Practice question
The landlord’s title genuinely expires after tenancy begins, with the change competently established. The landlord insists Section2(b) forever prevents consideration of any title event after the original lease date. Which is correct?
- The categorical position ignores the subsequent-expiration qualification recognized in Laqui
- Every later expiration is legally impossible
- The Rule declares every landlord’s title perpetual
- No evidence of any later event may be heard
- The tenant must prove the landlord never had title initially
Legal references
- AM19-08-15-SC, current Rule130 Section54; Rule131 Sections1–3,5–6; Rule133 Section1: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/am_19-08-15-sc_2019.html
- Laqui v Sagun, GR271967, November4,2024, MAIN opinion, tenant estoppel and genuine subsequent change of title: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/nov2024/gr_271967_2024.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.