Classification of Property

the intention to attach them permanently to the tenements (destination); (5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works (destination); (6) Animal houses, pigeon-houses, beehives, fish ponds or breeding places of similar nature, in case their owner has placed them or preserves them with the intention to have them permanently attached to the land, and forming a permanent part of it; the animals in these places are included (destination); (7) Fertilizer actually used on a piece of land; (8) Mines, quarries, and slag dumps, while the matter thereof forms part of the bed, and waters either running or stagnant; (9) Docks and structures which, thought floating, are intended by their nature and object to remain at a fixed place on a river, lake, or coast; (10) Contracts for public works, and servitudes and other real rights over immovable property. Does not define, only enumerates. Academic Classification of Immovables (NIDA) 1. 2. 3. Nature (trees and plants, land) Incorporation (buildings) Destination or purpose (machinery placed by owner on tenement for direct use of industry or works to be carried on therein) Analogy (like the right of usufruct, public works, servitudes)

A. Immovable and Movable

Article 414. All things which are or may
be the object of appropriation are considered either: (1) Immovable or real property; or (2) Movable or personal property. Parties to a contract may by agreement treat as personal property that which by nature would be real property. Standard Oil Company v. Jaramillo Building was mortgaged to SOC. SOC sought to compel Jaramillo, register of deeds, to register a CHATTEL mortgage issued in SOC’s favor. The objects of the document were the leasehold rights over a certain property and the house constructed over the same property. Jaramillo refused to register the document because the objects did not appear to be personal property under the Chattel Mortgage Law. SOC filed for mandamus. HELD: The document should be registered. It is undeniable that the parties to a contract may by agreement treat as personal property that which by nature would be real property. The register’s duty is MINISTERIAL, he can not determine the nature of the document sought to be registered. 2.

Article 415. The following are immovable
property: (1) Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil; (2) Trees, plants, and growing fruits, while they are attached to the land or form an integral part of an immovable; (3) Everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in such a way that it cannot be separated therefrom without breaking the material or deterioration of the object (incorporation); (4) Statues, reliefs, paintings, or other objects for use or ornamentation, placed in buildings or on lands by the owner of the immovable in such a manner that it reveals --4.

If a building is not adhered to the soil and there is no intent of permanency, it is personal property. --(4) 1. movable property must be placed in an immovable property 2. by the owner of the immovable 3. the intention must be to attach it permanently (destination)


Page 1 of 42


--Provision in lease that improvements made shall belong to the lessor upon termination of the lease – air-conditioner installed by lessee. Will AC be turned over to the lessor? Yes. Lessee acted as an agent of the lessor. --(5) Requisites A. Placed by the owner; B. Intended for an industry or works carried on in building or land; C. Machines must tend to directly meet the needs of the industry; D. Machines must be essential and principal elements in the industry; not mere incidentals. Ex. Sewing machines placed in own house intended to be used as a garments factory. Immovable? Yes. Machines placed by owner; for industry…; tend directly to meet…; essential… If other person’s house, immovable Effect of separation: If temporarily taken away, still immovable. --Sale of real property in the CM Registry cannot bind third persons in good faith. Leung Yee v. Strong Machinery Agricola purchased rice-cleaning machinery from Strong and executed a chattel mortgage over the machinery and the building in which it was installed. Agricola defaulted and Strong purchased the building at auction. The mortgage and sale were registered in the CM registry. Agricola later sold the land to Strong, the sale being in an unregistered public document. It turns out that the building was also REM to Leung Yee to secure payment of a construction contract. When Agricola defaulted, Leung Yee purchased the building at a sheriff’s sale (this sale took place after the building was bought by Strong). Leung Yee brought suit to recover possession of the building. HELD: Strong has a better right over the building. This is true only because Leung Yee knew of the chattel mortgage to Strong when he purchased the building; he was a buyer in cmt

bad faith. The sale of the building cannot bind third persons in good faith because it was the sale of real property registered not in the Registry of Real Property but the CM Registry.

A building may be validly mortgaged separately from the land upon which it is built. Prudential Bank v. Judge Panis Owners of a building on leased land obtained 2 loan from the bank, the loans secured by REMs over the building. The owners defaulted, prompting the foreclosure of the mortgage. The respondent court ruled that the REMs were void, holding that a building may not be mortgaged separately from the land on which it is built. HELD: The 1st REM, executed before title of land was transferred to the mortgagor, is valid. Article 415 mentions ‘buildings’ separate from land; this means that the building by itself is an immovable and may be the subject of a REM. The 2nd REM, executed after title was transferred, is void for being violative of the Public Land Act.

To be considered as real property by destination, the machinery etc. must be (1) essential and principal elements of the industry and (2) the industry must be carried out in a building or piece of land Mindanao Bus Co. v. City Assessor The City Assessor sought to impose realty tax on certain MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR EQUIPMENT of MBC. MBC opposed, contending that the items were not real property; the items in question are movable. HELD: The items are personal property. They are not immobilized by destination or purpose as contended by the City Assessor. To be considered as real property by destination, they must be (1) essential and principal elements of the industry and (2) the industry must be carried out in a building or piece of land. In this case, the items are only incidentals to the transport business and the business is 3/7/2004

Page 2 of 42

carried on not in a building or piece of land but around the streets of Mindanao.

(4) In general, all things which can be transported from place to place without impairment of the real property to which they are fixed.

A stipulation in the lease agreement to treat the real property as personal is binding upon the parties. The parties are estopped from claiming otherwise. Serg’s Products v. PCI Leasing PCI filed a complaint for a sum of money and an application for a writ of replevin on the chocolate manufacturing equipment of Serg’s. Serg’s claims property is real and not subject to a writ of seizure. HELD: The property is real under Article 415 BUT it was stipulated in the lease agreement that they would be treated as personal. Serg’s is ESTOPPED from claiming that they are real in character.

For purposes of the Chattel Mortgage Law, ungathered products have the nature of personal property and may be attached and executed upon. Sibal v. Valdez Sibal’s sugarcane crops were attached and sold to Valdez in order to satisfy a judgment debt. The lot on which the crops were located had been previously attached and sold to another creditor, Macondray. Valdez later purchased the land from Macondray. Sibal sought to redeem the sugarcane from Valdez on the assumption that it was real property (growing fruits attached to the land). Plaintiff contends that the sugarcane is personal property and not subject to redemption. HELD: Although the sugarcane may be considered as growing fruits and is ordinarily real property, for the purposes of the Chattel Mortgage Law, the crops must be regarded as personal property. This is because the right to the growing crops given to the defendant mobilized the crops by anticipation. It is as if there was a gathering in advance rendering the crop movable.

Steel electric towers are personal property provided they can be removed without substantial breakage or deterioration. Board of Assessment Appeals v. Meralco The City Assessor sought to impose realty tax on steel towers of MERALCO. The taxes were paid under protest, MERALCO contending that the towers were exempt from taxation and that they were personal and not real property. HELD: The towers are personal property. They are not buildings adhered to the soil (415-1); they are not attached to an immovable in a fixed manner and they can be separated without substantial damage or deterioration (3) and they are not machineries intended for works on the land (5).

Electricity may be appropriated; it can be the object of theft. US v. Carlos Accused was convicted for the theft of electric current by means of a jumper. Accused contends that electricity is intangible and cannot be the object of theft. HELD: Accused is guilty of theft.


Article 416. The following things are
deemed to be personal property: (1) Those movables susceptible of appropriation which are not included in the preceding article; (2) Real property which by any special provision of law is considered as personalty; (3) Forces of nature which are brought under control by science; and

The Revised Penal Code provides that personal property is the subject of theft. Electricity is a valuable article of merchandise and can be bought and sold like any other personal property. The true test of what is a proper subject of larceny is not whether the subject is corporeal or incorporeal, but whether it is capable of appropriation by another than the owner.


Page 3 of 42


Article 417. The following are also
considered as personal property: (1) Obligations and actions which have for their object movables or demandable sums; and (2) Shares of stock of agricultural, commercial, and industrial entities, although they may have real estate. (1) Examples are: the right to recover stolen property and promissory notes as these involve movables or demandable sums (2) Even if the sole property of the corporation is real property, a share in such corporation is personal property. In fact, all shares in all juridical persons are considered personal. The property right of shares of stock can only be enforced or exercised where the corporation is organized or has its place of business. (3) Money is always personal property. Money is not merchandise when in domestic circulation; it becomes merchandise when it is exported or taken out of domestic circulation.


