(I)

(10pts)

Enumerate the Seven Property Rights based on Superiority

(II)

-20 pts

Petitioner is owner of land situated in Tarlac which he mortgaged to PNB in 1963.

This property was foreclosed. While the land was still in possession of the
petitioner, he was allowed by PNB to construct a warehouse. In 1978, deed of sale
was executed between PNB and herein respondent Lacsamana. Petitioner filed a suit
impugning the validity of the sale of the building in the CFI of Rizal. Respondent PNB
filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue because the suit involves
a real property.
1. Is the warehouse claimed to be owned by petitioner a real property? Justify. (5
pts)
2. What are the four classes of immovable property? (5 pts)
3. Give the three tests to determine whether the property is movable (5 pts)
4. Give Article 415 of the New Civil Code. (5pts)

(II) -10pts
The subject Roppongi property is one of the four properties in Japan acquired by the Philippine
government under the Reparations Agreement entered into with Japan on 9 May 1956, the other lots
being the Nampeidai Property (site of Philippine Embassy Chancery), the Kobe Commercial Property
(Commercial lot used as warehouse and parking lot of consulate staff), and the Kobe Residential
Property (a vacant residential lot).

The Roponggi property consists of the land and building for the Chancery of the Philippine
Embassy. As intended, it became the site of the Philippine Embassy until the latter was transferred
to Nampeidai on 22 July 1976 when the Roppongi building needed major repairs. Due to the failure
of our government to provide necessary funds, the Roppongi property has remained undeveloped
since that time.

During the incumbency of President Aquino, a proposal was made by former Philippine Ambassador
to Japan, Carlos J. Valdez, to lease the subject property to Kajima Corporation, a Japanese firm, in
exchange of the construction of 2 buildings in Roppongi, 1 building in Nampeidai, and the

renovation of the Philippine Chancery in Nampeidai. The Government did not act favorably to said
proposal, but instead, on 11 August 1986, President Aquino created a committee to study the
disposition or utilization of Philippine government properties in Tokyo and Kobe though AO-3, and
AO 3-A to 3-D.

On 25 July 1987, the President issued EO 296 entitling non-Filipino citizens or entities to avail of
reparations capital goods and services in the event of sale, lease or disposition. The four properties
in Japan including the Roppongi were specifically mentioned in the first Whereas clause. Amidst
opposition by various sectors, the Executive branch of the government has been pushing, with great
vigor, its decision to sell the reparations properties starting with the Roppongi lot.
Can the Roppongi property be alienated by the Philippine Government? (5 pts)
1. Was the Roppongi property converted into a patrimonial property? (5 pts)

III (10 pts)

1. What is Ownership? (3pts)
2. What are the Rights of an Owner? (2pts)
3. What is the principle of Self-Help? (5pts)
IV (10 pts)
Jessica- Alden
Jenny-Yayah

The properties of Alden and Yaya, 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 Aldens and Yayas 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, Alden 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 Aldens property
line to the concrete barrier was completely filled with soil, effectively increasing Aldens
property by 2 meters. Yayas property, where no barrier was constructed, also increased
by one meter along the side of the river.
1.

Can Alden and Yaya legally claim ownership over the additional 2 meters and one meter,
respectively, of land deposited along their properties? (2%)

2.

If Aldens and Yayas properties are registered, will the benefit of such registration extend to
the increased area of their properties? (2%)

3.

Assume the two properties are on a cliff adjoining the shore of a Lake. Alden and Yaya had
a hotel built 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%)

4. Distinguish Alluvion from Avulsion (4%)