My phenomenal padlet by https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7 en-us 2022-07-16 03:13:17 UTC 2025-11-19 03:22:45 UTC hello@padlet.com Property: 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. (1) Is the platform movable or immovable property? suits https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244397173 The platform is an immovable property because the floating petroleum operation facility is a structure that is naturally intended to remain fixed off the coast of Manila.

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 are immovable property as expressly provided by the Civil Code.

The floating platform is a petroleum operation facility that is intended to remain permanently fixed to where it is situated, despite the fact that it is tethered to a ship which is anchored to the seabed. Considering the said provision, the platform is an immovable property.]]> 2022-07-16 03:16:26 UTC https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244397173 LTD: In 1979, Nestor applied for and was granted a Free Patent over a parcel of agricultural land with an area of 30 hectares, located in General Santos City. He presented the Free Patent to the Register of Deeds, and he was issued a corresponding Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 375, Subsequently, Nestor sold the land to Eddie. The deed of sale was submitted to the Register of Deeds and on the basis thereof, OCT No. 375 was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 4576 was issued in the name of Eddie. In 1986, the Director of Lands filed a complaint for annulment of OCT No, 375 and TCT No. 4576 on the ground that Nestor obtained the Free Patent through fraud. Eddie filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that he was an innocent purchaser for value and in good faith and as such, he has acquired a title to the property which is valid, unassailable and indefeasible. Decide the motion. suits https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244397504 The motion must fail because Eddie bought the agricultural land from Nestor who obtained the land through fraud and who failed to procure the statements of material facts in the application of said land under oath.

The Public Land Act provides that statements of material facts in the applications for public land must be under oath. Furthermore, the same act provides that such statements shall be considered as essential conditions and parts of the concession, title, or permit issued, any false statement therein, or omission of facts shall ipso facto produce the cancellation of the concession.

Eddie bought OCT No. 375 from Nestor who obtained the land through fraud. Consequently, Nestor has no title over said parcel of land from the beginning and for this reason, Nestor could never transfer ownership of the same to Eddie. Eddie only stepped into the shoes of Nestor who has no ownership over the land right from the start. The patent is void not only because of Nestor's misrepresentation, but also because it covers 30 hectares which is beyond the maximum of 24 hectares granted by the Free Patent Law.]]> 2022-07-16 03:17:43 UTC https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244397504 Property: Anna Shay is the registered owner of Lot A while Christine Chiu is the registered owner of the adjoining Lot B. Lot A is located at an elevated plateau of about 15 feet above the level of Lot B. Since Anna Shay was allegedly removing portions of the land and cement that supported the adjoining property, Christine Chiu caused the annotation of an adverse claim against 50 square meters on Lot A's Transfer of Certificate of Title, asserting the existence of legal easement. Does a legal easement in fact exists? If so, what kind? https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244424739 Yes, a legal easement of lateral and subjacent support exists because Anna Shay has an adjoining lot with Christine Chiu.

Established is the rule in our jurisdiction which provides that no proprietor shall make such excavations upon his land of sufficient lateral or subjacent support. The law imposes a duty upon the servient estate to notify the dominant estate the intention to excavate. 

Here, Christine Chiu did not notify the support she established in Anna Shay's estate since the latter allegedly removed those which support the adjoining property. Effectively, Christine Chiu cannot make any apportionment through a cement between her property and that of Anna Shay. ]]> 2022-07-16 05:31:42 UTC https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244424739 LTD: Doctor Strange is the registered owner of a parcel of land in Sanctum Sanctorum, located in Cebu City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.1234 issued in 1955. Since his acquisition of the lot, Doctor Strange and his family had been in open, continuous and peaceful possession thereof. Doctor Strange died in 1980, resulting in the land being transferred to the names of his heirs, i.e., A, B and C, who became registered owners thereof as per TCT No. 5678. During the entire time, said land had never been encumbered or disposed, and that its possession always remained with them. Sometime in 1999, A, B, and C wanted to build a concrete fence around the parcel of land, but they were opposed by Iron Man, who started claiming ownership over the same property on the strength of a Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly entered into by him with Doctor Strange during his lifetime. Aggrieved, A, B, and C intend to file a complaint for quieting of title against Iron Man. https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244429302 A.) What are the substantive requisites for the action to prosper? Do they obtain in this case? Explain. (3%)

There are two indispensable requisites which must concur for the action of quieting of title to prosper. These are:

(1) the plaintiff, or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property which is the subject matter of the action; and
(2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting on cloud on the title must be shown to be in fact void or inoperative even there's a prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.