Article 419. Property is either of public
dominion or of private ownership.

Article 420. The following things are
property of public dominion: (1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character; (2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth. Public dominion (def.): a) ownership by the State in that the State has control and administration; or b) ownership by the public in general. Three Kinds Of Property Of Public Dominion: 1) For public use – roads, canals for use by everyone 2) For public service – government buildings and vehicles for use by authorized persons 3) For the development of national wealth – natural resources.

Article 418. Movable property is either
consumable or non-consumable. To the first class belong those movables which cannot be used in a manner appropriate to their nature without their being consumed; to the second class belong all others. Classifications of movable property (1) According to NATURE: a. Consumable – cannot be used according to its nature without being consumed Non-consumable – any other kind of movable property

Canals constructed by private persons within private lands are of private ownership. Santos v. Moreno The Ayala’s originally constructed the canals to facilitate the operations of their nipa plantation. The Ayala’s later transformed their nipa plantation into several fishponds by constructing dams or dikes to block the flow of water in canals located in the plantation. This property was later sold to Santos, who further developed the property for aquaculture. Local residents sought the destruction of the dikes stating that their construction prevented them from using the canals for transportation, caused flooding, and deprived them of fishing grounds.


(2) According to INTENTION: a. Fungible – Mutuum - borrowed for consumption and equivalent property will be returned Non-fungible – Commodatum exact same property will be returned.


B. Property in Relation to the Person to whom it Belongs


Page 4 of 42


ISSUE: whether the canals are of public dominion or private ownership. HELD: The canals are private; their destruction may not be ordered. Article 420 states that canals constructed by the State are of public ownership; conversely, canals constructed by private persons within private lands are of private ownership.

corresponding contract of procurement which bind both the Philippine government and the Japanese government. Being so, it cannot be alienated. Contrary to respondents’ claim, conversion of a property’s character from public to patrimonial requires a formal declaration of abandonment of the public character. *Even if the property were patrimonial, there could be no sale as there is no law authorizing the same.

Art. 421. All other property of the State,
which is not of the character stated in the preceding article, is patrimonial property. (340a)

Art. 422. Property of public dominion, when
no longer intended for public use or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State. (341a)

Public plazas and streets are of public character and may not be leased out by the municipality. Municipality of Cavite v. Rojas The municipal council of Cavite withdrew from public use and leased to Rojas a portion of the town plaza. The provincial fiscal later filed a complaint alleging that the property leased was of public character and therefore the contract was null and void. HELD: The contract of lease is ultra vires and null and void, the municipality never having had authority to exclude it from public use and lease it out. Property belonging to the public domain is outside the commerce of man and cannot be the object of any contract. The defendant must return the land and the municipality must reimburse rentals paid. *The book says that Rojas received no benefit but the facts show that occupation was enjoyed and a house was built. Compare to Sanchez v. Asingan.

Conversion of a property’s character from public to patrimonial requires a formal declaration of abandonment of the public character. Laurel v. Garcia The government sought to sell a property located in Japan which it acquired through a reparation agreement with the Japanese government. The property in question was given with the intention of its being the site of the Philippine Embassy; it was given with the understanding that it would be used for the government sector. ISSUE: Whether the property is public or patrimonial. Respondents claim that the property is governed not by the Civil Code but by Japanese law and assuming that the CC were applicable, the government has implicitly abandoned the public use of the property and caused it to become patrimonial by transferring the embassy to another location and other executive acts. HELD: The property is public – its ownership is collective and resides in the sovereign people. It is outside the commerce of man. The property is of public dominion and intended for public service under Article 420 of the Civil Code. This is dictated by the terms of the Reparations Agreement and the

Property owned by the State which is not intended for public use or public service is patrimonial. There is no reimbursement if lessee derived substantial benefit from the use of said property. Sanchez v. Mun. of Asingan Petitioner occupied a parcel of land owned by the municipality, with the implied consent of the latter, and built buildings of light materials – rent was paid. When a new set of officials took over, the council gave notice to petitioner to vacate the land within 5 months.


Page 5 of 42


Petitioner refused and filed for prohibition stating that the land belonged to the province and the municipality had no standing to seek their ejectment and in case they should be ejected, prayed for reimbursement, citing the Rojas case. ISSUE: Whether the land is public or patrimonial. HELD: The land is patrimonial property of the municipality. It was not for public use not was it for public service. There is to be no reimbursement. Unlike the Rojas case, the land here is not of public character. The implied lease agreement is therefore valid and may be terminated upon notice. Assuming that the property is public, there can still be no reimbursement as petitioner derived substantial benefit from the use of said property.

Examples of property for public use being streets, promenades, fountains, etc. City of Cebu v. NAWASA The City of Cebu obtained a loan which was to be paid with its own funds. Part of the proceeds of this loan was used to fund the construction of the City’s sewage system. NAWASA sought to expropriate the sewage system. This was opposed with the arguments that there was no payment of just compensation; NAWASA offered unliquidated assets and liabilities. NAWASA averred, as an alternative course of action, that the property is one for public use and under the control of the legislature. ISSUE: Whether the property is patrimonial property of the city or property for public use. HELD: The property is patrimonial and not subject to legislative control. It is property of the city, purchased with private funds and not devoted to public use (it is for profit). It is therefore patrimonial under the Civil Code. Nor can the system be considered “public works for public service” under Article 424 because such classification is qualified by ejusdem generis; it must be of the same character as the preceding items.


Art. 423. The property of provinces, cities,
and municipalities is divided into property for public use and patrimonial property.

Art. 424. Property for public use, in the
provinces, cities, and municipalities, consist of the provincial roads, city streets, municipal streets, the squares, fountains, public waters, promenades, and public works for public service paid for by said provinces, cities, or municipalities. All other property possessed by any of them is patrimonial and shall be governed by this Code, without prejudice to the provisions of special laws. Where now do properties for public service and properties for the development of national wealth fall? Public service – depends on who pays for the service. If paid for by the political subdivision, public; if for profit, patrimonial. National wealth – still property for public use under the regalian doctrine. What if a courthouse is constructed with municipal funds? clarify City constructs public market Cemetery public use patrimonial

Under the Law of Municipal Corporations, it is enough that the property be devoted for governmental purposes for it to be classified as public. Province of Zamboanga v. City of Zamboanga Zamboanga City ceased to become the provincial capital and a law was passed declaring the province’s property located within the city to be transferred to the city free of charge. The properties were the capital site, hospitals, playgrounds, and schools.

Property of a political subdivision is public only if it is devoted to public use.


Page 6 of 42


ISSUE: Whether Congress can transfer the properties to the City without compensating the province. HELD: Yes; the properties are public and subject to the absolute control of Congress. If the province owns the properties in it public and governmental capacity, the property is public and Congress has absolute control over it. The character of the property depends on the use to which it is devoted. The problem is which applies, Civil Code or Law of Municipal Corporations? Under the CC, a property is public if it is for the free and indiscriminate use of everyone. Under municipal law, it is sufficient that the property be devoted to governmental purposes. In this case, applying the CC, the properties are not for public use but merely for public service. However, Municipal law applies because the controversy is more municipal than civil and the properties are needed for the performance of governmental functions. The LMC provides that a property is public if it is devoted to public use. If the CC classification is used, consequences are dire (acquisition through adverse possession). Also the LMC is a special law. The CC itself provides that its provisions apply without prejudice to special laws. The buildings on the lots are also public because accessory follows the principal.

Public properties are exempt from execution because of their necessity for governmental functions. Viuda de Tan Toco v. Municipal Council of Iloilo Iloilo was sentenced to pay Tan Toco compensation for properties taken from her and used for street-widening. Because Iloilo had no money, Tan Toco caused a writ of execution to be issued against municipal property: street sprinkling trucks, police cars, police stations, and markets. Iloilo’s defense is that the properties are public and exempt from execution. HELD: The properties are public and exempt from execution. The vehicles and the police station all serve governmental functions. The market, though not purely public is also exempt because it would allow a third party to the franchise agreement to assume control without the approval of the administration.

A town plaza loses its public character when the town ceases using it as such and subjects it to patrimonial use. Municipality of Oas v. Roa The Municipality of Oas sought to recover land from Roa claiming it was part of the town’s public square. Roa claims he is the owner of the property. He had erected a substantial building on the property without opposition from the municipality. HELD: The land belongs to the municipality as shown by several town resolutions signed by Roa himself. It is patrimonial because the town had long since ceased using it as a plaza and had started using it as storage space. Although the property is now patrimonial and susceptible of ownership, Roa has failed to show any of the modes of acquiring ownership. Since both parties are in bad faith (Roa’s construction despite knowledge; tolerance by the municipality), they shall be treated as though they are both in good faith. The town may sell the land to Roa or Roa may sell the improvements to Roa.

