On This Page
This set of Philippines Civil Law Society Multiple Choice Questions & Answers (MCQs) focuses on Albano Set 5
Q1 | A ordered books from Rex Publishing worth P1M. The books were delivered to him at his office and as it was a Sunday, he issued a check which was dishonored when it was presented for payment. He sold the books to B. Can Rex Publishing recover the books?
- Rex Publishing can recover the books because it was unlawfully deprived when the check was dishonored.
- Rex Publishing can file an action for rescission of the contract.
- Rex Publishing can file an action for sum of money against A, or file criminal cases for violation of BP22 and Art. 315, RPC.
- Rex Publishing can file an action for declaration of nullity of the contract of sale.
Q2 | A, B, C and D are the heirs of X and Y who left an estate of 10 hectares in Laguna. The three (3) brothers agreed to convert the land from a riceland to a subdivision. D, the sister disagreed. Is D’s act valid and what is the remedy of the brothers?
- No, because she is a minority co-owner, the decision of the majority prevails;
- No, because while it is an alteration the consent of the controlling interest is merely required;
- Yes, because it is an alteration which requires the consent of all the co-owners but if the refusal of C is clearly prejudicial to the common interest, the alteration may be allowed;
- No, because it is prejudicial to their common interest.
Q3 | A, B and C are the co-owners of a parcel of land located in the City of Manila consisting of 90 square meters. A sued B and C for partition. How do you thing the court will decide?
- It will grant the action since land is basically divisible;
- It will dismiss because the land is so small;
- It will dismiss because the land is so small that to divide it will render it useless for the purpose it is intended;
- It will grant the action otherwise, A, B and C will be deprived of their right to make use of the property.
Q4 | In the question above, where D refuses to agree, what would be your advice to A, B and C?
- I would advice them to file a suit to compel her to give consent;
- I would advice them to sue her for damages;
- I would advice them to file an action for partition;
- I would advice them to develop the land and leave a portion equivalent to the share of D.
Q5 | In the question above, A, B and C agreed to use the amount of P100M left by their parents for the development of the land. D disagreed. Is D’s act correct?
- No, because it is prejudicial to the interest of the co-ownership;
- Yes, because the expenditure is not a mere act of administration, but an act of dominion;
- Yes, because the expenditure is not a mere act of administration but an act of dominion which needs the consent of all;
- No, because being trustees of one another, they are presumed to act favorably for every co-owner.
Q6 | A, B, C & D are the co-owners of a parcel of land. They agreed to orally partition the property. Is the partition valid?
- The contract of partition is void because it was not put into writing.
- The contract is unenforceable because it was not put into writing.
- The contract is valid because a contract can be in any form.
- The contract is valid and enforceable because in matters of realty, the Statute of Frauds governs only conveyances and leases and partition is not a lease; it is not a conveyance but merely segregation of a property.
Q7 | A, B & C are the co-owners of a parcel of land. They leased it to D. For failure to pay the rents, A alone sued D. Will the action prosper?
- The action will not prosper because B & C are indispensable parties.
- The action will not prosper because of failure to implead B & C who are real parties in interest.
- The action will prosper because anyone of the co-owners may sue for ejectment.
- The action will not prosper because the suit by A is not in representation of the co-ownership.
Q8 | What is the status of the sale of the whole property by one co-owner?
- Valid sale as to the whole property.
- Valid sale only as to the share of the seller co-owner.
- Sale is void on whole property as there is no consent from the other co-owner.
- Unenforceable
Q9 | Which of the following is false with regard to the prescription on action to quiet title?
- If the plaintiff is in possession, the action to quiet title does not prescribe.
- If the plaintiff is not in possession, it may prescribe.
- Whether the plaintiff is in possession or not, the action to quiet title will prescribe.
- none
Q10 | What should a co-owner do inorder that he can recover expenses in the alteration of co-ownership?
- Not secure the consent of the other co-owners anyway it is for the benefit of the co-ownership.
- Secure a unanimous consent of the co-owners.
- Not secure consent of the co-owners since they did not contribute for the alteration of the property.
- Secure the consent of majority of the co-owners.
Q11 | The following are some of the characteristics of a co-ownership except one:
- A co-owner is in a sense a trustee for the other co-owners.
- Co-ownership has judicial personality.
- There must be more than one subject or owner.
- Regarding the physical whole, each co-owner must respect each other in the common use, enjoyment or preservation of the physical whole.
Q12 | Within what period should the owner of a property subject of avulsion recover the lost property?
- 2 years
- 3 months
- 6 months
- 1 year
Q13 | A, B and C inherited a real property from their father. Subsequently, knowing that he is the co-owner of the said property, A mortgaged the same to D. For failure to pay, D foreclosed the same.
- B and C can redeem the said property after paying the foreclosed amount.
- A should pay B and C corresponding to the value of their respective share.
- B and C may redeem the property only to the extent of their respective shares.
