Practice question
A claimant occupies land that was actually used by the State as a public facility. The claimant proves long nonuse and a general alienable-and-disposable classification but no competent express manifestation withdrawing the prior public purpose. The claim relies on ordinary Civil Code patrimonial-property prescription, not a separately established special registration entitlement. Which answer is correct?
- The claimant has not supplied the required proof of conversion for the stipulated previously public-purpose property
- Every alienable classification automatically proves every private title
- Long occupation alone repeals public ownership
- A tax declaration is always a State conveyance
- The claimant may choose to declare the property patrimonial
Legal references
- Civil Code Articles419–425 and427–439: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html
- Republic v. Pasig Rizal Co., GR213207, February15 2022, main decision: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/68138
- RA11573, amended land-registration framework: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2021/ra_11573_2021.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.