How do we resolve what determines character? Salas v. Jarencio: How the property was purchased public/private funds Or Civil code: What use the property is devoted to free and indiscriminate use of everyone or otherwise Or LMC: Property is public if it is exclusively devoted to public service. --


Page 7 of 42


Art. 425. Property of private ownership,
besides the patrimonial property of the State, provinces, cities, and municipalities, consists of all property belonging to private persons, either individually or collectively. (345a)


Naked ownership plus usufruct equals full ownership. Usufruct equals full ownership minus naked ownership. Naked ownership equals full ownership minus usufruct.


Art. 426. Whenever by provision of the law,
or an individual declaration, the expression "immovable things or property," or "movable things or property," is used, it shall be deemed to include, respectively, the things enumerated in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2. Whenever the word "muebles," or "furniture," is used alone, it shall not be deemed to include money, credits, commercial securities, stocks and bonds, jewelry, scientific or artistic collections, books, medals, arms, clothing, horses or carriages and their accessories, grains, liquids and merchandise, or other things which do not have as their principal object the furnishing or ornamenting of a building, except where from the context of the law, or the individual declaration, the contrary clearly appears. (346a) II. Ownership


(c) Sole ownership – where the ownership is vested in only one person. (d) Co-ownership (or Tenancy in Common) – when the ownership is vested in two or more owners.

Art. 428. The owner has the right to enjoy
and dispose of a thing, without other limitations than those established by law. The owner has also a right of action against the holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover it. The rights of an owner: 1. Right to Enjoy a. Right to Possess i. The right to hold a thing or to enjoy a right. It means that the thing or right is subject to control of my will.

A. In General

Art. 427. Ownership may be exercised over
things or rights. Ownership (def.) – Ownership is the independent and general right of a person to control a thing particularly in his possession, enjoyment, disposition, and recovery, subject to no restrictions except those imposed by the state or private persons, without prejudice to the provisions of the law. Independent – stands by itself and gives you the right to control the property General - possession, enjoyment, disposition, and recovery Kinds of Ownership (not discussed) (a) Full ownership – this includes all the rights of an owner. (b) Naked ownership – this is ownership where the right to use and the fruits has been denied. 2. a. b. Page 8 of 42 c. b. i.

Right to Use The right to exclude any person, as a rule, from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. 1. Reasonable force may be used to prevent or repel physical invasion. But to recover, no force, but legal means must be used.


Right to the Fruits i. What

Right to Dispose Right to Consume, Destroy, or Abuse Right To Encumber Or Alienate 3/7/2004



Right to Recover iii.

one year from demand to vacate. ISSUE? The issue involved is mere physical possession and not juridical possession nor ownership.

Actions to Recover Property: 1. Recovery of Personal Property a. Replevin

2. Recovery of Real Property a. Forcible Entry (MTC) i. WHAT? This is a summary action to recover physical possession of real property when a person originally in possession was deprived thereof by FISTS (force, intimidation, stealth, threats, strategy) Possession is unlawful from the beginning. ii. WHEN? Must be brought within one year from dispossession; but in case of strategy or stealth, the period should be counted from discovery. ISSUE? The issue involved is mere physical possession and not juridical possession nor ownership.

**Difference between unlawful detainer and forcible entry: UD possession of other is initially lawful; FE possession is unlawful from the outset c. Accion Publiciana (plenary action) i. WHAT? This is the action for the recovery of the better right to possess. WHEN? Must be brought within ten years. ISSUE? The issue involved is who has a better right to posses; de jure and not de facto possession is the issue here.

ii. iii.

d. Accion Reivindicatoria i. WHAT? This is an action to recover ownership over real property. WHEN? This must be brought within 10/30 years depending on whether the other party seeks to obtain ownership through ordinary/extraordinary prescription. ISSUE? The issue involved is one of ownership.




Unlawful Detainer (MTC) i. WHAT? This is the action that must be brought when possession by a landlord, vendor, vendee or other person of any land or building is being unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession by virtue of any contract. Possession is lawful form the beginning. ii. WHEN? Must be brought within one year from the time the possession becomes unlawful. 1. One year from expiration of lease; or If the reason is nonpayment of rent,


Art. 429. The owner or lawful possessor of a
thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.

Art. 430. Every owner may enclose or fence
his land or tenements by means of walls, ditches, live or dead hedges, or by any other means without detriment to servitudes constituted thereon.



Page 9 of 42


Art. 431. The owner of a thing cannot make
use thereof in such manner as to injure the rights of a third person.

Art. 432. The owner of a thing has no right
to prohibit the interference of another with the same, if the interference is necessary to avert an imminent danger and the threatened damage, compared to the damage arising to the owner from the interference, is much greater. The owner may demand from the person benefited indemnity for the damage to him.

Acquisitive prescription: (1) GOOD FAITH 10 years with just title and adverse possession; (2) BAD FAITH 30 years in adverse possession. Heirs of Miranda v. CA (skipped) In 1957, the son of Miranda, acting as administrator of the estate, sold the property in issue to private respondent, Agerico. The property was titled in the name of Agerico’s daughter, Charito; Agerico has been in possession and cultivation since then. In 1991, the heirs of Miranda entered the property and prevented Agerico from cultivating it; an action for forcible entry was brought and the heirs of Miranda were ordered to vacate the land. The heirs filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of the title. ISSUE: Whether the property belongs to Agerico/Charito or to the heirs of Miranda. HELD: The property belongs to Agerico/Charito. The action of the heirs has been barred by prescription. Ownership over real property is acquired by acquisitive prescription through adverse possession with title and in good faith for ten years. Without need of title or of good faith, ownership and other real rights over immovables is acquired through uninterrupted adverse possession for 30 years. In this case, not only could the private respondents claim acquisitive prescription in good faith (they had title and possessed the property in good faith for well over ten years), they could also claim ownership through extraordinary prescription by possessing the property in the concept of owner for thirty years.


Art. 433. Actual possession under claim of
ownership raises disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of the property.

Art. 434. In an action to recover, the
property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim. Requisites In An Action To Recover: 1. Property must be identified a. WHY? Burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue. The description should be so definite that an officer of the court might ho to the locality where the land is situated and definitely locate it. Is a technical description required or will a statement of boundaries suffice? If in a developed area, land will be sufficiently subdivided. 2. Reliance on title of the plaintiff and not on the weakness of the defense’s claim. a. b. Best proof is a Torrens certificate. Tax receipts, tax declarations are only prima facie evidence of ownership; it is rebuttable.

It is a well settled rule that a title, once registered, cannot be defeated even by adverse, open, and notorious possession. Heirs of Vencilao v. CA (skipped) The heirs of Vencilao claim that they (and prior to them, their father) have been in adverse possession of the property in issue for over thirty years. They present tax receipts and CARP documents to support their claim.


Page 10 of 42


The Gepalagos (private respondents) claim ownership of the land based on the TCT. They claim to have acquired the land in a public bidding following its foreclosure by PNB. ISSUE: Who has a better right to the land: a claimant by acquisitive prescription or a claimant by deed of sale recorded in the TCT of the vendor/mortgagee as highest bidder in a foreclosure sale? HELD: The titled owner has a better right. It is a well settled rule that a title, once registered, cannot be defeated even by adverse, open, and notorious possession. When the TCT is in the name of the seller when the land is sold, the buyer has a right to rely on what appears on the face of the document. If there is nothing that indicates any irregularity, as is the case here, he in not expected to make further investigations or inquiries. The only exception is when an irregularity appears and the buyer chooses to ignore the same; in this case, they are no longer innocent purchasers for value. On the other hand, the heirs of Vencilao are estopped from claiming ownership to the land due to their silence (1) when the property was mortgaged; (2) foreclosed; and (3) sold.

complain of the reasonable requirements of aerial navigation. Surface Right of a Land Owner is subject to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Servitudes or easements; Special Laws (mining law); ordinances; reasonable requirements of aerial navigation; Principles on human relations and the prevention of injury to the rights of third persons (unnecessary obstruction of the light and view of a neighbor).