Here, A, B, and C's action of quieting of title shall prosper for the following reasons:

First, A, B, and C are registered owners of the land in question which is the subject matter of the dispute between Iron Man, and A, B, and C; and

Second, the claim of Iron Man against the disputed parcel of land has a cloud on the title since the same was sold during the lifetime of Mr. R.

B.) Within what period should A, B, and C file the complaint for quieting of title? Explain. (2%)

A,B, and C may file the complaint anytime for quieting of title because the same is imprescriptible since they possess the disputed property.

The Supreme Court has held that a person who has actual possession of a piece of land under a claim of ownership may wait until the the possession is disturbed or the title is attacked  before taking steps to vindicate his right, and that his undisturbed possession gives him the continuing right to seek the aid of a court to ascertain and determine the nature of adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his life.


C.) Assuming that B and C are residing abroad, May A, without the knowledge of B and C, file the complaint for quieting of title on behalf of all the heirs? Explain. (2%)

A may file an action of quieting of title in behalf of all the heirs because a co-owner may bring a suit for the recovery of possession.

The rule is that anyone of the co-owners may bring action in their behalf because the suit is presumed to be instituted for the benefit of all. A can institute a complaint for quieting of title in behalf of B and C and for the latter's benefit because they are not necessary parties to the action of quieting of title since complete relief could be afforded even in their absence.]]> 2022-07-16 06:02:07 UTC https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244429302 Property: Ownership: Ferdie and Maverick are cousins who separately inherited two adjoining lots from their grandfather. Ferdie is based overseas but wants to earn income from his inherited land, so he asked a local contractor to build a row of apartments on his property which he could rent out. The contractor sent him the plans and Ferdie noticed that the construction encroached on a part of Maverick's land but he said nothing and gave approval to construct based on the plans submitted by the local contractor. Maverick, based locally, who loved his cousin Ferdie dearly, did not object even if he knew the encroachment since he was privy to the plans and visited the property regularly. Later, the cousins had a falling out and Maverick demanded the portion of the apartments that encroached on his land be demolished. Can Maverick successfully file legal action to require the demolition? https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244614071 No, Maverick as landowner cannot successfully file legal action to require demolition because both him and Ferdie are builders in bad faith.

The rights shall be as though acted in good faith when both the landowner and the builder are in bad faith as provided under the Civil Code on property. The landowner has two options: (1) to sell the land, or (2) ask what was built be demolished in case there was a refusal on the builder to buy the land when the landowner decides so.

Both Maverick and Ferdie acted in bad faith because they both knew that there was an encroachment on the former's land.

