Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LTD Finals BAr Questions
LTD Finals BAr Questions
No.IX. Before migrating to Canada in 1992, the spouses Teodoro and Anita entrusted all their legal papers
and documents to their nephew, Atty. Tan. Taking advantage of the situation, Atty. Tan forged a deed of
sale, making it appear that he had bought the couple’s property in Quezon City. In 2000, he succeeded in
obtaining a TCT over the property in his name. Subsequently, Atty. Tan sold the same property to Luis,
who built an auto repair shop on the property. In 2004, Luis registered the deed of conveyance, and title
over the property was transferred in his name. In 2006, the spouses Teodoro and Anita came to the
Philippines for a visit and discovered what had happened to their property. They immediately hire you as
lawyer. What action or actions will you institute in order to vindicate their rights? Explain fully. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will institute the following actions against Atty. Tan: (a). A civil action for damage for the fraudulent
transfer of the title in his name and to recover the value of the property; (b). An action against the
National Treasurer for compensation from the State Assurance Fund which is set aside by law to pay
those who lose their land suffer damages as a consequence of the operation of the Torrens system; (c). A
criminal action for forgery or falsification of public document; (d). A complaint with the Supreme
Court/Integrated Bar of the Philippines to disbar or suspend him or other disciplinary action for violation
or the Code of Professional Ethics. Any action against Luis will not prosper because he is an innocent
purchaser for value. The Title to the land he bought was already in the name of the person who sold the
property to him, and there is nothing on the title which will make him suspect about the fraud committed
by Atty. Tan.
(B). Who as between Dehlma and XYZ Bank has a better right to the house and lot? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Between Dehlma and XYZ Bank, Dehlma has a better right to the house and lot. After the release of the
mortgage, the Deed of Absolute Sale was registered and a new title was issued in Dehlma's name. Act
3344 is applicable exclusively to instruments resulting from agreement of parties thereto and does not
apply to deeds of a sheriff conveying to a purchaser unregistered lands sold to him under execution
(Williams v. Suñ er, 49 Phil. ,534).
(C). Who owns the movables inside the house? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Dehlma owns the movables because when she acquired the house and lot from Juliet, all the furniture
and appliances therein were included in the sale. As owner of the real property, Dehlma also owns the
movables found therein (Art. 542, Civil Code).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) Even if the government joins C, this will not alter the outcome of the case so much because of estoppel
as an express provision in Sec 45 of Act 496 and Sec 31 of PD 1529 that a decree of registration and the
certificate of title issued in pursuance thereof ―shall be conclusive upon and against all persons,
including the national government and all branches thereof, whether mentioned by name in the
application or not.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
B. Winda’s claim that her Torrens Title covering the property is indefeasible and imprescriptible [does
not hold water is not tenable. The rule of indefeasibility of a Torrens Title means that after one year from
the date of issue of the decree of registration or if the land has fallen into the hands of an innocent
purchaser for value, the title becomes incontestable and incontrovertible. IMPRESCRIPTIBILITY on the
other hand, means that no title to the land in derogation of that of the registered owner may be acquired
by adverse possession or acquisitive prescription or that the registered owner does not lose by extinctive
prescription his right to recover ownership and possession of the land. The action in this case is for
annulment of the sale executed by the husband over a conjugal partnership property covered by a
Torrens Title. Action on contracts are subject to prescription.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) Mikaelo's defense of laches, however, appears to be more sustainable. Renren bought the land and had
the sale registered way back in 1965. From the facts, it appears that it was only in 1998 or after an
inexplicable delay of 33 years that he took the first step asserting his right to the land. It was not even an
action to recover ownership but only possession of the land. By ordinary standards, 33 years of neglect or
inaction is too long and maybe considered unreasonable. As often held by the Supreme Court, the
principle of imprescriptibility sometimes has to yield to the equitable principle of laches which can
convert even a registered land owner's claim into a stale demand. Mikaelo's claim of laches, however, is
weak insofar as the element of equity is concerned, there being no showing in the facts how he entered