Art. 438. * Hidden treasure belongs to the
owner of the land, building, or other property on which it is found. Nevertheless, when the discovery is made on the property of another, or of the State or any of its subdivisions, and by chance, onehalf thereof shall be allowed to the finder. If the finder is a trespasser, he shall not be entitled to any share of the treasure. If the things found be of interest to science or the arts, the State may acquire them at their just price, which shall be divided in conformity with the rule stated.

Art. 439. *(technical description) By
Art. 435. No person shall be deprived of his property except by competent authority and for public use and always upon payment of just compensation. Should this requirement be not first complied with, the courts shall protect and, in a proper case, restore the owner in his possession. Art. 436. When any property is condemned or seized by competent authority in the interest of health, safety or security, the owner thereof shall not be entitled to compensation, unless he can show that such condemnation or seizure is unjustified. Art. 437. * The owner of a parcel of land is the owner of its surface and of everything under it, and he can construct thereon any works or make any plantations and excavations which he may deem proper, without detriment to servitudes and subject to special laws and ordinances. He cannot treasure is understood, for legal purposes, any hidden and unknown deposit of money, jewelry, or other precious objects, the lawful ownership of which does not appear. Requisites: 1. 2. 3. Hidden and unknown deposit (finding it must be a discovery; Consists of money, jewelry, or other precious objects; Their lawful ownership does not appear.

Meaning of other precious objects: 1. Restricted by ejusdem generis to mean objects of the same class as money and jewelry. How about money found in a book loaned from the library; who owns the money? School.


Finding in others’ property; requisites: 1. It must be by chance


Page 11 of 42



What does by chance mean? SC/Paras – by chance means by good luck. ii.

4. 5.

painting writing


Finder must not be a trespasser.

Article 440. The ownership of property
gives the right by accession to everything which is produced thereby, or which is incorporated or attached thereto, either naturally or artificially. [OPRAE-PIANA] *What is accession? It is the right of a property owner to everything which is: a) produced thereby (accession discreta); or b) incorporated or attached thereto, either naturally or artificially (accession continua). What are the classifications of accession? A. Accession to the fruits (discreta) a. b. c. Natural fruits Industrial fruits Civil fruits

mixture (confusion – liquids; commixtion – solids) specification


Is accession a mode of acquiring ownership? No, the only modes of acquiring ownership are: [STOPID-Love] a) succession b) tradition as a consequence of certain contracts c) occupation

d) prescription e) intellectual creation f) donation

g) law *What are the reasons behind accession? a) As to the fruits, justice, pure and simple, because the one who owns the thing should own its fruits. b) As to incorporation and attachment, the owner of the principal should own the attachment; and economic convenience (better to have one owner than two)

B. Accession by attachment or incorporation (continua) a. Real property i. Accession industrial 1. 2. 3. ii. building planting sowing

Article 441. To the owner belongs:
(1)The natural fruits; (2)The industrial fruits; (3)The civil fruits.

Accession natural 1. 2. 3. 4. alluvium avulsion change of course of rivers formation of islands

Article 442. Natural fruits are the
spontaneous products of the soil, and the young and other products of animals. Industrial fruits are those produced by lands of any kind through cultivation or labor. Civil fruits are the rents of building, the price of leases of lands and other property and the amount of perpetual or life annuities or other similar income. [SPS-YOPA, PLAK-CL, RBPLLOP-PLAOSI] *When does the owner of the land NOT own the fruits? [PAUL]


Personal property i. Adjunction or conjunction 1. 2. 3. engrafment attachment weaving


Page 12 of 42


a) Possessor of the land receives the fruits in good faith; b) Antichresis, where the creditor gets the fruits. c) Usufructuary (right to enjoy the fruits);

compensation for the risk assumed by the owner, Ledesma.

Article 443. He who receives the fruits has
the obligation to pay the expenses made by a third person in their production, gathering, and preservation. He who receives the fruits is…? … the owner of the land. To whom does this provision apply? Article 443 applies only to a planter/possessor in bad faith. The rule is that if the planter is in good faith, he is entitled to the fruits already received. If the fruits have not yet been gathered? Article 448 applies if the planter or sower is in good faith, Article 449 if he is in bad faith. What are the kinds of expenses subject to reimbursement? a. They must be for production, gathering, or preservation. Improvements are not included. They must be necessary, and not excessive. They must be those normally required by the crop.

d) Lessee gets the natural and industrial fruits (owner gets civil fruits); *To whom does the offspring of an animal belong when the male and female belong to different owners? The offspring belongs to the mother because, (1) the paternity is uncertain and (2) during pregnancy, the female is useless and her owner bears the expenses. But if the female is leased, the lessee owns the offspring, because the lease is onerous (if it were commodatum, the offspring would belong to the owner of the female). A bonus received as compensation for the risk taken by a mortgagor who received no value from the loan is not considered a civil fruit. Bachrach Motor Co. v. Talisay-Silay Milling Company. Talisay obtained a loan from PNB with a REM provided by one of its planters, Ledesma. To compensate Ledesma for the accommodation, Talisay granted him a bonus whose value was computed as a percentage of the balance of the loan. Bachrach, as a creditor of Ledesma, laid a claim to the bonus received by the latter. On the other hand, PNB claims that it owns the fruits, because under Article 2127, the mortgage extends to the civil fruits of the property. ISSUE: Whether the bonus is a civil fruit, thereby giving PNB a preferential right over it. HELD: The bonus is not a civil fruit. Civil fruits are the rents of the buildings, leases of lands, and income from life annuities, or other similar sources of income. Though it is possible to consider the bonus as income, it is not similar income to the items in the preceding enumeration. The common denominator, which is absent in the bonus, is derivation of the income from the land itself. In this case, the bonus is not based on the value of the land but rather on the amount of the outstanding obligation of Talisay. It is clearly meant to be cmt


What if the expenses exceed the value of the product, is the planter in bad faith still entitled to reimbursement? Only if the owner still requires delivery of the fruits.

Article 444. Only such as are manifest or
born are considered as natural or industrial fruits. *When can we say that the fruit is in existence? It depends on the type of fruit: a. Annual (must be planted every year/must re-plant after harvest; rice, wheat, corn) – deemed manifest the moment their seedlings appear. SOWING. Perennial (only planted once and bear fruit for several seasons; mango and coconut trees) – deemed to exist only when they actually appear. PLANTING.


Page 13 of 42


*When are animal young considered as existing? They are considered existing even if still in the maternal womb. They should be considered existing only at the commencement of the maximum ordinary period for gestation. *When are civil fruits deemed to exist; how about natural fruits? a. Civil fruits accrue daily and are considered personal property and may be pro-rated. Natural and industrial fruits, while still growing, are considered as real property; ordinarily, they cannot be pro-rated.

Article 446. All works, sowing, and planting
are presumed made by the owner and at his expense, unless the contrary is proved. What are the presumptions of Article 446? a. b. That all works, sowing and planting are made by the owner; At his own expense.

Article 447. The owner of the land who
makes thereon, personally or through another, plantings, constructions or works with the materials of another, shall pay their value; and, if he acted in bad faith, he shall also be obliged to the reparation of damages. The owner of the materials shall have the right to remove them only in case he can do so without injury to the work constructed, or without the plantings, constructions or works being destroyed. However, if the landowner acted in bad faith, the owner of the materials may remove them in any event, with a right to be reimbursed for damages. When is the builder/landowner in good faith/ bad faith? When he believed the materials were his own/knew the materials belonged to another. When is the owner of the materials in good faith/bad faith? When he does not know that his materials were being used/when he knows and does not object. Ex. A built house with B’s materials. Both were in good faith. What are the rights of the parties? Who calls the shots? B. B is entitled to remove the materials provided no damage is caused. If this cannot be done or if B doesn’t want to remove the materials, A may be compelled to pay for the materials. If A is in bad faith, B can remove the materials, regardless of damage caused or demand payment, with damages in either case. If B is in bad faith, A may keep the materials. There is no indemnity and A may seek for damages because the materials may be inferior in quality. If both are in bad faith, they will be treated as if they were in good faith.


Ex. House rented for 30,000/month. Apply now the principle that civil fruits accrue daily. Every day, the property produces 1,000 If B owned the property from 1-5 and B owned the property from 16-30, A is entitled to 15K and B is entitled to 15K. If A is paid 30K at the beginning of the month, he should deliver half of that to B. This is because civil fruits accrue DAILY.

Article 445. Whatever is built, planted or
sown on the land of another and the improvements or repairs made thereon, belong to the owner of the land, subject to the provisions of the following articles.

