BAR Questions Flashcards
In 1970, the spouses Juan and Juana de la Cruz, then Filipinos, bought a parcel of unregistered land in the Philippines on which they built a house which became their residence. In 1986, they migrated to Canada and became Canadian citizens Thereafter, in 1990, they applied, opposed by the Republic, for the registration of the aforesaid land in their names.
Should the application of the spouses De la Cruz be granted over the Republic’s opposition? Why?
Yes, the application of the spouse de la Cruz should be granted because at the time they purchase the land they were Filipino citizens and registration showing is mere confirmation of the imperfect titles, which the spouses have already have before they became Canadian citizens
On March 27, 1980, **[March 27, 1990] **Cornelio filed an application for land registration involving a parcel of agricultural land that he had bought from Isaac identified as Lot 2716 with an area of one (1) hectare. During the trial, Cornelio daimed that he and his predecessor in interest had been in open, continuous, uninterrupted, public and adverse possession and occupation of the land for more than thirty (30) years. He Ikewise introduced in evidence a certification dated February 12, 1981 **[February 12, 1991] **citing a presidential declaration to the effect that on June 14, 1980 [June 14, 1990), agricultural lands of the public domain, including the subject matter of the application, were declared alienable and disposable agricultural land.
(A) if you are the judge, will you grant the application for land registration of Cornelio?
(B) Can Comelio acquire agricultural land through acquisitive prescription, whether ordinary or extraordinary?
(1) A. If I were the judge, I will not grant the application of Cornelio because at the time of the filing of an application for land registration on March 27 1990 the land was non-registrable as it has been classified and declared as alienable and disposable lands of the public domain only on June 14, 1990.
B. No, Cornelio did not acquire the land through acquisitive prescription. Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession of 10 years with good faith and with just title. While extraordinary prescription requires 30 years of adverse possession regardless of the absence of good faith and title. While Cornelio adversely the land for more than 30 years however under the civil code, prescription runs only against the patrimonial property of the state. In this case since there is no showing that the land is a patrimonial property, prescription did not commence to run. Hence Cornelio did not acquire the land by acquisitive prescription whether ordinary or extraordinary
On February 28, 1998, Arthur filed an application for registration of title of a lot in Ternate, Cavite before the Regional Trial Court of Naic, Cavite under Section 48(6) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (CA 141) for judicial confirmation of imperfect title. Section 48(b) of CA 147 requires possession counted from June 12, 1945. Arthur presented testimonial and documentary evidence that his possession and that of his predecessors-in interest started in 1936. The lot was declared alienable and disposable (A and D) in 1993 based on a PENRO certification and a certified true copy of the original classification made by the DENR Secretary. The government opposed the application on the ground that the lot was certified A and D only in 1993 while the application was instituted only in 1998. Arthur’s possession of five (5) years from the date of declaration does not comply with the 30-year period required under CA 141.
Should the possession of Arthur be reckoned from the date when the lot was declared A and D or from the date of actual possession of the applicant?
Explain. (5%)
The Possession of Arthur of the land should not be reckoned from the date when the land was declared alienable and disposable but from the date of actual possession of the applicant. Relative to the period of rule of prescription, a land should be classified as a patrimonial property before the prescription runs. For the purpose of 20 years possession, declaring the land as alienable and disposable is not necessary.
Assume the two properties are on a cliff adjoining the shore of Laguna Lake. Jessica and Jenny built hotel on the properties. They had the earth and rocks excavated from the properties dumped on the adjoining shore, giving rise to a new patch of dry land. Can they validly lay claim to the patch of land? (2%)
No. Under Article 84 of the Spanish Law on Waters of 1866, it provides that soil deposited gradually upon lands contiguous to lakes by sediments from waters belonging to the owner of such land. They cannot validly claim title over the patch of land as accretion.
The properties of jessica and Jenny, who are neighbors, lie along the banks of the Marikina River. At certain times of the year, the river would swell and as the water recedes, soil, rocks and other materials are deposited on Jessica’s and Jenny’s properties. This pattern of the river swelling, receding and depositing soil and other materials being deposited on the neighbors’ properties have gone on for many years.
Knowing this pattern, Jessica constructed a concrete barrier about 2 meters from her property line and extending towards the river, so that when the water recedes, soil and other materials are trapped within this barrier. After several years, the area between Jessica’s property line to the concrete barrier was completely filled with soil, effectively increasing Jessica’s property by 2 meters. Jenny’s property, where no barrier was constructed, also increased by one meter along the side of the river.
