Andy and Aimee, registered the status of Gianna as "legitimate", her surname carrying that of Andy's and that her parents were married to each other. (2008) a. Can a judicial action for correction of entries in
Gianna's birth certificate be successfully maintained to:
i. Change her status from "legitimate" to "illegitimate";
ii. Change her surname from that of Andy's
to Aimee's maiden surname?
A: YES, a judicial action for correction of entries in Gianna's
birth certificate can be successfully maintained to change (a) her status from "legitimate" to "illegitimate," and (b) her surname from that of Andy's to Aimee's maiden surname in accordance with Rule 108 of the Rules of Court because said changes are substantive corrections.
b. Instead of a judicial action, can administrative proceedings be brought for the purpose of making the above corrections?
A: NO. An administrative proceeding cannot be brought
for the purpose of making the above corrections. R.A. 9048, otherwise known as the Clerical Error Act, which authorizes the city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general to correct a clerical or typographical error in an entry and/or change the first name or nickname in the civil register without need of a judicial order. Errors that involve the change of nationality, age, status, surname or sex of petitioner are not included from the coverage of the said Act (Silverio v. Republic, G.R. No.
174689, October 22, 2007).
PROPERTY CLASSIFICATION
Q: Manila Petroleum Co. owned and operated a petroleum operation facility off the coast of Manila. The facility was located on a floating platform made of wood and metal, upon which was permanently attached the heavy equipment for the petroleum operations and living quarters of the crew. The floating platform likewise contained a garden area, where trees, plants and flowers were planted. The platform was tethered to a ship, the MV 101, which was anchored to the seabed. (2007)
Is the platform movable or immovable property? A: The platform is an immovable property under Art. 415
(9) NCC, which provides that "docks and structures which, though floating, are intended by their nature and object to remain at a fixed place on a river, lake or coast." Since the floating platform is a petroleum operation facility, it is intended to remain permanently where it is situated, even if it is tethered to a ship which is anchored to the seabed.
a. Are the equipment and living quarters movable or immovable property?
A: The thing and living quarters of the crew are
immovable property. Art. 415 (3) of the NCC classifies as an immovable "everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in such a way that it cannot be separated therefrom without breaking the material or deterioration
of the object." Both the equipment and the living quarters are permanently attached to the platform which is also an immovable. The equipment can also be classified as an immovable property under Art. 415 (5) NCC because such equipment are "machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land and which tend directly to meet the needs of the industry or works." It is logically assumed that the petroleum industry may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land and the platform is analogous to a building.
b. Are the trees, plants and flowers immovable or movable property?
A: The trees, plants and flowers planted in the garden
area of the platform are immovable property under Art. 415 (2) NCC which classifies as an immovable property "trees, plants and growing fruits, while they are attached to the land or form an integral part of an immovable, the petroleum operation facility.
OWNERSHIP
Good faith and Bad Faith of the Builder, Planter, Sower
Q: Felix cultivated a parcel of land and planted it with sugar cane, believing it to be his own. When the crop was eight months old and harvestable after two more months, a resurvey of the land showed that it really belonged to Fred. What are the options available to Fred? (2000)
A:
As to the pending crops planted by Felix in good faith, Fred has the option of allowing Felix to continue the cultivation and to harvest the crops, or to continue the cultivation and harvest the crops himself. In the latter option, however, Felix shall have the right to a part of the expenses of cultivation and to a part of the net harvest, both in proportion to the time of possession (Art.
545).
Q: Alex died without a will, leaving only an undeveloped and untitled lot in Tagiug City. He is survived by his wife and 4 children. His wife told the children that she is waiving her share in the property, and allowed Bobby, the eldest son who was about to get married, to construct his house on ¼ of the lot, without however obtaining the consent of his siblings. After settlement of Alex's estate and partition among the heirs, it was discovered that Bobby's house was constructed on the portion allocated to his sister, Cathy asked Bobby to demolish his house and vacate the portion alloted to her. In leiu of demolition, Bobby offered to purchase from Cathy the lot portion on which his house was constructed. At that time, the house constructed was valued at P350.000. (2008)
a. Can Cathy lawfully ask for demolition of Bobby's house?
A: YES, Cathy can ask for the demolition of Bobby’s house
on the portion allotted to Cathy in the partition. The lot is presumed to be community property as it was acquired during the marriage. Upon Alex’s death there was created a co-ownership by operation of law among the widow and the four children (Art. 1078). Bobby’s share is only an
31
UNIVERSITYOFSANTOTOMAS
FACULTYOFCIVILLAW
TEAM BAROPS
ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE2016
undivided interest of 1/10 of the entire lot. The widow’s share in the co-ownership is 6/10 of the entire lot, ½ of the lot being her share in the community property and 1/5 of Alex’s share in the other half, because she has the same share as one of the four children. She has the financial majority or majority interest of the co- ownership.Bobby’s act of building on ¼ of the lot is an act requiring the unanimous consent of all the o-owners since it is an act of alteration. Bobby only had the ideal share of 1/10 of the entire lot, and when he built his house on the ¼ of the lot, he was arrogating unto himself the right to partition the poverty and taking more than what he legally owns. The consent given by the widow to Bobby’s act of building his house was legally insufficient. As a matter of right, Cathy can ask for the demolition of the house and the payment of damages.
b. Can Bobby legally insist on purchasing the land? A: NO, Bobby cannot legally insist on purchasing the land.
