LAND LAW Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

LAND LAW - Essay Example The general rule is that contracts are not transmissible and cannot be enforced against third parties. However, this rule is not absolute and admits exception as when real rights are affected then the terms and conditions of the contracts entered into by other persons may be enforced or deemed binding upon said thirds parties and acquiescence or recognition of rights bestowed is rendered compulsory. A natural person or juridical entity therefore is free to enter into an agreement to exercise dominion or ownership over a property. Ownership of a real property in fee simple excludes all others from the enjoyment and possession thereof giving the owner complete and unconditional rights over the property to cede, dispose, transfer, mortgage or otherwise alienate it in a manner not contrary to law, public policy and good morals. An owner’s unbridled right or dominion over the property should be mindful of the rights of others to peaceful co-existence. It should not be a nuisance as to usurp the rights of others to freely enjoy fruits or benefits of their properties as well. Legal concerns are presented by Mineral Ventures resulting in its acquisition over the freehold owned by Leo through foreclosure proceedings after he defaulted in the payment of the loan he procured in 2007. Though Leo voluntarily vacated the premises, the problem arose when he removed a number of huts built in 2004 which were attached individual plinths that served as offices and facilities for his employees. Another issue which must be equally given attention is the claim of ownership of Reckless Rail (RR) over the one mile railway track connected from the freehold to the national railway system. RR now asserts its ownership over the railway track as Leo defaulted in the payment of the annual installment. Pursuant to its agreement with Leo, RR shall retain ownership over the track until it is fully compensated for its supply and fitting of concrete sleepers and steel rails. Mineral Ventu res wants to find out if it has rights to run after Leo for the return of huts he removed and if Mineral Ventures can sell the freehold with the railway track without recognizing RR’s rights over it. Elementary is the rule that Leo as the landowner can validly enter and in fact had entered into a legal property mortgage agreement with Mineral Ventures covering Prospect Hills to keep Leo’s business operations afloat. Prior to the execution of the real estate mortgage, it is likewise indisputable that Leo had executed a binding and enforceable commercial contract agreement with RR. Under the agreement between Leo and RR, it was mutually consented and stipulated that the ownership of the railways RR installed in Prospect Hills stretching towards the national railway shall be retained by it until the annual installments are paid in full. On the first issue posed by Mineral Ventures if it has legal standing to demand for the return of the huts or in the alternative, entitle d to be indemnified or to recover the cost of the huts, it must first be determined whether the huts are considered immovable or real property and movable or personal property. A property is considered as immovable by its nature if it is land, roads, mines, quarries and others of similar nature. A structure however is characterized as an immovable property if it is incorporated or adhered to the soil in a fixed or permanent manner