Question A: If Jessica’s and Jenny’s properties are registered, will the benefit of such registration extend to the increased area of their properties? (2%)
Registration does not automatically or impliedly extend to accretion. There must be a separate registration for the accretion. Jessica cannot apply the registration of the accretion because putting up a barrier is a kind of man-made accretion.
Juiet offered to sell her house and lot, together with all the furniture and appliances therein, to Delma. Before agreeing to purchase the property. Delma went be the Register of Deeds to verify Juliet’s title. She discovered that while the property was registered in Juliet’s name under the Land Registration Act, as amended by the Property Registration Decree, it was mortgage to elane to secure a debt of 720,000.
Wanting to buy the property, Delma told Juliet to redeem the property from Elaine, and gave her an advance payment to be used for purposes of releasing the mortgage on the property. When the mortgage was released, Juliet executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the property which was duly registered with the Registry of Deeds, and a new TCT was used in Delma’s name.
Delma immediately took possession over the house and lot and the movables therein
Thereafter, Delma went to the Assessor’s Office to get a new tax declaration under her name She wat surprised to find out that the property was already declared for tax purposes in the name of XYZ Bank which had foreclosed the mortgage on the property before was sold to her XYZ Bank was also the purchaser in the foreclosure sale of the property, At that time the property was still unregistered but XYZ Bank registered the Sherif Deed of Conveyance to the day book of the register of Deeds under Act. 3344 and obtained a tax decleration in its name.
(1)Was Delma a purchaser in good faith?
(2) Who has between Delma and XYZ bank has a better right to the house and lot?
(1) Yes. Delma is a purchaser in good faith because she only learned about the tax declaration and foreclosure in favor of XYZ bank after she paid the debt of Juliet and registered the property.
Under the Mirror Doctrine, Delma rightfully relied in the face of the certificate of title and it’s not required by law to look beyond further so at the time she only discovered that the land was mortgage to Elaine and no other. Hence, Delma is good faith.
(2) Delma has a better right to the house and lot because she is a buyer in good faith
New Rule in Determining Buyer in Good Faith
the rule now good faith must be in good faith from the time of the execution until the registration of the deed of sale
2004 BAR (Double Sale)
JV, owner of a parcel of land, sold it to PP. But the deed of sale was not registered. One year later, JV sold the parcel again to RR, who succeeded to register the deed and to obtain a transfer certificate of title over the property in his own name.
Who has a better right over the parcel of land, RR or PP? Why? Explain the legal basis for your answer.
Assuming that RE registered the parcel of land in good faith, no knowledge of the prior sale. RR has a better right.
Because under Section 59 of PD 1529 - a Deed of Sale operates only as a contract between the parties and as an Evidence of Authority for the right to register.
The operative act that conveys the land and affects third person is the act of registration
in cases of double sale, the buyer who first registered the sale acquires better right to the land and as long as the registration is in good faith
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 lawo’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 immed ately morteaged 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)
Under the mirror doctrine, every person dealing with registered land may rely on the correctness of the certificate of title, and the law will not oblige the buyer beyond the certificate of the property however there are exceptions.
One of the exceptions is with respect to banks and similar financial institutions because they cannot simply rely on the face of the certificate of title because they are required a higher degree of diligence and prudence. Because their business is impressed with public interest.
In this case, RBSC should have gone beyond the face of the certificate of title of Atoy and made further inquiry. Had it inspected the property it would have discovered another person who is AKiko who was in possession. Hence, RBSC us a buyer in bad faith for its failure to conduct further inquiry on the title of Atoy.
Mr. and Mrs. Roman and Mr, and Mrs. Cruz filed an application for registration of a parcel of land which after due proceedings was granted by the RTC acting as a land registration court. However, before the decree of registration could be issued, the spouses Roman and the spouses Cruz sold the lot to Juan. In the notarized deed of sale, the sellers expressly undertook to submit the deed of sale to the land registration court so that the title to the property would be directly issued in Juan’s name.
Is such a stipulation valid? (2%)
Yes, Because after the filing application for registration, the applicants may still undertake or transfer the land either the land or part of parcel of land during the pendency of the application and they can agree, not property. They just need to submit the proper document which is the deed of sale hence, it is a valid stipulation.