In such case, Maverick cannot demand the demolition of the apartment that encroached upon the portion of his land as only his option.]]> 2022-07-16 22:32:17 UTC https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244614071 (2) LTD: The spouses X and Y mortgaged a piece of registered land to A, delivering as well the OCT to the latter, but they continued to possess and cultivate the land, giving 1/2 of each harvest to A in partial payment of their loan to the latter, A, however, without the knowledge of X and Y, forged a deed of sale of the aforesaid land in favor of himself, got a TCT in his name, and then sold the land to B, who bought the land relying on A's title, and who thereafter also got a TCT in his name. It was only then that the spouses X and Y learned that their land had been titled in B's name. May said spouses file an action for reconveyance of the land in question against b? Reason. suits https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244626766 2022-07-17 00:02:41 UTC https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244626766 (1) LTD: Rommel was issued a certificate of title over a parcel of land in Quezon City. One year later Rachelle, the legitimate owner of the land, discovered the fraudulent registration obtained by Rommel. She filed a complaint against Rommel for reconveyance and caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on the certificate of title issued to Rommel. Rommel now invokes the indefeasibility of his title considering that one year has already elapsed from its issuance. He also seeks the cancellation of the notice of Lis pendens. (1) May the court cancel the notice of lis pendens even before final judgment is rendered? Explain. (2) Will Rachelle's suit for reconveyance prosper? Explain. suits https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244626944 2022-07-17 00:04:08 UTC https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244626944 (3) LTD: Louie, before leaving the country to train as a chef in a five-star hotel in New York, U.S.A., entrusted to his first-degree cousin Dewey an application for registration, under the Land Registration Act, of a parcel of land located in Bacolod City. A year later, Louie returned to the Philippines and discovered that Dewey registered the land and obtained an Original Certificate of Title over the property in his Dewey’s name. Compounding the matter, Dewey sold the land to Huey, an innocent purchaser for value. Louie promptly filed an action for reconveyance of the parcel of land against Huey. (1) Is the action pursued by Louie the proper remedy? (2) Assuming that reconveyance is the proper remedy, will the action prosper if the case was filed beyond one year, but within ten years, from the entry of the decree of registration? suits https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244627014 2022-07-17 00:04:39 UTC https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244627014 (4) LTD: Sancho and Pacifico are co-owners of a parcel of land. Sancho sold the property to Bart. Pacifico sued Sancho and Bart for annulment of the sale and reconveyance of the property based on the fact that the sale included his one-half pro-indiviso share. Pacifico had a notice of lis pendens annotated on the title covering the property and ordered the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens. The notice of lis pendens could not be cancelled immediately because the title over the property was with a bank to which the property had been mortgaged by Bart. Pacifico appealed the case. While the appeal was pending and with the notice of lis pendens still uncancelled, Bart sold the property to Carlos, who immediately caused the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens, as well as the issuance of a new title in his name. (1) Is Carlos (a) a purchaser in good faith, or (b) a transferee pendente lite? (2) If your answer is (a), how can the right of Pacifico as co-owner be protected? Explain. suits https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244627121 2022-07-17 00:05:25 UTC https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244627121 Property: Co-ownership: Anna, Christine, and Kim inherited from their parents 500 sq.m. lot which they leased to Rowena for three (3) years. One year after, Anna, claiming to have authority to represent her siblings Christine and Kim, offered to sell the leased property to Rowena which the latter accepted. Sale was not reduced into writing, but Rowena started to make partial payments to Anna, which the latter received and acknowledged. After giving the full payment, Rowena demanded for the execution of a deed of absolute sale which Christine and Kim refused to do. Worst, Rowena learned that the siblings sold the same property to Ruffa. This compelled Rowena to file a complaint for the annulment sale with specific performance and damages. If you are the judge, how will you decide the case? https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244627269 As a judge, I would award 1/3 share of Anna to Rowena and 2/3 share of Christine and Kim to Ruffa as enshrined in the rules of co-ownership of property under the Civil Code.