* What are the basic principles of accession continua (accession industrial)? a. b. Accessory follows the principal With certain exceptions, it should be impossible to separate the principal and accessory without causing substantial damage. He who is in good faith may be held responsible but not penalized. He who is in bad faith may be penalized. When both are in bad faith, they shall be treated as if they were in good faith. No one shall unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another.

c. d. e.


Article 448. The owner of the land on
which anything has been built, sown or cmt Page 14 of 42 3/7/2004

planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity provided in articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerable more than that of the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof. What are the rules on good faith in Article 448? Both must be in good faith. Who is given the choice and why? What are the choices? The owner must be given the choice because the accessory follows the principal: a) He may appropriate what has been built, planted, or sown. b) He may compel the builder or planter to buy the land and the sower to pay rents. These are the only choices he has. He cannot compel removal of the improvement. However, if he opts to sell the portion to the builder and the builder fails to pay, he may demolish the structure. What are the indemnities to be given to the builder in good faith? 1. Necessary expenses a. b. c. d. Those made for the preservation of the thing those without which the thing would deteriorate or be lost those incurred for cultivation, production, and upkeep Repairs required by the wear and tear due to the natural use of the thing.

are spent or add value to the property. 3. Luxurious expenses a. These are reimbursable only if the landowner decides to appropriate them.

Can the owner of the land choose to appropriate and then later change his mind? No, the choice is irrevocable. Once the choice has been made, in case it is the option to purchase the improvement, the duty is monetary and the landowner’s properties may be levied to satisfy the debt. What if the owner refuses to make a choice? There are no remedies except those provided by the law in Article 448. In this case, I THINK that the builder in good faith should ask the court to determine a reasonable amount of rent and deposit the same regularly with the court. What if the owner chooses to appropriate the building, what is his obligation? The landowner must now indemnify the builder for the value of the building. What if after choosing to appropriate the building, the landowner fails to pay? The builder has the right to occupy the building up to the date of payment. He has the right of retention until payment is made. What if the owner above allows the builder to remain but charges rentals for possession of the land? No rentals may be charged. The landowner is not the owner of the property until indemnification is made. If the landowner chooses to compel the builder to buy the land, can the builder be obliged to purchase the land? Generally, yes, unless the value of the land is considerably more than the value of the building. However if the value of the land is not considerably more, the builder may be compelled. If this is the case, they can agree on terms of lease, and in case of disagreement, the courts shall fix the same.


Useful expenses a. Those that augment the income of the thing upon which they


Page 15 of 42


If the builder is the son of the landowner and permission is granted, the builder is in good faith. If the land is co-owned, and the land is partitioned, with part of one house encroaching on the other’s partition. In this case, Article 448 applies. Even though the construction wasn’t on the land of another, the subsequent partition caused 448 to apply (Del Ocampo v. Abesia). What should the landowner choose? Sell the small portion of the land because what will be the use of a portion of a building? When the structures built in good faith on the land of another are of a temporary character, Article 448 applies, but only as to indemnity. The landowner is not compelled to choose between appropriating the property and selling the land. Alviola v. CA Alviola occupied Tinagan’s land and built a copra drier and put up a store where they engaged in copra trade; this was done in bad faith but with the tolerance of Tinagan. Several years later, the heirs of Tinagan filed a complaint for recovery of possession against Alviola. Alviola claims that the copra dryer and store are permanent structures (hollowblock walls and cement floor) and that 448 should apply. ISSUE: Whether 448 should apply. HELD: 448 should apply. Since both parties were in bad faith, they will be treated as if they were in good faith for purposes of indemnity and Article 448 will apply: the builder of the structures will pay rent until the structures are dismantled. However, the dryer and store are temporary structures. They to not have a permanent character and were not attached to the soil with an idea of perpetuity. Since the structures are merely temporary, the landowner does not have to choose between buying the structures and selling the property.

In computing the amount to be paid to a builder in good faith, the FMV of the structure should be used. The right of retention enjoyed by the builder allows him to possess the property and its fruits until he is fully indemnified; he cannot be made to pay rents. Pecson v. CA Pecson owned a commercial lot on which he built an apartment building. The lot was sold at public auction because of his failure to pay realty taxes. Private respondents, Nuguids, are now the owners of the lot. When Pecson challenged the auction, it was held that the apartment building was not included in the execution because the certificate of sale was silent on the issue of the building. However, in separate suit for recovery of possession, the owners of the lot caused judgment to be rendered ordering Pecson to transfer the building for the original cost of construction, 53K. Pecson was also ordered to pay rentals of 21K per month (the income of the building from its tenants) until he vacates the premises. ISSUE: Whether the construction value of the building should be paid; whether Pecson should pay rent. HELD: The fair market value of the building should be paid. Pecson is entitled to the right of retention; he enjoys ownership until he is fully compensated. The objective of Article 546 is to administer justice between the parties; in this case, this can be accomplished by giving Pecson the present value of the building. Article 546 also provides that a possessor in good faith, as Pecson is, may retain the thing until he is reimbursed for it. It follows that if Pecson is allowed to retain possession of the thing, he is also allowed to retain the income generated by the building and not pay rent.


Page 16 of 42


Good faith is presumed; good faith on the part of the builder passes on to his successor. The builder’s right of retention exists only when the landowner opts to purchase the property; if the choice is compulsory sale, the builder must pay rent until transfer of ownership. Tecnogas v. CA Tecnogas’s property encroached on Uy’s property. The CA held that, though Tecnogas purchased the property with improvements already constructed, it was in bad faith because an owner of a property is supposed to know its metes and bounds. ISSUE: Whether Article 448 applies. HELD: Yes. Good faith is presumed and since there was no showing of bad faith on the part of the original builder, the character of possession passes on to the current possessor. Unless one is versed in the science of surveying, no one can determine the precise extent or location of his property by merely examining his title. Article 448 provides that a property owner on whose property there has been built a structure by another, in good faith, shall have the option to appropriate said structure upon payment of indemnity or sell the portion encroached upon to the other. Uy must choose between the two options in Article 448. Tecnogas should pay rent on the land until the time Uy communicates his choice. If the choice is compulsory sale, Tecnogas should continue paying rent until transfer of ownership.

of a deed of sale (unregistered sale v. registered mortgage). HELD: Yes. SOLID no longer had ownership and free disposal when it mortgaged the property; it had no authority to do so. Though the rule is that a purchaser need not go beyond the four corners of the title, the exception is where the purchases has knowledge of facts to induce a prudent man to inquire into the status of the property. SIH, knowing the trade of SOLID, should have made sure there was no adverse claim on the property before accepting it as a mortgage; it was not a purchaser in good faith. This negligence takes the place of registration of the rights of the Oretas.

Article 448 does not apply to co-owners; but when the property is partitioned and the circumstances covered by 448 are present, it may be applied. Del Ocampo v. Abesia Del OCampo and Abeisa are co-owners of the subject property; 2/3 and 1/3, respectively. An action for partition was filed and the partition showed that the house of Abesia occupied 5 sqm. of the property of Del Ocampo. ISSUE: Whether Article 448 can apply to this case considering the parties are co-owners. HELD: Article 448 cannot apply to coownership situations. However, because the property was partitioned, Article 448 now applies.

Art. 449. He who builds, plants or sows in
bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right to indemnity.

The rule: a purchaser need not go beyond the title. The exception: where there are facts that would induce a reasonably prudent man to make further inquiries. State Investment House v. CA Sps. Oreta purchased a house and lot from SOLID. Before a deed of sale could be executed, SOLID mortgaged the property to SIH; it was foreclosed. ISSUE: Whether the Oretas have a better right over the property, despite the absence

Art. 450. The owner of the land on which
anything has been built, planted or sown in bad faith may demand the demolition of the work, or that the planting or sowing be removed, in order to replace things in their former condition at the expense of the person who built, planted or sowed; or he may compel the builder or planter to pay the price of the land, and the sower the proper rent.