(1) Distinguish a direct attack from a collateral attack on a title. (2%)
(2) if the title in item A is issued in the names of the original sellers, would a motion filed by Juan in the same case to correct or amend the title in order to reflect his name as owner be considered a collateral attack? (2%)
The purpose of direct attack is pointing out defects in the title with the prayer to invalidate it, while collateral attack is not attacking the title directly, but it’s done while a different relief is being sought for. Certificate of title cannot be cancelled or modified except in a direct proceedings filed in court for the purpose. If it is an answer, it will constitute as a collateral attack.
(2) NO. A Collateral attack is applying for a relief in a different action. In this case it was filed in the same registration case. Hence, it cannot be considered as a collateral attack.
Rod, the owner of an FX taxi, found in his vehicle an envelope containing TCT No. 65432 over a lot registered in Cesar’s name. Posing as Cesar, Rod forged Cesar’s signature on a Deed of Sale in Rod’s favor, Rod registered the said document with the Register of Deeds, and obtained a new title in his name. After a year, he sold the lot to Don, a buyer in good faith and for value, who also registered the lot in his name.
a) Did Rod acquire title to the land? Explain
b) Discuss the rights of Don, if any, over the property.
(1) When Rod registered the forged deed, of such registration is void or it was not made in good faith.
It has been settled that registrant in bad faith cannot claim the protection of the indefeasibility of the Torrens system so he’s not entitled to the protection of the law nor the law cannot be used as a shield or frauds.
(2) Since Don is a buyer in good faith or an innocent purchaser for value. The rule is a forge document can be a root of a valid title in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value so he has a better right even against Cesar.
The spouses X and Y mortgaged a piece of registered land to A, delivering as well the OCT to the latter, but they continued to possess and cultivate the land, giving 1/2 of each harvest to A in partial payment of their loan to the latter. A, however, without the knowledge of X and Y, forged a deed of sale of the aforesald land in favor of himself, got a TCT in his name, and then sold the land to B, who bought the land relying on A’s title, and who thereafter also got a TCT in his name. It was only then that the spouses X and y learned that their land had been titled in B’s name.
May said spouses file an action for reconveyance of the land in question against B? Reason. (5%)
Yes. An action for reconveyance of land of the spouses against purchaser B will prosper. Because
The action file will prosper the action of X&Y against B will prosper. Because an action for a conveyance is available as a remedy when the land is not yet in the hands of an innocent purchaser for values
If there is already a buyer in good faith, then reconveyance will no longer apply.
In 2015, O, the original registered owner of a 300-square meter property covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-1234, appointed F as its caretaker. A year after, while O was abroad, F surreptitiously broke open O’s safe and stole the duplicate copy of the said OCT. F then forge a Deed of Absolute Sale and made it appear that O sold the property to him. Consequently f was able to have OCT No. 0-1234 cancelled and in lieu thereof, à new title, Transfer Certificate of Tile (TCT) No. T.4321, was issued in her name.
A few months after F offered the property for sale to X. After conducting the required due diligence to verity the title of f, and finding no occupant in the property during ocular inspection, X signed the contract of sale, and thereupon, fully paid the purchase price. A few days later, X was able to obtain TCT No. T-5678 under his name.
When 0 discovered F’s fraudulent acts upon his return in 2017, O Immediately filed a complaint for reconveyance against F and X, principally pointing out that F merely forged his signature in the Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly made in F’s favor and thus, F could not have validly transferred the title thereof to X. Consequently, he sought the return of the subject property to him.
A) Will the prayer of O for the return of the subject property prosper? Explain. (3%)
B) Assuming that O could no longer recover the subject property in view of X’s registration thereof in his name, may a claim against the Assurance Fund pursuant to the provisions of the Property Registration Decree be instituted? Explain. (3%)
A) No. Because reconveyance is not available against an innocent purchaser for value and more over a forge document can be a root of a valid title in the hand of a buyer in good faith.
B) Yes, because any person deprived of title or interest in land because of the system without negligence on his part may bring an action against the assurance.
2022 BAR
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 “Nonay, married to Doday”.
Nonoy sold the parcel of land to Barby without Dadays 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 Dadays consent was not required because the property was registered in his name.
Is the sale to Barby valid? Explain briefly. (5 points)
Call for the application on the course code you rules partnership games OK but I just want to point out at them that I just did the title in the name of Noy married to that certificate that mean that is the only owner of the owner of the property that is a description on the status of Owner of the property will be no and that because you are family family partnership of course if you buy from define of the conjugal partnership that is a conjugal partnership subject so the owner of the property is no and that regardless Jan LTD OK so no consent is not because you’re going to sell the property and it’s a part of the conjugal partnership against consent of those spouses 
