotation of adverse claim on Phil's property. However, when Oliver's subdivision was already completed, and with the adverse claim annotated, Oliver believed that he no longer needed to buy the kamote plantation and accordingly rescinded the contract to sell with Josh. When Oliver and Phil failed to arrive at an agreement on the consideration for the easement, Phil built a wall blocking the road constructed by Oliver that connected Oliver's subdivision with his. Oliver filed a complaint seeking the establishment of an easement of right of way through Phil's subdivision which Oliver claimed to be the most adequate and convenient access to the highway. On the other hand, Phil filed a petition to have the adverse claim cancelled. (a) Is Oliver entitled to a right of way through Phil's subdivision? Explain briefly.

This case involves two competing titles: TCT No. 23456 in the name of Flor and TCT No. 65432 in the name of de Luna. Flor's title was derived from Rodrigo. Rodrigo's title was originally obtained through a judicial confirmation of title in 1950 based on a survey plan approved in 1931. On the other hand, de Luna derived her TCT No. 65432 from Diaz who obtained an original title through judicial confirmation of title at a much later date, in 1970, on the basis of a survey plan approved in 1921. It turned out that Flor's TCT No. 23456, although titled prior in time, was based on a survey plan that was marred with numerous blatant, obvious, and serious defects, to the point that the trial court found it dubious, irregularly approved and was therefore fake. (b) As between Flor and de Luna, whose title should be declared valid and whose title should be voided? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Jungkook, who owns a building, leases the same to Gel with the following terms: (i) the lease is for a period of ten years; (ii) the yearly rental is Php 1,200,000.00 payable within the first ten days of the current year; and (iii) in case of breach of any of the provisions of the lease, Gel is liable to pay Jungkook five monthly rentals and attorney's fees. Five years into the lease, Gel sends a notice to terminate the lease and offers to pay five monthly rentals. Despite Jungkook's objections, Gel vacates the premises. Jungkook sues Gel for the rentals due for the remaining five years of the lease. Gel takes the position that her liability should only be limited to five monthly rentals and attorney's fees. (b) As between Jungkook and Gel, who is correct? Explain briefly. (5 points)

In 2008, a fire razed the Register of Deeds of San Fernando, Pampanga (RD). Several titles on file were burned. Long before the fire, Tito, Vic, and Joey had been living in a 350-sq.m. lot covered by TCT No. 49933, which they inherited from their parents. The original of TCT No. 49933 on file with the RD was among the titles which were burned. To effect the partition agreed among them, the siblings filed a verified petition for reconstitution of the TCT before your court. To support the petition, the siblings presented: (i) a notarized affidavit of loss duly recorded and registered with the RD; (ii) a photocopy of TCT No. 49933; (iii) real property tax declarations and receipts to evidence payment of real property taxes, together with the sketch and subdivision plan; (iv) a Land Registration Authority (LRA) Report which states that the survey and subdivision plans and the technical description of the property may be used as a basis for inscription of the technical description of the reconstituted property; (v) a microfilm copy of the plans and technical description on file with the LRA; and (vi) the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate executed among them. The public prosecutor, duly deputized by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), prays for the denial of the petition, and argues that the foregoing documents are insufficient for reconstitution of TCT No. 49933. Should the petition for reconstitution be granted? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Pepe and Pilar are adjoining lot owners. Suppose Pepe's lot is titled and without his knowledge, it was encroached upon by Pilar whose lot is untitled but who honestly believed that the encroached portion, where she built a small bungalow house, is still within her property. (b) Suppose it is Pilar's lot that is titled, and Pepe's lot is untitled, would Pilar be a builder in good faith? Discuss Pepe's right as against Pilar. Explain briefly. (5 points)

Thea, Vanessa, and Sophia are siblings who are co-owners of a 600-sq. m. parcel of land covered by TCT No. 12345 situated along Bangkal Road, Makati City. Thea decided to sell her share, an undivided 200-sq.m. portion of the property, to Alyssa, a Filipino nurse who has been living in Canada for the last ten years. Alyssa, without the knowledge of Sophia and Vanessa, built a modest house on the 200-sq.m. portion abutting the road and leased it to Sell for Php 15,000.00 per month. (b) Can Vanessa and Sophia respectively legally demand from Alyssa a one-third share in the rentals? Explain briefly. (5 points)

This case involves two competing titles: TCT No. 23456 in the name of Flor and TCT No. 65432 in the name of de Luna. Flor's title was derived from Rodrigo. Rodrigo's title was originally obtained through a judicial confirmation of title in 1950 based on a survey plan approved in 1931. On the other hand, de Luna derived her TCT No. 65432 from Diaz who obtained an original title through judicial confirmation of title at a much later date, in 1970, on the basis of a survey plan approved in 1921. It turned out that Flor's TCT No. 23456, although titled prior in time, was based on a survey plan that was marred with numerous blatant, obvious, and serious defects, to the point that the trial court found it dubious, irregularly approved and was therefore fake. (a) Discuss the principle of "qui prior est tempore, prior est jure" in the torrens system of land registration.