Page 17 of 42


Art. 451. In the cases of the two preceding
articles, the landowner is entitled to damages from the builder, planter or sower.

desire to resolve the contract but Datu Idiris never returned the money he received. Mrs. Usman then sold the lots to Angeles, who planted 3000 coconut trees; Angeles knew of the ongoing dispute between Idiris and Usman. Datu Idiris filed a complaint for recovery of possession of the land, which Usman did not contest. Idiris was adjudged to be owner after which he sold the land to Lumungo. It has been settled that Lumungo has a better right to the property and the only question is… ISSUE: Whether Angeles is entitled to reimbursement for the trees planted. HELD: Angeles is NOT entitled to reimbursement Article 449 provides that he who plants in bad faith on the land of another loses the right to indemnity. Article 452, on the other hand, provides that the planter in bad faith is entitled to reimbursement for necessary expenses for preservation of the land. In this case, the planter, Angeles, knew of the dispute over the land when he purchased the same. While Article 449 applies, Article 452 does not, because trees are not necessary expenses for the preservation of the land; they are IMPROVEMENTS. Lumungo may appropriate (for free) the trees, compel Angeles to pay for the land, or order their demolition at the expense of Angeles, with damages in either case.

Art. 452. The builder, planter or sower in
bad faith is entitled to reimbursement for the necessary expenses of preservation of the land. Does Article 449 refer to both standing and gathered crops? No, Article 449 applies only to standing crops, not to gathered crops which are governed by Article 443 (the planter/sower is entitled to reimbursement for expenses in their gathering, production, and preservation). If B builds, in bad faith, a house on A’s land (A being in good faith), what are the alternative rights of A? 1. 2. 3. A may get the house without paying indemnity. A may demand demolition of the house, at B’s expense. A may compel B to buy the land, whether or not the value is considerably more than that of the house.

A IS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES IN EACH CASE. B IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR NECESSARY EXPENSES FOR PRESERVATION OF THE LAND What is the rule on reimbursement of a builder in bad faith? He must be reimbursed the necessary expenses for the preservation of the land because the true owner would have borne such expenses anyway. Land taxes, though not technically necessary expenses, are reimbursable. A buyer of land under litigation, with knowledge of the same, is a buyer in bad faith. A builder/planter in bad faith is not entitled to reimbursement for improvements. Lumungo v. Usman Datu Idiris sold the property in question to Mrs. Usman; there was partial payment. Subsequently, both parties expressed their cmt

A successor-in-interest is bound by the judgment (and summons) against his predecessors. Construction on the litigated land after such judgment/summons is construction in bad faith. Santos v. Mojica The lot in question was partitioned and Santos’s parents were ordered to pay rents for the portion they were occupying. They failed to pay and a writ of execution was issued ordering them to vacate the lot. Leonardo, who was not a party to the suit, owned a house on the lot – this house was reconstructed into a bigger one after his

Page 18 of 42


parents were summoned in the above mentioned case. The judge, Mojica, ordered the house demolished. ISSUE: Whether Leonardo Santos is in good faith, thereby entitling him to the benefits of Article 448. HELD: No, Santos is in BAD FAITH, the house should be demolished. As such, any improvements he made are lost in favor of the landowners (3 options). Though not a party to the suit in which his parents were ordered to vacate the lot, he was bound by the judgment because his claim was under that of his parents; he is their successor in interest.

part because they repeatedly gave him verbal and written orders to cease his construction. Articles 449-451 apply; the Baguilat’s have the option to: (1) take possession of the building without payment of indemnity; (2) demand the destruction of the building at Bugatti’s expense; or (3) compel Bugatti to purchase the land whether or not its value considerably exceeds the value of the improvement. They are also entitled to damages equivalent to rentals beginning from the time of occupation until eventual eviction.

Art. 453. If there was bad faith, not only
on the part of the person who built, planted or sowed on the land of another, but also on the part of the owner of such land, the rights of one and the other shall be the same as though both had acted in good faith. It is understood that there is bad faith on the part of the landowner whenever the act was done with his knowledge and without opposition on his part. What is the definition of bad faith? 1. Landowner a. When the act (building/planting/sowing) was done with his knowledge and without opposition on his part. When he buys land knowing that there has been construction by a person other than the owner and who pays only for the land.

A prospective lessee who builds on the land of a prospective lessor despite the absence of a valid contract and the presence of objections to the construction is clearly in bad faith. Bugatti v. CA Bugatti approached Sps. Baguilat and inquired into the lease of their land; they agreed provided that the contract would contain certain terms and conditions. In a meeting, the spouses laid down their terms and conditions: the lease would be for 9 years at 500 per month; and a building not exceeding 40k would be constructed by Bugatti with the cost of the building offsetting the lease. Even before preparing the lease, Bugatti occupied the property and began construction. ISSUE: Whether Bugatti is a builder in good faith? HELD: No, Bugatti is a builder in BAD faith. The determination of Bugatti’s good or bad faith rests on whether there was a valid contract between the parties giving him the right to occupy and build upon the land – there was none. It is obvious that the essential element of consent was absent. There was no meeting of the minds between the parties. There is bad faith on Bugatti’s part because he had no right to occupy the property, much less construct a building thereupon. Neither can Bugatti claim bad faith on the Baguilats



Builder a. When building / planting / sowing is knowingly done on land belonging to another.

Art. 454. When the landowner acted in bad
faith and the builder, planter or sower proceeded in good faith, the provisions of article 447 shall apply. If B, in good faith, builds on A’s land, A being in bad faith, B may: 1. 2. Compel A to pay for the house + damages; or Remove or destroy the house + damages.


Page 19 of 42


Art. 455. If the materials, plants or seeds
belong to a third person who has not acted in bad faith, the owner of the land shall answer subsidiarily for their value and only in the event that the one who made use of them has no property with which to pay. This provision shall not apply if the owner makes use of the right granted by article 450. If the owner of the materials, plants or seeds has been paid by the builder, planter or sower, the latter may demand from the landowner the value of the materials and labor. How many parties are involved in this provision? Three: 1. 2. The owner of the materials; The builder; a. 3. Primarily liable for the cost of the materials.

a. b. c.

Appropriate the improvement; Compel A to purchase the land, regardless of cost; or Demolish the structure at A’s expense.

Art. 456. In the cases regulated in the
preceding articles, good faith does not necessarily exclude negligence, which gives right to damages under article 2176. What is the liability for negligence? The negligent party must pay for the damage done.

Art. 457. To the owners of lands adjoining
the banks of rivers belong the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters. What is accretion? Accretion is the process whereby the soil is deposited. The soil is alluvium. What are the forms of accretion? 1. 2. 3. 4. Allluvium Avulsion Change of course of rivers Formation of islands

The landowner. a. Subsidiarily liable for the cost of the materials, IF he makes use of the materials (appropriates the improvement). Must reimburse the builder who has paid for the materials IF he makes use of the materials (appropriates the improvement). Not liable if he chooses to compel the builder to purchase the land (this is the right granted by Article 450).


What is alluvium? Alluvium is the soil deposited or added to the lands adjoining the banks of rivers, and gradually received as an effect of the current of the waters. What are the essential elements of alluvium? [CREIG] (a) The deposit should be gradual and imperceptible (as a process); (b) Cause is the current of the river and not artificial; (c) Current must be that of a river (if lake, Spanish Law of Waters applies; if sea, deposit belongs to the state); (d) The river must continue to exist; if not, Article 461 applies; (e) The increase must be comparatively little and not such that would increase he area of the riparian land by 150%.


A, in bad faith, uses the materials of B, who is also in bad faith, to build on X’s land. What are their rights and obligations? (a) A and B shall be treated as if they were both in good faith, as far as rights between them are concerned. A must reimburse B for the cost of the materials. (b) In case A cannot pay for the materials, X is NOT subsidiarily liable because B is in bad faith as to him. (c) X is entitled to damages from A and B and may:


Page 20 of 42


It is NOT necessary that: a. The riparian owner should make an express act of possession, the accession being automatically his the moment the soil deposit can be seen; The riparian owner has completely paid for the value of the riparian estate, as long as he has already the beneficial or equitable title.

(2) that it be the result of the action of the river; (3) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the riverbank. Applying the rules, the land Manalo claims by accretion must be adjacent to Lot 307. However, the 821 is not adjacent to 307 but to the submerged portion claimed by Manalo. This submerged potion belongs not to him but to the State. The law of waters states that the natural bed of a river is the highest ground covered by its waters during the highest floods. Hence, the submerged portion is part of the river bed which, under the Civil Code, is property of public domain; it cannot come under private ownership.