The rule among co-owners is that they can exercise their right to  sell their property pertaining to their share. The sale shall be in writing, otherwise, the same is void. The sale of Anna without the authority and consent of her co-owners, Christine and Kim, shall only pertain to her 1/3 share since the sale is void without a written authority. In effect, the sale to Rowena shall only pertain to Anna's 1/3 share. Likewise, the 2/3 share of Christine and Kim shall be acquired by Ruffa, to whom their shares were sold.]]> 2022-07-17 00:06:29 UTC https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244627269 (1) Property: Easements: In 2005, Andres built a residential house on a lot whose only access to the national highway was a pathway crossing Brando's property. Andres and others have been using this pathway (pathway A) since 1980. In 2006, Brando fenced off his property, thereby blocking Andres' access to the national highway. Andres demanded that part of the fence be removed to maintain his old access route to the highway (pathway A), but Brando refused, claiming that there was another available pathway (pathway B) for ingress and egress to the highway. Andres countered that pathway B has defects, is circuitous, and is extremely inconvenient to use. To settle their dispute, Andres and Brando hired Damian, a geodetic and civil engineer, to survey and examine the two pathways and the surrounding areas, and to determine the shortest and the least prejudicial way through the servient estates. After the survey, the engineer concluded that pathway B is the longer route and will need improvements and repairs, but will not significantly affect the use of Brando's property. On the other hand, pathway A that had long been in place, is the shorter route but would significantly affect the use of Brando's property. In light of the engineer's findings and the circumstances of the case, resolve the parties' right of way dispute. suits https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244628215 2022-07-17 00:14:10 UTC https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244628215 (3) Labor: DOLE Regional Directors: Savoy Department Store (SDS) adopted a policy of hiring salesladies on five-month cycles. At the end of a saleslady’s five-month term, another person is hired as replacement. Salesladies attend to store customers, wear SDS uniforms, report at specified hours, and are subject to SDS workplace rules and regulations. Those who refuse the 5-month employment contract are not hired. The day after the expiration of her 5-month engagement, Lina wore her SDS white and blue uniform and reported for work but was denied entry into the store premises. Agitated, she went on a hunger strike and stationed herself in front of one of the gates of SDS. Soon thereafter, other employees whose 5-month term had also elapsed joined Lina’s hunger strike. Assume that no fixed-term worker complained, yet in a routine inspection a labor inspector of the Regional Office of the DOLE found the 5-month term policy of SDS violative of the Labor Code’s security of tenure provisions and recommended to the Regional Director the issuance of a compliance order. The Regional Director adopted the recommendation and issued a compliance order. Is the compliance order valid? Explain your answer. suits https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244628381 2022-07-17 00:15:37 UTC https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244628381 (2) Labor: Inggo is a dram talent hired on a per drama “participation basis” by DJN Radio Company. He worked from 8:00am until 5:00pm, six days a week, on a gross rate of P80.00 per script, earning an average of P20, 000.00 per month. Inggo filed a complaint before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) against DJN Radio for illegal deduction, non-payment of service incentive leave, and 13th month pay, among others. On the basis of the complaint, the DOLE conducted a plant level inspection. The DOLE Regional Director issued an order ruling that Inggo is an employee of DJN Radio, and that Inggo is entitled to his monetary claims in the total amount of P30, 000.00. DJN Radio elevated the case to the Secretary of Labor who affirmed the order. The case was brought to the Court of Appeals. The radio station contended that there is no employer-employee relationship because it was the drama directors and producers who paid, supervised, and disciplined him. Moreover, it argued that the case falls under the jurisdiction of the NLRC and not the DOLE because Inggo’s claim exceeded P5, 000.00. (1) May the DOLE make a prima facie determination of the existence of an employer-employee relationship in the exercise of its visitorial and enforcement powers? (2) If the DOLE finds that there is an employee-employer relationship, does the case fall under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter considering that the claim of Inggo is more than P5, 000.00. Explain. suits https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244663597 2022-07-17 03:44:51 UTC https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244663597 (1) Labor: Philippine News Network (PNN) engages the services of Anya, a prominent news anchor from a rival station, National News Network (NNN). NNN objects to the transfer of Anya claiming that she is barred from working in a competing company for a period of three years from the expiration of her contract. Anya proceeds to sign with PNN which then asks her to anchor their nightly newscast. NNN sues Anya and PNN before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), asking