into the ownership and possession of the land.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes. The property registered is deemed to be held in trust for the real owner by the person in whose
name it is registered. The Torrens system was not designed to shield one who had committed fraud or
misrepresentation and thus holds the title in bad faith (Walstrom v. Mapa Jr., (G .R 38387, 29 Jan. 1990)
as cited in Martinez, D., Summary of SC Decisions, January to June, 1990, p. 359],
This action does not prescribe. With respect to Percival's action for reconveyance, it would have
prescribed, having been filed more than ten (10) years after registration and issuance of an O.C.T. in the
name of Melvin, were it not for the inherent infirmity of the latter's title. Under the facts, the statute of
limitations will not apply to Percival because Melvin knew that a part of the land covered by his title
actually belonged to Percival. So, instead of nullifying in toto the title of Melvin, the court, in the exercise
of equity and jurisdiction, may grant prayer for the reconveyance of Lot B to Percival who has actually
possessed the land under a claim of ownership since 1947. After all, if Melvin's title is declared void ab
initio and the land is reverted to the public domain, Percival would just the same be entitled to preference
right to acquire the land from the government. Besides, well settled is the rule that once public land has
been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession under a bonafide claim of acquisition of
ownership for the period prescribed by Section 48 of the Public Land Act, the same ipso jure ceases to be
public and in contemplation of law acquired the character of private land. Thus, reconveyance of the land
from Melvin to Percival would be the better procedure,
(Vitale vs. Anore, 90 Phil. 855; Pena, Land Titles and Deeds, 1982, Page 427)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The action of the Solicitor General should prosper, considering that the doctrine of indefeasibility of title
does not apply to free patent secured through fraud. A certificate of title cannot be used as shield to
perpetuate fraud. The State is not bound by the period of prescription stated in Sec. 38 of Act 496.
(Director of Lands vs. Abanilla, 124 SCRA 358). The action for reconveyance filed by Percival may still
prosper provided that the property has not passed to an innocent third party for value (Dablo us. Court of
Appeals. 226 SCRA 618), and provided that the action is filed within the prescriptive period of ten years
(Tale vs. Court of Appeals. 208 SCRA 266). Since the action was filed by Percival 19 years after the
issuance of Melvin's title, it is submitted that the same is already barred by prescription.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
(to second part of question) The action for reconveyance filed by Percival will prosper, because the land
has ceased to be public land and has become private land by open, continuous, public, exclusive
possession under a bona fide claim of ownership for more than thirty years, and Percival is still in
possession of the property at present. His action for reconveyance can be considered as an action to quiet
title, which does not prescribe if the plaintiff is in possession of the property. (Olviga v. CA. GR 1048013.
October 21, 1993)
XVII. Macario bought a titled lot from Ramon, got the title and took possession of the lot. Since Macario
did not have the money to pay the taxes, fees and registration expenses, he was not able to register the
Deed of Absolute Sale. Upon advice, he merely executed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim and had it
annotated at the back of the title. A few years after, he received a Notice of Levy on Attachment and Writ
of Execution in favor of Alex. The notice, writ and certificate of sale were annotated at the back of the title
still in Ramon's name. Alex contends that since the Affidavit of Adverse Claim is effective only for 30 days
from the date of its registration, then its validity has expired. Macario posits that the annotation of his
adverse claim is notice to the whole world of his purchase of the lot in question. Who has the superior
right over the disputed property - Macario or Alex? Explain.(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Macario is preferred since the registration of his adverse claim was made ahead of the notice of levy
and writ of execution in favor of Alex. Macario's adverse claim, coupled with the fact that he was in
possession of the disputed property, are circumstances which should have put Alex on constructive
notice that the property being offered to him had already been sold to another (Ching v Enrile, G.R. No.
156076 [2008]).The contention that the adverse claim is effective only for 30 years is puerile. In Sajonas
v. Court of Appeals, 258 (SCRA 79 [1996]),the Court held that the adverse claim does not ipso facto lose
its validity since an independent action is still necessary to render it ineffective. Until then, the adverse
claim shall continue as a prior lien on the property.
PS WALANG LTD RELATED BAR QUESTION SA 2017 AND 2018 BAR EXAM AYON SA AKING PAG
BBROWSE