Property Quiz 2 (Midterms) 2023 - Golosino Flashcards
The house of A is constructed on an elevation higher than the property of B. A’s love for swimming pool compelled him to construct an artificial water reservoir. During rainy days, water filled the reservoir fast, so A created a small canal as passage of excess water, and said canal passes through B’s property. B prevented A from constructing the small canal. A offered payment but B’s refusal is beyond compare.
Can A compel B? Why?
References: Article 428 Comments 21-23; Article 642
Yes, A can compel B.
Under the Civil Code, the right to ownership is not absolute. One of the limitations imposed by law is the legal easement of waters. It is stated that a person upon his own property who wishes to dispose water shall have the right to make water flow through other property with the obligation to indemnify the owners of the property upon which the water passes through.
In the present case, the small canal was necessary for the easement of waters from the property of A. The offer of payment is an obligation to indemnify B.
Therefore, B cannot prevent A from constructing a small canal.
In a case for forcible entry, the defendant invoked length of occupation, tax declaration, and oral testimonies to advance his claim that he is the lawful owner of the contested property. On the other hand, the plaintiff showed no proof of ownership. Instead, he rebutted that length of occupation, tax declarations, and oral testimonies are mere disputable presumptions of ownership.
If you were the judge, whose side will you give more legal credence? Why?
Reference: Article 434
If I were the judge, I will give more legal credence to the defendant.
Under the Law on Property, as a general rule, the person in possession of the property is presumed to be the owner. Moreover, a person who claims ownership over the said property should rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of the defendant’s claim.
In the case at bar, the petitioner showed no proof of ownership and instead rebutted that evidence presented by the defendant are mere disputable presumptions of ownership.
Hence, the petitioner’s contention has no legal credence.
The local government of XYZ wanted to expropriate acres of land owned by the Roman Catholic Church. The Church devoted said property as an exclusive cemetery for priests. With resistance, the Catholic Church seek court interventions but the local government countered by advancing public use (national road) as the ground for expropriation.
Rule on this controversy.
Reference: Article 435 Comment 6
The government cannot expropriate the acres of land owned by the Roman Catholic Church.
The Law on Property provides that a private property intended for public use cannot be subjected for expropriation.
In the present controversy, the land in question is being used as a cemetery which is considered as public use since it is an obligation of the state.
Therefore, the acres of land owned by the Church cannot be expropriated.
Acting upon public clamor, the local government of ABC ordered the demolition of the chimney of Makalipong Bakeshop. Such chimney emits thick smoke which was proven to cause lung cancer. The owner of the bakeshop showed no resistance but demanded payment averring just compensation. The LGU refused, but the owner resisted.
Rule on this controversy.
Reference: Article 428 Comments 24-26
I will rule in favor of the LGU.
The Law of Property provides that a state can use its police power to promote the health and safety of the public. Furthermore, the owner of a property destroyed in the interest of public welfare by police power is not entitled to compensation.
In the case at bar, the demolition of the chimney was acted through the police power of the state and not of eminent domain since such act is necessary to promote the health and safety of the public.
Hence, the owner of the bakeshop is not entitled to just compensation.
Are bonuses civil fruits? Why?
Reference: Article 442 Comment 9
No, bonuses are not civil fruits.
It is stipulated in the Civil Code that a bonus is not income obtained or derived from the land itself, but income obtained as compensation for the risk assumed by the owner. Moreover, a bonus is not based upon the value or importance of the land but upon the total value of the debt secured.