for a labor injunction. Anya and PNN object claiming that it is a matter cognizable by a regular court and not the NLRC. (1) Is NNN's remedy correct? Why or why not? (2) What are the grounds for a labor injunction to issue? (3) Distinguish the jurisdiction of a Labor Arbiter from that of the NLRC. suits https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244663835 2022-07-17 03:46:19 UTC https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244663835 (4) Labor: Some disgruntled members of Bantay Labor Union filed with the Regional Office of the DOLE a written complaint against their union officers for mismanagement of union funds. The Regional Director did not rule in the complainants' favor. Not satisfied, the complainants elevated the Regional Director's decision to the NLRC. The union officers moved to dismiss on the ground of lack of Jurisdiction. Are the union officers correct? Why? suits https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244670512 2022-07-17 04:24:59 UTC https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244670512 (5) Labor: Labor Relations: Solar Plexus Bar and Night Club allowed by tolerance fifty (50) Guest Relations Officers (GRO) to work without compensation in its establishment under the direct supervision of its Manager from 8:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. every day, including Sundays and holidays. The GROs, however, are free to ply their trade elsewhere at anytime but once they enter the premises of the night club, they are required to stay up to closing time. The GROs earned their keep exclusively from commissions for food and drinks, and tips from generous customers. In time, the GROs formed the Solar Ugnayan ng mga Kababaihang Inaapi (SUKI), a labor union duly registered with DOLE. Subsequently, SUKI filed a petition for certification election in order to be recognized as the exclusive bargaining agent of its members. Solar Plexus opposed the petition for certification election on the singular ground of absence of employer-employee relationship between the GROs on one hand and the night club on the other hand. May the GROs form SUKI as a labor organization for purposes of collective bargaining? Explain briefly. suits https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244670829 2022-07-17 04:27:00 UTC https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244670829 (6) Labor: Labor Standards: Dennis was a taxi driver who was being paid on the "boundary" system basis. He worked tirelessly for Cabrera Transport Inc. for fourteen (14) years until he was eligible for retirement. He was entitled to retirement benefits. During the entire duration of his service, Dennis was not given his 13th month pay or his service incentive leave pay. (1) Is Dennis entitled to 13th month pay and service leave incentive pay? Explain. (2) Since he was not given his 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay, should Dennis be paid upon retirement, in addition to the salary equivalent to fifteen (15) days for every year of service, the additional 2.5 days representing one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th month pay as well as the five (5) days representing the service incentive leave for a total of 22.5 days? Explain. suits https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244671073 2022-07-17 04:28:19 UTC https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244671073 (5) LTD: Manuel was born on 12 March 1940 in a 1000-square meter property where he grew up helping his father, Michael, cultivate the land. Michael has lived on the property since the land was opened for settlement at about the time of the Commonwealth government in 1935, but for some reason never secured any title to the property other than a tax declaration in his name. He has held the property through the years in the concept of an owner and his stay was uncontested by others. He has also conscientiously and continuously paid the realty taxes on the land. Michael died in 2000 and Manuel - as Michael’s only son and heir -now wants to secure and register title to the land in his own name. He consults you for legal advice as he wants to perfect his title to the land and secure its registration in his name. (1) What are the laws that you need to consider in advising Manuel on how he can perfect his title and register the land in his name? Explain the relevance of these laws to your projected course of action. (2) What do you have to prove to secure Manuel's objectives and what documentation is necessary? suits https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244671597 2022-07-17 04:31:15 UTC https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244671597 (6) LTD: Warning(Nakakabaliw itong Tanong to be Trained Well!) Bedrock Land & Property Development Corp. is a development company engaged in developing and selling subdivisions, condominium units and industrial estates. In order to replenish its inventories, it embarked on an aggressive land banking program. It employed “scouts” who roam all over the Philippines to look for and conduct investigations on prospective sites for acquisition and development, whether developed, semi-developed or raw land. The management of Bedrock asks you as the company counsel to prepare a manual containing a summary of the pertinent laws and regulations relating to land registration and acouisition of title to land. The manual should include the following items: (Ito yung tanong na nakakabaliw! For 10 points ito tanong. Daming babagsak hahahah) What is the governing law? suits