[Solved] A is the owner of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 1. Through an oral agreement between B & A. A agreed that the property be registered under the name of B so that he can use it in securing a loan with Metrobank. When A sought to recover the property from B, the latter refused contending that he was the owner of the same. Is the contention of B correct?

Q.	A is the owner of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 1. Through an oral agreement between B & A. A agreed that the property be registered under the name of B so that he can use it in securing a loan with Metrobank. When A sought to recover the property from B, the latter refused contending that he was the owner of the same. Is the contention of B correct?
A.	B is correct because his ownership is evidenced by a title.
B.	B is wrong because he is holding the property merely in trust for A.
C.	B is correct because A cannot prove that there is trust considering that the same was not put into a public instrument.
D.	A can recover and prove that there was trust even if not in a public instrument because the requirement is merely for purposes of convenience.
Answer» D. A can recover and prove that there was trust even if not in a public instrument because the requirement is merely for purposes of convenience.

Do you find this helpful?

View all MCQs in

Philippines Civil Law Society

Discussion

No comments yet

Related MCQs

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?
A is the owner of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 123 located in a subdivision property being developed by XYZ Corporation. He did not know the exact location of the lot, hence, he consulted the developer who pointed to a lot, hence, he constructed his house. It turned out that it was another lot covered by TCT No. 124. Is A a builder in good faith?
A sold a parcel of land to B covered by TCT NO. 152 with C as a witness. When D wanted to buy a property, he executed a special power of attorney for E to buy a property for him. E entered into a contract of sale with A for the purchase of the same lot and registered it under the name of D. Who between B and D has a better right over the lot?
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?
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?
A sold a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 9 to B. At the time of the sale, B knew that C has been in possession of the parcel of land as early as 10 years before the sale. B however checked with the Registry of Deeds and found the title to be clean. Is B a buyer in good faith?
A tolerated B to use his land, hence, B constructed a road where his trucks would pass through, going in and out of his land. Fifty (50) years thereafter, A asked B to pay rentals but B refused contending that he has already acquired ownership over the easement of right of way by prescription. Is B correct?
A is the owner of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 1 consisting of 10,000 square meters more of less adjoining the river bank. Accretion was formed which has been in the possession of B in 1990, but it was disposed of by the Director of Lands to B in s2010. Is the Director correct?
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?
In 1990, A, B & C purchased a real property but agreed that the same be registered under the name of A. In 2009, B & C asked for partition, but A contended that he was already the exclusive owner more than 20 years on the ground of laches having lapsed since the registration of the property under his name. Is A correct?