On This Page
This set of Philippines Civil Law Society Multiple Choice Questions & Answers (MCQs) focuses on Albano Set 14
Q1 | A filed an application for confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title. B filed an opposition alleging that the land is part of the inalienable lands of the State. Is B correct?
- Yes, because anyone can invoke the interest of the State;
- No, because only the State can invoke its interest;
- Yes, by reason of public policy;
- Yes, because any Filipino is a real party in interest.
Q2 | X is a naturalized Filipino. In 1990, he migrated to the USA and embraced American citizenship. In 2010, he returned to the Philippines and asks you whether he can own a residential lot in Manila. What is your advice?
- Yes, he being a former natural-born citizen, he can own up to 5,000 square meters;
- No, because only former natural-born citizens can own land in the Philippines up to 5,000 square meters in Manila;
- Yes, because he has the same rights as a former natural born citizen;
- Yes, otherwise, there would be a violation of the equal protection clause.
Q3 | A, an American citizen is married to B, a Filipina. Through the pension and savings of A, they acquired a residential lot in Manila, but it was registered under B’s name. B sold the property to C. Can A seek to recover the property?
- Yes, because the sale is void as it was done without the consent of A;
- Yes, because B as trustee, she cannot sell the property;
- No, because even if the property was acquired with A’s money, he cannot own land in the Philippines;
- Yes, otherwise B would enrich herself at the expense of A.
Q4 | In the question above who can file an action to recover the property?
- A can recover the property because the contract of sale is void;
- The State by filing a petition for reversion;
- The State by filing a petition for escheat;
- No one because the title is valid especially so that B is married to a Filipino.
Q5 | A and B are compadres. They own two (2) adjacent parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 1 and 2 respectively where they reside. With the use of fraud, A registered the property of B under his name in 2009. Can B recover the title?
- No, because one (1) year after the issuance of the title, it became imprescriptible;
- No, because of the indefeasible nature of the title after one (1) year from its issuance;
- Yes, because the title of A is void;
- No, because a void act can be the root of a valid title.
Q6 | In the question above A sold it to C while the title is clean. C registered it under his name. Can B recover the title?
- No, because C is a buyer in good faith and for value as the title was clean when it was sold;
- No, because of the mirror doctrine;
- Yes, because C is not a buyer in good faith having closed his eyes to things that he saw when he bought it;
- No, because of the indefeasibility of his title.
Q7 | A is the owner of a parcel of land covered by a TCT No. 1. B stole the title, forged his signature and transferred it under his name. TCT No. 2 was issued under his name. He sold it to C who registered under his name. When returned to the Philippine in 2010, he discovered that his title was transferred to another. Can he recover the same?
- Yes, because the title of C is void;
- No, because the title of C is valid because he is a buyer in good faith and for value;
- No, because even if the title of B is void, a void title can be the root of a valid title if it passes to a buyer in good faith and for value;
- Yes, because the title of B being void, it cannot produce a valid title.
Q8 | Of the following properties enumerated, which is disposable?
- Mineral land
- Military reservation
- Forest land
- Agricultural land
Q9 | X and Y are married. They have a son Z. When X died, Z inherited a property covered by TCT No. 1. Z died without any issue. Y inherited it and obtained a title. There is however no inscription of the reservable character of the property. Y sold it to A who obtained a title. Y died in 2009. Can B, C and D, the reservatarios recover the property?
- Yes, because the property is reserved to them by law;
- Yes, because Y could not have sold it being a mere trustee;
- No, because A is a buyer in good faith and for value;
- Yes, because Y could not have sold that which she did not own.
Q10 | In the problem, above, Y executed an affidavit stating the foregoing circumstances. It was inscribed/registered in the day book of the register of deeds. Can the reservatarios recover?
- No, because the title of A is indefeasible;
- No, because A is a buyer in good faith and for value;
- Yes, because A is not a buyer in good faith and for value, as the registration of the affidavit in the day book of the Register of Deeds is notice to the whole world;
- No, because the affidavit was not recorded/annotated at the back of the title.
Q11 | The Roponggi property of the Philippines was sought to be sold to help raise funds to finance the various economic projects of the State. If you were consulted on this legal matter, what would be your advice?
- It can be sold because it is a patrimonial property of the State;
- It cannot be sold because it is a property of the State intended for public use and public service;
- It can be sold because it is a disposable property;
- It can only be sold if the Director of Lands reclassifies it to a patrimonial property.
Q12 | May there be registration of a parcel of land already decreed in favor of another?
- Yes, due to prescription;
- Yes, due to laches;
- No, the land registration court has no jurisdiction to order the registration of a property already registered, otherwise, it is void; (MWSS v. CA, 215 SCRA 783)
- Yes, for as long as there is compliance with the due process clause.
Q13 | A is the owner of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 1. He leased it to B. When sued for ejectment, B contended that A’s title is void. Is he correct?