- none
Q14 | A, B, and C are co-owners of a parcel of land. A sells his aliquot part of the whole property without the consent of B and C. Is the sale valid?
- Yes, it is valid, because the right of alienation is one of his rights over the ideal shares in the co-ownership.
- No, it is invalid, because the consent of his co-owners is material for the sale to be valid.
- Yes, it is valid because the co-owners did not object when he sold his part.
- No, it is invalid because a co-owner cannot sell his part to third person without offering it first to his co-owners.
Q15 | Which of the following is a characteristic of a co-ownership?
- The co-ownership possess juridical personality.
- Regarding the ideal share, each co-owner does not hold any control over the same.
- A co-owner is in a sense a trustee for the other co-owner.
- Regarding the physical whole, a co-owner uses and enjoys the same to the exclusion of the others.
Q16 | Which of the following is not a ground for extinguishment of a usufruct?
- Prescription
- Bad use of the thing in usufruct.
- Total loss of the thing in usufruct
- Non-user for 6 months.
Q17 | In taking care of the thing in usufruct, what degree of diligence is required?
- Good father of a family
- Utmost diligence
- Ordinary diligence
- Extraordinary diligence
Q18 | In 2001, A granted a usufruct over his building to B until February 23, 2011 when C, the son of B would have reached the age of 25. C died at the age of 23 in 2009. What happened to the usufruct?
- The usufruct was extinguished;
- The death terminated the usufruct;
- The usufruct subsists because a usufruct granted for the time that may elapse before a third person reaches a certain age shall subsist for a number of years specified even if the third person should die unless there is a stipulation to the contrary (Art. 606, NCC)
- The usufruct continues because B, the trustee is still alive.
Q19 | A built his house on his lot up to the boundary line and opened windows with direct view over the lot of B. Twenty (20) years later, B built his house up to the boundary line of his lot, hence, A filed a complaint enjoining B from building his house up to the boundary contending that he has acquired the easement of light and view by prescription and that B cannot build less than 3 meters from the boundary. Is A correct?
- Yes, because of prescription and laches;
- No, because there was no formal prohibition by means of an instrument acknowledged before a notary public prohibiting B from obstructing his easement of light and view;
- No, because A did not observe the 2-meter distance between the windows since the view is direct and the lot of B (Non-observance of the distances does not give rise to prescription.)
- Both B and C.
Q20 | A tolerated B to use his land, hence, B constructed a road where his trucks would pass through, going in and out of his land. Fifty (50) years thereafter, A asked B to pay rentals but B refused contending that he has already acquired ownership over the easement of right of way by prescription. Is B correct?
- B is correct because possession of a parcel of land for ten (10) years in good faith will ripen to ownership.
- B is correct because of laches.
- B is wrong because an easement of right of way cannot be acquired by prescription as while it is apparent it is not however not continuous.
- B is correct because with the continuous use of the easement, prescription lied.
Q21 | A is the owner of a parcel of land, which is a part of a subdivision property being developed by XYZ Corporation. His lot is adjacent to the road belonging to ABC Corporation hence, he used to pass through the road going to the national highway. In 2009, ABC Corporation constructed a fence on its property, thus closing the road. Can A demand the reopening of the road?
- A can demand for the reopening of the road because he acquired the right to use it by prescription.
- A can demand for the reopening of the road because it is the nearest to the highway.
- A cannot demand for the reopening of the road because there is an adequate road of the subdivision belonging to XYZ Corporation.
- A can demand for the reopening of the road because the roads of the subdivision of XYZ Corp. where his lot is located are not yet fully developed, hence, it is very inconvenient for him to pass thru the same.
Q22 | What is the test in determining whether a person may demand an easement of right of way?
- Least prejudicial to the servient estate and the shortest distance to the highway.
- Most prejudicial to the servient estate but shortest distance to the highway.
- Creation of another way which is shortest to the highway and closing the previous right of way.
- Total inadequacy.
Q23 | A donated a property to B, but the property is surrounded by A’s property. What is the right of B?
- Ask A for right of way without indemnity.
- Ask A for right of way with indemnity.
- Ask A to donate another property for B’s right of way.
- Sue A for a right of way without indemnity.
Q24 | In the establishment of an easement of right of way which is likened to the exercise of the power of eminent domain, the owner can validly contend that the compensation due the owner should be computed based on the
- Value when the road was constructed
- Date of filing the action in court
- Date of the judgment
- Value of the land and the amount of damage caused to the servient estate.
Q25 | A & B had an agreement for A to use B’s property as a right of way. Five (5) years later, an adequate outlet was opened to a highway near A’s property, hence, B filed an action to cancel the encumbrance of voluntary easement of right of way. The RTC granted. The CA may rule that:
- the RTC is correct because A has no more use of the easement.
- the RTC is correct because a voluntary easement can only be extinguished by agreement of the parties.
- the RTC is correct especially so that the dominant estate has been sol