What are the reasons why alluvium is granted the riparian owner? [CECEAU] (a) To compensate him for the loss he may suffer due to erosion or the destructive force of the water and danger from floods; (b) To compensate him because the property is subject to encumbrances and legal easements; (c) The interests of agriculture require that the soil be given to the person who is in the best position to cultivate the same; (d) It cannot be said from whom the soil came, it may as well be given to the person who can best utilize it. Binalay v. Manalo Binalay purchased two parcels of land which were later consolidated into one title, Lot 307. The title of one of the parcels of land indicated that it included a portion which was submerged annually by the Cagayan River during the wet months. However, when the survey to consolidate the lands into 307 was conducted, the said portion was submerged and was not included in the consolidated title. During the wet months, the perennially submerged portion causes the river to have two branches, with an island formed in the middle; the strip of land is denominated as Lots 821 and 822. Binalay claims ownership of Lot 821 by accretion. ISSUE: Whether Manalo owns Lot 821 by accretion to the perennially submerged portion. HELD: Manalo does not own Lot 821. There are 3 requisites for accretion: (1) the deposit should be gradual and imperceptible;

Ronquillo v. CA Estero Calubcub changed course due to dumping by the people living alongside it. Ronquillo had been occupying the lot since 1945 and Del Rosario in 1960, immediately after learning of the occupation, ordered him to vacate the lot. The Del Rosarios claim ownership over the dried up bed as riparian owners; Ronquillo claims the courts have no jurisdiction because the land is public and subject to the disposition of the Director of Lands. ISSUE: Whether the dried up bed is public or private land. HELD: The dried up bed was artificially caused; it does not fall under 307/461. Under Article 502, it is property of the public domain. Being of public character, its sale is dependent on the Director of Lands. Since the state needs said property for drainage purposes, it cannot be the subject of a sale.

Heirs of Navarro v. IAC, Heirs of Pascual Pascual sought to have land registered; which he claimed the land was an accretion to his property. Pascual’s property is bounded on the west by the Bulacan River, on the east by the Talisay River, and on the north by Manila Bay. The land sought to be registered as accretion is at the tip of Pascual’s property. Navarro, who had a fishpond lease of the foreshore with the Bureau of Lands, opposed Pascual’s registration.


Page 21 of 42


During the pendency of the registration case, Pascual filed a complaint for ejectment against Navarro. The CA held that the land was Pascual’s by accretion and Navarro should turn over to the latter the portion of the same covered by his foreshore lease. ISSUE: Whether the land is Pascual’s by accretion. HELD: No, the land is property of the public domain. There are 3 requisites for accretion: (1) the deposit should be gradual and imperceptible; (2) that it be the result of the action of the river; (3) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the riverbank. In this case, 2 of the 3 requisites are were not met. The accretion was a result not of the flow of the rivers but of Manila Bay. This is clear from the fact that the accretion is at the northern tip of the property, adjacent to Manila Bay.

Definitions: POND – a body of stagnant water without an outlet, larger than a puddle but smaller than a lake, or like a body of water with a small outlet. LAGOON – a small lake, ordinarily of fresh water, and is not very deep, fed by floods, the hollow bed of which is bounded by the elevations of the land. Gov’t v. Colegio de San Jose The Gov’t and Colegio claim ownership over a parcel of land which is covered by Laguna de Bay during the wet season. Colegio had title to land up to the lakeshore. The State claims the land is part of the lakeshore and of the public domain. ISSUE: Whether the is Colegio’s or the State’s. HELD: The land is Colegio’s. Laguna is a lake, which is defined as a body of water formed in depressions of the earth. It is ordinarily of fresh water coming from rivers, brooks, or springs, and connected to the sea by them. THE LAND IS NOT PARTY OF LAGUNA DE BAY’S BED. Undeniably, Laguna de Bay is a lake, and its bed is public. What then is its bed? The law of waters defines the bed as level of the water at the highest ordinary depth. This in turn is considered as the level during the dry season. ARTICLE 367/458 DOES NOT APPLY BEC. LDB IS A LAKE, NOT A LAGOON. The Gov’t also relies on Article 367/458 which provides that the owners of estates adjoining ponds or lagoons do not acquire the land left dry by the natural decrease of the waters or lose the land inundated in extraordinary floods. However, LDB is not a lagoon or pond but a LAKE. THE LAW OF WATERS PROVIDES THAT LANDS ACCIDENTALLY INUNDATED BY LAKES, CREEKS, RIVERS SHALL CONTINUE TO REMAIN PROPERTY OF THE RESPECTIVE OWNERS. Even if the land was formed by accretion, they still belong to Colegio.

Ferrer v. Bautista Ferrer claims the land in dispute by virtue of accretion; Bautista claims it by virtue of a free patent granted by the Director of Lands. The land is immediately south of Ferrer’s property. ISSUE: Whether the land is Ferrer’s by accretion or Bautista’s by virtue of a free patent. HELD: The land is Ferrer’s by accretion. Alluvion gives to the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers or streams any accretion which is gradually received from the current of the water. The rationale if to provide some compensation to the owners because of it subjection to destructive forces and easements. When the accretion was created, its ownership passed automatically to Ferrer and the Director of Lands had no authority to grant a free patent over it.

Art. 458. The owners of estates adjoining
ponds or lagoons do not acquire the land left dry by the natural decrease of the waters, or lose that inundated by them in extraordinary floods.


Page 22 of 42


Art. 459. Whenever the current of a river,
creek or torrent segregates from an estate on its bank a known portion of land and transfers it to another estate, the owner of the land to which the segregated portion belonged retains the ownership of it, provided that he removes the same within two years. This article refers to avulsion, which is: 1. the process whereby the current of a river, creek or torrent segregates from an estate on its bank a know portion of land and deposits it on another. The removal of a considerable quantity of earth upon or annexation to the land of another, suddenly and by the perceptible action of the water.

459 provides that when land is segregated and transferred to another estate, the owner of the segregated portion retains ownership provided he removes the same within 2 years. 463 provides that when the current of a river separates a portion of land from an estate, the owner retains possession.

Article 476. Whenever there is a cloud on
title to real property or any interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet such title. An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being case upon title to real property or any interest therein. What kinds of actions are referred to in Article 476? 1. 2. Remedial; and Preventative.


Alluvium v. Avulsion Alluvium Gradual Soil cannot be identified Belongs to owner of property to which it is attached Avulsion Sudden or abrupt Identifiable Belongs to owner from whose property it was attached

What “cloud” is referred to? The cloud (or doubt) on title exists because: a) of an instrument or record or claim or encumbrance or proceeding; b) which is apparently valid or effective; c) but is, actually invalid, ineffective, void, unenforceable, extinguished, or barred by prescription;

Agustin v. IAC Agustin owned the property to the east of the Cagayan river; Melad owned the property to the west. Over 49 years, the river gradually shifted from west to east, reducing Agustin’s property and increasing Melad’s. In 1968, a big flood occurred, causing the bed to river to revert to its original course, cutting into Melad’s land. Melad cultivated the land uncovered on the eastern portion of the river until Agustin drove them out. ISSUE: Whether Agustin or Melad owns the property uncovered by the abrupt reversion of the river to its original course. HELD: The land is Melad’s. Melad acquired by accretion the land which was gradually deposited on his property. This ownership was not lost by the reversion of the river to its original course; which reversion cut through Melad’s property. Articles 459 and 463 apply to the situation.

d) and may be prejudicial to thte title.

Where the plaintiff is in possession of the land, the prescriptive period within which to quiet title accrues only form the time the adverse claim is made known. Faja v. CA Frial claims that Faja had been illegally occupying his titled property for 30 years. He also claims that Faja’s right to question the validity of the title had prescribed, more than 10 having passed since the issuance of the decree of registration. Faja claims that Frial never owned the property and his title was obtained through fraud. In her counterclaim, she prays that she be declared lawful owner of the property. 3/7/2004


Page 23 of 42

Summary judgment was rendered in favor of Frial. ISSUE: Whether the right of Faja to question/quiet title had already prescribed. HELD: The action had not yet prescribed; an action to quiet title to property in the possession of plaintiff is imprescriptible. The prescriptive period began to run against Faja only from the time she was served with the complaint giving her notice that the property she had been occupying was titled in Frial’s name. It is settled that one who is in actual possession of land claiming to be owner thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right (or to quiet title). The reason being that undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to seek aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his own title, which right can be claimed only by one who is in possession.

ISSUE: Whether the right of Cabrera to recover on the implied trust had already prescribed. HELD: The action had not yet prescribed; though an action for reconveyance of property based on a constructive trust prescribes ten years from the date of titling of the property, this applies only when the trustee is not in possession of the property. When the trustee is in possession of the land sought to be reconveyed, the right to reconveyance does not prescribe because one who is in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to be owner thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed before taking steps to vindicate his right. The reason being that undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to seek aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his own title, which right can be claimed only by one who is in possession.

