TICKLERS IN USUFRUCT

Problems:

1. F, designated in his Will S, son as usufructuary of a house, which is under

lease to L. Prior to Fs death, he designated his wife, W, as administrator. For
violation of the lease contract, S sought to eject L, who contends that he
cannot be ejected by S but only by W, who is the administrator and that S, as
usufruct, has only the right to collect rentals, as fruits, over the property. Is L
correct? Defend your answer.
2. Lifetime, usufructuary, U, of a house and lot decided to mortgage the house
and lot in the amount of P1 Million. Upon learning of the transaction, O,
owner, decided to terminate the Usufruct. U, objected because according to
him, his usufructuary rights over the property extends to his lifetime. Who is
correct?

3. On 15 January 2010, O, the owner of a building, granted U, a usufruct over

the property until 01 June 2020 when S, son of U, would have reached his
18th birthday. D, however, died on 1 June 2015 when S was only 13 years old.
O notified U that the usufruct had been extinguished by the death of S and
demanded that U vacate the building. U refused to vacate the place on the
ground that the usufruct in her favor would expire only on 1 June 2020 when
D would have reached his 18th birthday and that the death of D before his
18th birthday did not extinguish the usufruct. Whose contention should be
accepted?
4. Usufructuary U of a house and lot belonging to O decided to go to Dubai and
therein try to land a job. U needed funds to use for his fare ticket and some
pocket money to get him thru and so, he decided to have the property rented
for 1 year with the full amount of rental already paid by the lessee.
Unfortunately, fire broke out in the vicinity and gutted the house and lot while
the lessee was occupying the house and lot. Upon learning of the mishap, O,
demanded damages from U.
a) If you are counsel of U, what arguments will you take to defeat the suit
for damages.
b) If you were the counsel of O, what arguments will you take to make sure
that U will be held liable.

1. What is easement? Distinguish easement from usufruct.2. Can there be (a) an

easement over a usufruct? (b) usufruct over an easement?
2. Don was the owner of an agricultural land with no access to a public road. He had
been passing through the land of Ernie with the latter's acquiescence for over 20
years. Subsequently, Don subdivided his property into 20 residential lots and sold
them to different persons. Ernie blocked the pathway and refused to let the buyers
pass through his land.
a) Did Don acquire an easement of right of way? Explain.
b) What are the rights of the lot buyers, if any? Explain.

3. You bought a real property which is enclosed and bounded by several property
owners A, B & C. There is a right of way in the servient property of B. However
that right of way is longer than if you can pass thru the property of A. A does not
want to give right of way, can you compel A to provide for right of way easement
to you?

4. X, Y & Z alleged that they have been in the continuous and uninterrupted use of a road or
passage way which traversed the land of A and their predecessors in interest, in going to the
highway from their residential land and back, for more than 20 years without any objections or
issue. On the 21st year, A constructed a 10 door apartment, which now blocks plaintiffs right of
way . Plaintiffs now contend that they have acquired the easement of right of way by
prescription and demanded the demotion of one of the apartments which directly obstructs their
passage. Was an easement of a right of way acquired?

5. Jeffrey owns a big track of land in Tagaytay City. He then converted his property
into a subdivision, without an access to the highway. When he applied for a
license before the HLURB, he represented that he will purchase a rice field
located between his land and the highway, and will develop the same into an
access road leading to the highway. In the meantime, he negotiated with Tomas,
an owner of an adjacent land 500 square meter, abutting the highway to grant him
temporary right of way. Tomas agreed pending his commitment with the HLURB.
When the license was already granted, Jeffry did not buy the ricefield. He
continued to pass thru Tomass land instead. As time went by, Tomas realized that
he was taken for a ride and so he then decided to fence his property isolating the
subdivision of Jeffrey. He then filed a complaint in court, for the establishment of
an easement of right of way through the subdivision of Tomas which he claims to
be the most adequate and practical outlet to the highway. Tomas refused
contending Jefrey commitment to buy and construct a highway through the
ricefield and stating that his property is already too small and would further suffer
damage if allowed to be used as a right of way. a) If you were the judge, how will
you decide? b) What are the requisites for the establishment of a compulsory
easement of a right of way?
6. Distinguish between Easement Against Nuisance & Nuisance under title VIII

7. On Easement: Mrs. Fernandez purchased a farmlot from on public auction. The

farmlot was previously owned by Mr. Perez who was not able to pay on his loan.
When Mrs. Fernandez took possession of the farmlot, she discovered that the
farmlot had granted a right of way to another lot owned by Mr. Santos.
Contending that the easement was not annotated in the title of the farmlot, Mrs.
Fernandez filed an action for cancellation of the right of way on the ground that
the easement was extinguished due to failure to annotate in the title. Was the
easement extinguished? Decide the controversy.

8. Submit digest of the following cases:

a. Pacita David-Chan v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 105294, February 26, 1997
b. Sta. Maria v. CA, et. al., GR. No. 127549 January 28, 1998
c. Ramos vs. Gatchalian Realty G.R. No. 75905 Oct. 12, 1987
d. Ronquillo vs. Roco, G.R. No. L -10619 February 28, 1958
e. Quimen vs. CA, GR No. 112331 May 29, 1996
f. Encarcion vs. CA GR No. 77228 March 11, 1991

g. Dichoso, Jr. vs. Marcos GR No. 180282 April 11, 2011

h. Hidalgo Enterprises v. Balandan G.R. No. L-3422 June 13, 1952
i. Soriano vs. Sternberg G.R. No. L-15628
j. Bogo-Medelllin Milling Co., Inc. v CA, GR No. 124699 July 31, 2003