Property Quiz 3 (Midterms) 2023 - Golosino Flashcards
A, acting in bad faith, built a house on the land of B. Proof showed that B acted in good faith. When the knowledge about trespassing reaches B, the latter asked the trespasser to buy the land even if the value of the land is considerably more than the value of the house.
Is B’s action tenable?
Reference: Article 450
Yes, B’s action is tenable.
Under the Law on Property, the owner of the land on which anything has been built in bad faith may compel the builder to pay the price of the land.
In the case at bar, the builder acted in bad faith, while the owner of the land acted in good faith.
Hence, the action of B letting A buy the land even if the value of the land is considerably more than the value of the house is tenable.
C purchased a house from D. C knew that the land where the house was built belongs to E and that D had built the house in bad faith. The price of the house is much higher than the price of the land.
Can C be ejected from the landholding without first being given indemnity?
Reference: Article 451 Comments 1-2
Yes, C can be ejected from the landholding without first being given indemnity.
Under the Law on Property, the owner in good faith can get the house without paying any indemnity for its value. Furthermore, a possessor in bad faith cannot acquire more rights than what the seller had. The facts of the case indicated that C purchased the house from D, who is a builder in bad faith, and the owner of the land acted in good faith.
Hence, C can be ejected from the landholding by the owner of the land without first being given indemnity.
X was leasing the building of Y for a period of 10 years. The contract of lease clearly stipulated that if the building will be destroyed by force majeure, the lease contract ends. After the lapse of 3 years, the building collapsed due to the havoc of Typhoon Odette. Unknown to Y, X engaged the services of Matumba Construction Company, where the latter initiated the construction of a new building which is much bigger than the previous. Y wanted to eject X.
If you were the judge, what will be your ruling?
Reference: Article 450
If I were the judge, I will rule for the ejectment of X.
Under the Law on Property, the owner of the land, which a building has been built in bad faith, can get the building without paying any indemnity for its value or expenses.
The facts of the case indicated that the lease contract already ended when the building subjected to lease was damaged by the typhoon. X’s act of building a new one without the knowledge of Y is an act in bad faith.
Hence, I will rule in favor of Y by granting his prayer to eject X.
T, a builder in bad faith, trespassed into the property of W. It is apparent that the owner of the land acted in good faith. During his occupation as an intruder, T constructed a canal in order to divert the flow of the river, which caused a bountiful harvest not only to him but also to the owners of adjacent landholdings. Then a strong typhoon ravaged the place, but thanks to the canal, the properties and vegetations of the adjacent properties were saved, but the property of W was severely damaged rendering it useless. Investigation showed that because of the canal, the force of the water caused erosions to the property of W, but saved the properties nearby. W sued T and demanded reparations, but he countered and demanded reimbursement for the necessary expenses of preservation of the land. T further argued that because of the canal, the properties of more than 50 people were saved as opposed to the single damage unfolding to W’s property.
Rule on this controversy.
Reference: Article 452
T’s argument is unmeritorious.
Under the Law on Property, the builder in bad faith is entitled to reimbursement for the necessary expenses of the preservation of the land.
Here, the act of T in constructing the canal did not promote preservation of the property, but caused damage. The law contemplates on the preservation of the property being trespassed and not on the properties nearby.
Thus, the action of W gains legal merit.
Before his death, D summoned his wife and 5 children for an urgent meeting. D made a very clear instruction that all his properties be conveyed 2 years after his death. Few days after, D died. Due to an expensive burial, the family decided to sell a portion of D’s property, but this was opposed by the youngest child (C). His opposition was overturned by the decision of the majority, including his mother. Indeed, 1/4 of the property was sold to B.
If you are the judge handling this case where C filed for a quieting of title, will you accord legal favor to C?
Reference: Article 476
If I am the judge handling this case, I will accord legal favor to C.
The provisions of the Civil Code on quieting of title provides that an action may be brought to quiet the title for instances where a person has interest therein by reason of claim, which is apparently valid or effective, but is in truth and in fact voidable and may be prejudicial to said title.
Here, the conveyance was made with the opposition of C. Said transfer of ownership and title to B was, therefore, voidable.
Hence, C’s case on quieting of title will prosper.
Does the action to quiet title prescribe?
Reference: Article 476 Comment 10
It depends.
The provisions of the Civil Code on quieting of title provides that the action does not prescribe if the plaintiff is in possession of the property.
Conversely, the action may prescribe if the plaintiff is not in possession of the property. The period of prescription for the recovery of the land is either 10 or 30 years, depending on ordinary or extraordinary prescription. And even if brought within the prescriptive period, the action may no longer prosper if there has been an unreasonable or unjustified delay in filing the suit, since it is now barred by laches.
