[Solved] The Roponggi property of the Philippines was sought to be sold to help raise funds to finance the various economic projects of the State. If you were consulted on this legal matter, what would be your advice?

Q.	The Roponggi property of the Philippines was sought to be sold to help raise funds to finance the various economic projects of the State. If you were consulted on this legal matter, what would be your advice?
A.	It can be sold because it is a patrimonial property of the State;
B.	It cannot be sold because it is a property of the State intended for public use and public service;
C.	It can be sold because it is a disposable property;
D.	It can only be sold if the Director of Lands reclassifies it to a patrimonial property.
Answer» B. It cannot be sold because it is a property of the State intended for public use and public service;

1.5k

Do you find this helpful?

View all MCQs in

Philippines Civil Law Society

Discussion

No comments yet

Related MCQs

Magdalene and Shantung Company entered into a contract of agency before the consul general of the Philippines in Singapore. They stipulated that Magdalene shall be the administrator of the real properties of Shantung Company in the said country. By virtue of the said contract, Magdalene sold the 1 hectare land of Shantung Company located in Singapore to Mayhem Real Estate Corporation without any special power of attorney. The said contract of sale was executed before the vice consul of the Philippines in Singapore. Under the laws of Singapore, the sale of a real property by an agent without a special power of attorney is valid. Shantung Company filed a suit for the annulment of the contract of sale on the ground that Magdalene has no authority to sell the property. If you were the judge, which of the following courses of action should you take?
A and B both Filipinos are married. A was convicted of the crime of murder. They sought your advice whether they can adopt C, a relative by consanguinity of B. What is your advice?
X executed a will instituting his heirs. It was discovered 15 years after his death, hence, the heirs consulted you whether they can still file a petition for its probate, considering that they have already extrajudicially settled his estate. What is your advice?
X is a naturalized Filipino. In 1990, he migrated to the USA and embraced American citizenship. In 2010, he returned to the Philippines and asks you whether he can own a residential lot in Manila. What is your advice?
Samson, the son of a wealthy family has always claimed that since childhood, he was not a boy. He played with the girls and did not mingle with the boys. After finishing his course at a university in the Philippines, he went to the US to take up his masteral and doctorate degrees. He consulted several doctors of the possibility of sex transmission from that of male to that of a female. The sex transmission was done in Thailand and which was certified as successful by a medical expert in Manila, hence, he claimed to be a woman. He filed a petition for correction of entry of his record of birth from male to female and his name from Samson to Delailah as he was marrying his fiancé. The lower court granted the petition. Is the order of the court correct?
A and B both Filipinos are married, but at the time of the marriage, B was 16 years old. The marriage was celebrated in Hongkong and valid there as such. A wants to get married again and came to you for advice. Give your advice to A.
The President of a foreign country came to visit the Philippines in cognito. While enjoying the beautiful beach in Pagudpud, Ilocos Norte, he as caught in flagrante delicto raping a young girl. If you were a police officer, what would you do?
A sent a document letter to B and obligated himself to give him P10M when he will feel like doing it. A year later, B wanted to enforce the commitment of A. What would be your advice if you were the counsel?
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?
X and Y are married. They have a son Z. When X died, Z inherited a property covered by TCT No. 1. Z died without any issue. Y inherited it and obtained a title. There is however no inscription of the reservable character of the property. Y sold it to A who obtained a title. Y died in 2009. Can B, C and D, the reservatarios recover the property?