- Yes, because if A’s title is void, he has no right to sue B for ejectment;
- No, because that is a collateral attack on A’s title;
- Yes, because the decision on the title would be res judicata to the issue of the right to eject A;
- Yes, because a decision on the title of A is prejudicial to the right to eject B.
Q14 | A leased a parcel of land from B. With the consent of B, A constructed his house. If B will file an application for registration of the land, what will happen to the house?
- It will be included in the registration as improvement thereon unless A files an opposition and asks that his right be annotated on the title;
- A can have it registered independently;
- A need not file an opposition as the court will order the registration of the land without the house because registration under PD 1529 applies only to land;
- A can oppose alleging that he has a better right to register since he is in actual possession.
Q15 | What is the remedy of an owner of a titled land in case it was registered by another with the use of fraud under his name?
- He can file an action for reconveyance within 10 years from the discovery of the fraud;
- He can file an action for reconveyance within 10 years from the date of registration since the registrant is merely holding it as a trustee.
- He can file an action for reconveyance at anytime since the title is void, hence, the right to file the action is imprescriptible;
- He has to file the action within 4 years from the discovery of the fraud.
Q16 | A was able to register a mineral land under TCT No. 1 as early as 1950. After his death, his children B and C inherited it and sold to D. What is the remedy of the State if it chooses to recover it today?
- File a petition for escheat;
- File an action for reversion which is imprescriptible (Rep v. Animas, 56 SCRA 499);
- Cannot file any action anymore because the title has become indefeasible;
- Cannot recover anymore because while A’s title was void, D has acquired it in good faith and for value.
Q17 | May a corporation hold or own alienable lands of the public domain?
- Yes, to become sustainable;
- Yes, because the term persons under PD 1529 is used in its generic sense to include artificial persons;
- No, it can only lease;
- Yes, for a limited time.
Q18 | A is the owner of a property covered by TCT No. 10. As early as 1950, he knew that his title has been transferred under the name of B, but did nothing to recover it, knowing that B has been in possession. Can he file an action to recover it today?
- Yes, because the title is imprescriptible and indefeasible;
- Yes, because B’s title is void, hence, the action to declare it void is imprescriptible (Art. 1410, NCC);
- No more because of laches. While a title is imprescriptible, under certain exceptional circumstances, it may yield to the principle of laches. (Heirs of Lacamen v. Heirs of Laruan, July 31, 1985)
- No, because of estoppel.
Q19 | If a parcel of land covered by a homestead patent is sold, what is the period of redemption?
- Within 5 years from registration of the deed;
- Within 5 years from the date of the conveyance (Sucaldito v. Montejo, February 6, 1991);
- Within 5 years from the date of the conveyance plus one (1) year redemption period under the Rules of Court.
- Imprescriptible because the sale is void.
Q20 | A was granted a homestead patent on April 3, 2009. On April 29, 2011, she sold it to C. Is the sale valid?
- Yes, because the right to sell is inherent in the right of ownership;
- No, the sale is void as the law prohibits the sale within 5 years from the issuance of the patent; (Heirs of Bajenting v. Bañez, September 20, 2006)
- Yes, anyway, she can repurchase it;
- Yes, because there is no prohibition at the back of the title.
Q21 | May a person file an application for registration of a part of the reclamation undertaken by a local governmental unit?
- Yes, because it is an alienable land;
- Yes, because it is a private land;
- No, because reclaimed lands of the public domain may only be leased not sold to private parties as they retain their inherent potential as areas for public use or public service. (Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, 384 SCRA 152);
- Yes, because a local government unit is vested with a juridical capacity to enter into contracts.
Q22 | If a parcel of land sought to be registered is located in two (2) provinces, where should the case be filed?
- In both provinces;
- If declared for taxation purposes in one (1), then in that province;
- If the boundary has already been determined and there are now plans for the two (2) provinces, then file the same in each of the provinces;
- If the land has been declared for taxation purposes in one province, then, file it in the said province even if the boundary has not yet been determine. (Note: The boundary should have been determined.)
Q23 | In an application for land registration, there was an opposition. Can the oppositor pray for affirmative relief that he be declared the owner?
- No, because he was not an applicant;
- Yes, provided he can adduce evidence to prove his interest. (City of Manila v. Lock, 19 Phil 324)
- No, because there was no publication which is mandatory;
- No, otherwise there would be violation of the due process clause.
Q24 | Within what time should a decree of registration be reopened?
- Within four (4) years from the issuance of the decree of registration;
- Within 30 days from receipt of the decree;
- Within one (1) year from the issuance of the decree of registration; (Lopez v. Padilla, 45 SCRA 44; Eland Phils. Inc. v. Garcia, et al., G.R. No. 173289, February 17, 2010);
- Imprescriptible.
Q25 | What is the ground for the reopening of a decree of registration?
- Intrinsic fraud;
- Newly discovered evidence;
- Actual fraud (Eland Phils. Inc. v. Garcia);
- Mistake.