https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244671887 2022-07-17 04:33:09 UTC https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244671887 (2) Property: Accession: Pedro bought a parcel of land described as Cadastral Lot No. 123 and the title was issued to his name. Juan also bought a lot in the same place, which is described as Cadastral Lot No. 124. Pedro hired a geodetic engineer to determine the actual location of Lot No. 123 but for some reason, the engineer pointed to Lot No. 124 by mistake. Pedro hired a contractor to construct his house and the latter put up a sign stating the name of the owner of the project and the construction permit number. It took more than a year before the house was constructed. When Pedro was already residing in his house, Juan told him to remove his house because it was built on his (Juan's) lot. Juan filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession and prayed that the house be removed because Pedro is a builder in bad faith. Pedro filed his Answer with Counterclaim that he is entitled to the payment of the value of the house plus damages because he is a builder in good faith and that Juan is guilty of estoppel and laches. (1) If Pedro is a builder in good faith, what are the rights given to Juan under the law? Explain. (2) If Pedro is a builder in bad faith, what are the rights given to Juan under the law? Explain. suits https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244672252 2022-07-17 04:35:34 UTC https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244672252 (3) Property: Accession: Benjamin is the owner of a titled lot which is bounded on the north by the Maragondon River. An alluvial deposit of two (2) hectares was added to the registered area. Daniel took possession of the portion formed by accretion and claims that he has been in open, continuous and undisturbed possession of said portion since 1923 as shown by a tax declaration. In 1958, Benjamin filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title and contends that the alluvium belongs to him as the riparian owner and that since the alluvium is, by law, part and parcel of the registered property, the same may be considered as registered property. Decide the case and explain. suits https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244672349 2022-07-17 04:36:07 UTC https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244672349 (4) Property: Accession: Mr. and Mrs. X migrated to the US with all their children. As they had no intention of coming back, they offered their house and lot for sale to their neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. A (the buyers) who agreed to buy the property for 128 Million. Because Mr. and Mrs. A needed to obtain a loan from a bank first, and since the sellers were in a hurry to migrate, the latter told the buyers that they could already occupy the house, renovate it as it was already in a state of disrepair, and pay only when their loan is approved and released. While waiting for the loan approval, the buyers spent P1 Million in repairing the house. A month later, a person carrying an authenticated special power of attorney from the sellers demanded that the buyers either immediately pay for the property in full now or vacate it and pay damages for having made improvements on the property without a sale having been perfected. What are the buyers' options or legal rights with respect to the expenses they incurred in improving the property under circumstances? suits https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244672440 2022-07-17 04:36:43 UTC https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244672440 (5) Property: In good faith, Pedro constructed a five-door commercial building on the land of Pablo who was also in good faith. When Pablo discovered the construction, he opted to appropriate the building by paying Pedro the cost thereof. However, Pedro insists that he should be paid the current market value of the building, which was much higher because of inflation. (1) Who is correct Pedro or Pablo? (2) In the meantime, that Pedro is not yet paid, who is entitled to the rentals of the building, Pedro or Pablo? suits https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244672630 2022-07-17 04:37:55 UTC https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244672630 (6) Property: Andres is a riparian owner of a parcel of registered land. His land, however, has gradually diminished in area due to the current of the river, while the registered land of Mario on the opposite bank has gradually increased in area by 200-square meters. (1) Who has the better right over the 200 square meter area that has been added to Mario’s registered land, Mario or Andres?(2) May a third person acquire said 200-square meter land by prescription? suits https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244672868 2022-07-17 04:39:18 UTC https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244672868 Labor: Ninong Ry, the personal cook in the household of Kalbo, filed a monetary claim against his employer, Kalbo, for denying him service incentive leave pay. Kalbo argued that Ninong Ry did not avail of any service incentive leave at the end of his one (1) year service and hence, not entitled to the said monetary claim. Is Ninong Ry's contention tenable? Explain. Assuming that Ninong Ry is instead a clerk in Kalbo's company with at least 30 employees, will the monetary claim prosper? Explain. https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244738801 2022-07-17 10:48:11 UTC https://padlet.com/suits/9fngcb2xwvzx4uw7/wish/2244738801