The rules on building, planting and sowing are not applicable to co-ownership. The rules applicable to co- ownership are acts of alteration or acts of ownership on one hand and acts of mere administration on the other. Even if it were applicable, Bobby acted in bad faith and hence, demolition is one of the three options open to an owner. It is the owner of the land, not the builder, planter, sower who has the options, even if both acted in bad faith or good faith.
Q: Anselmo is the registered owner of a land and a house that his friend Boboy occupied for a nominal rental and on the condition that Boboy would vacate the property on demand. With Anselmo's knowledge, Boboy introduced renovations consisting of an additional bedroom, a covered veranda, and a concrete block fence, at his own expense. Subsequently, Anselmo needed the property as his residence and thus asked Boboy to vacate and turn it over to him. Boboy, despite an extension, failed to vacate the property, forcing Anselmo to send him a written demand to vacate. In his own written reply, Boboy signified that he was ready to leave but Anselmo must first reimburse him the value of the improvements he introduced on the property as he is a builder in good faith. Anselmo refused, insisting that Boboy cannot ask for reimbursement as he is a mere lessee. Boboy responded by removing the improvements and leaving the building in its original state. (1990, 2013)
a. Resolve Boboy's claim that as a builder in good faith, he should be reimbursed the value of the improvements he introduced.
A: Boboy’s claim that he is a builder in good faith has no
legal basis. A builder in good faith is someone who occupies the property in the concept of an owner. The provisions on builder-planter-sower under the Civil Code cover cases in which the builder, planter and sower believe themselves to be owners of the land, or at least, to have a claim of title thereto. As Boboy is a lessee of the property, even if he was paying nominal rental, Article 1678 Civil Code, is applicable. Under this provision, if the lessee makes, in good faith, useful improvements which are suitable to the use for which the lease is intended without altering the form or substance of the property leased, the lessor upon the termination of the lease shall pay the lessee one-half of the value of the improvements at that time. Should the lessor refuse to reimburse said
amount, the lessee may remove the improvements even though the principal thing may suffer damage thereby.
b. Can Boboy be held liable for damages for removing the improvements over Anselmo's objection?
A: NO. Boboy cannot be held liable for damages. The
lessor, Anselmo, refused to reimburse one-half of the value of the improvements, so the lessee, Boboy, may remove the same, even though the principal thing may suffer damage thereby. If in removing the useful improvements Boboy caused more impairment on the property leased than what is necessary, he will be liable for damages (Art. 1678).
Q: Republic Act 1899 authorizes municipalities and chartered cities to reclaim foreshore lands bordering them and to construct thereon adequate docking and harbour facilities. Pursuant thereto, the City of Cavite entered into an agreement with the Fil-Estate Realty Company, authorizing the latter to reclaim 300 hectares of land from the sea bordering the city, with 30% of the land to be reclaimed to be owned by Fil- Estate as compensation for its services. The Solicitor General questioned the validity of the agreement on the ground that it will mean reclaiming land under the sea which is beyond the commerce of man. The City replies that this is authorized by RA 1899 because it authorizes the construction of docks and harbors. Who is correct? (2000)
A: The Solicitor General is correct. The authority of the
City of Cavite under RA 1899 to reclaim land is limited to foreshore lands. The Act did not authorize it to reclaim land from the sea. "The reclamation being unauthorized, the City of Cavite did not acquire ownership over the reclaimed land. Not being the owner, it could not have conveyed any portion thereof to the contractor.
Hidden Treasure
Q: Tim came into possession of an old map showing where a purported cache of gold bullion was hidden. Without any authority from the government Tim conducted a relentless search and finally found the treasure buried in a new river bed formerly part of a parcel of land owned by spouses Tirso and Tessie. The old river which used to cut through the land of spouses Ursula and Urbito changed its course through natural causes. To whom shall the treasure belong? Explain. (1995)
A: The treasure was found in a property of public
dominion, the new river bed. Since Tim did not have authority from the government and, therefore, was a trespasser, he is not entitled to the one-half share allotted to a finder of hidden treasure. All of it will go to the State. In addition, under Art. 438 of the NCC in order that the finder be entitled to the 1/2 share, the treasure must be found by chance, that is by sheer luck. In this case, since Tim found the treasure not by chance but because he relentlessly searched for it, he is not entitled to any share in the hidden treasure.
Q: Marcelino, a treasure hunter as just a hobby, has found a map which appears to indicate the location of hidden treasure. He has an idea of the land where the treasure might possibly be found. Upon inquiry, Marcelino learns that the owner of the land,