Where the plaintiff is in possession of the land, the prescriptive period within which to quiet title accrues only form the time the adverse claim is made known. Viuda de Cabrera v. CA Teokemian Sr. died, leaving 3 children with a parcel of land. A deed of sale was signed by ony two of the children (Felicidad Teokemian did not sign), conveying the property to Orais. Orais had the entire property surveyed and registered, including the 1/3 share of Felicidad Tokemian. Felicidad Teokemian remained in continuous possession of her 1/3 share, later selling it to Cabrera, who likewise occupied the lot. Thirty years after the issuance of the title, Orais filed an action for reconveyance (quieting of title), praying that the Cabreras be ordered to vacate the property. Cabrera claims that there is was an implied trust created when Orais acquired the property through fraud. Orais claims that the action to recover on the implied trust had already prescribed, more than ten years having elapsed.

Where the plaintiff is in possession of the land, the prescriptive period within which to quiet title accrues only form the time the adverse claim is made known. Spouses Hadji Ali Mamadsual v. J. Moson Plaintiffs filed an action to quiet title which was dismissed by the judge who stated that they had no standing to bring such action since they did not have legal or equitable title. Plaintiffs have been in open and adverse possession of the property since time immemorial. ISSUE: Whether the plaintiffs have legal or equitable title to the property. HELD: Plaintiffs have legal and equitable title to the property. Legal title means registered ownership while equitable title means beneficial ownership. However, title to property does not necessarily mena the OCT; it can connote acquisitive prescription by possession in the concept of owner.

Where the plaintiff is in possession of the land, the prescriptive period within which to quiet title accrues only form the time the adverse claim is made known.


Page 24 of 42


Titong v. CA Titong sold a portion of his land to Espinosa; the latter then sold it to private respondent Laurio. Titong, however, continued cultivating and tilling the land already sold and had been doing so for 20 years, when Laurio entered the property and attempted to till it himself. Titong filed an action for quieting of title. ISSUE: Whether an action for quieting of title was proper; whether Titong has a right to the property. HELD: An action for quieting of title was improper. The Civil Code provides that such action is availing only when there is a cloud on title by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding. In this case, none of the causes were present; the only possible action would have been forcible entry. The true issue is a boundary dispute. Titong has no right over the property. He cannot claim ordinary acquisitive prescription because he sold the property and yet altered the boundary line – obvious bad faith. Extraordinary prescription is likewise absent, possession being less than 30 years.

Also, an action for partition does not prescribe.

Paulmitan v. CA Donato and his brother inherited property from their mother. Donato caused the property to be registered in his name, claiming he was the only surviving heir. He later sold the property to his daughter, Fanesa. The property was levied by the government for tax delinquency and was redeemed by Fanesa. The heirs of his brother filed a complaint to partition the property plus damages. Donato’s daughter claims exclusive ownership by virtue of the 2 sales and prescription. ISSUE: Whether Fanesa is sole owner of the property. HELD: No. Donato’s sale of the property to his daughter was inofficious as far as the other half belonging to his brother was concerned. However, can it be said that when Fanesa redeemed the entire property from the State, she became sole owner? No. Redemption is not a mode of terminating ownership. The redemption by one co-owner of the entire property does not vest title over the same. Fanesa has a lien over the property and is entitled to reimbursement.

Del Banco v. IAC Brothers Pansacol purchased an island in Tayabas as co-owners. Several agreements were later executed as to the extent of ownership of each. Later, an action for partition was brought by successors in interest of the original coowners; this was opposed by the successors of the other co-owners, who claimed that they had exclusive ownership of the properties which had already been partitioned. ISSUE: Whether an the island property had already been partitioned by virtue of the agreements entered into by the co-owners. HELD: There was no physical partition; there was only ideal partition as to the share of each co-owner. That the parties have been in possession of portions of the lot and have even acquired titles thereto, there is no proof of partition. Partition requires a subdivision plain with respective titles issued to each; simple agreement is insufficient.

Mariano v. CA Gosiengfao mortgaged the lot in question; he died and then the mortgage was foreclosed. He left several heirs but only one, Amparo, redeemed the property. Some of the other heirs assigned their right to redeem in favor of Amparo; others did not (Grace). Amparo then sold the lot to Mariano. When Grace learned of the sale, she filed a complaint for recovery of possession and legal redemption with damages against Mariano. ISSUE: Whether Grace has a right to the property. HELD: Yes. It is settled that redemption of a co-owner inures to the benefit of all other coowners.


Page 25 of 42


Adille v. CA Felisa, the original owner of the property had children by two marriages: Adille from the first and the Asejos from the second. Felisa sold the property, pacto de retro, then died. Adille was able to redeem the property and executed a deed of partition representing himself to be the sole heir of Felisa thereby allowing him to title the land in his name. The Asejos filed for partition with accounting, claiming Adille was only a trustee. In fact, an Asejo had all the while been occupying a portion of the property. ISSUE: Whether the Asejos have a right to the property. HELD: Yes. It is settled that redemption of a co-owner inures to the benefit of all other coowners. Redemption is a necessary expense and the Civil Code provides that each co-owner shall have a right to compel the other co-owners to contribute to the expenses of preservation. Adille is then a trustee who acquired the property through fraud. Twenty five years have passed since he had the land titled in his name, has prescription set in? No. Prescription as a means of terminating coownership must be preceded by repudiation, which is subject to the following conditions: 1. co-owner repudiated co-ownership; 2. such act is made known to the co-owners; 3. the evidence is clear and conclusive; 4. he has been in possession in concept of owner for the required period. In this case, the co-owners were kept in the dark regarding the titling in his name. Moreover, one Asejo continued to enjoy possession of a portion of the property. Prescription shall begin from the moment that the Asejos learned of the fraud.

(a) a separate interest in a unit in a residential, commercial, or industrial building; and (b) an undivided interest in common directly or indirectly, in the land on which it is located and other common areas of the building. (c) It may include, in addition, a separate interest in other portions of such real property. Sec. 4. Condominium act applies only if the master or enabling deed is registered in the registry of property and annotated on the certificate/s of title of the land if such was registered under the Land Registration or Cadastral Acts. The master deed shall contain the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. Description of the land Description of the building Description of the common areas Statement of the exact nature of the interest acquired by the purchaser in the unit Statement of the purposes for which the building and units will be used Certificate of the registered owner of the property, if he is other than those executing the master deed The following plans: a. 8. Survey plan of the land Floor plan of the building

5. 6.


Any reasonable restriction not contrary to law on the right of the condominium owner to dispose of his condominium.

Master deed may be amended, revoked, upon registration instrument executed by registered owners. Sec. 5. Any transfer of a unit shall include the transfer of the undivided interest in the common areas or the membership in the corporation PROVIDED, where the common areas are held by the unit owners as co-owners, no unit shall be transferred to non-Filipino citizens or corporations, except in cases of succession. Sec. 6. Unless otherwise provided in the master deed, the incidents of a condo grant are as follows: 1. The boundary are the interior surfaces of the walls, floors, ceilings, windows, and 3/7/2004

What is a condominium? It is an interest in real property consisting of:


Page 26 of 42

door. Not included are utilities, heating, conduits, etc. 2. 3. Easement shall pass as an appurtenance of the unit Unless otherwise provided, common areas held in common by unit owners – equal share for one unit easement for ingress egress per unit right to paint fix interior right to mortgage, pledge, right to sell unless master deed requires offer to condominium owner.

annotation because you are a stockholder of the corporation. 1 vote per unit. No pay of dues, lien by corporation on units.

4. 5. 6. 7.

Not every purchaser of a condominium unit is a shareholder in the corporation. The Mater Deed determines when ownership of the unit and participation in the corporation vests in the purchaser. Sunset View Condominium Corp. v. Campos Sunset View filed for the collection of assessments levied against private respondents herein. The private respondents interposed the objection that the City Court and CFI have no jurisdiction. The CFI agreed and held that pursuant to the Condominium Act, the private respondents were holders of separate interests and consequently shareholders of the Sunset View. The CFI ordered Sunset View to ventilate its grievance with the SEC, which has exclusive original jurisdiction over controversies arising between shareholders of a corporation. ISSUE: Whether the CFI or the City Courts have jurisdiction over the claims filed by Sunset View, the condominium corporation. HELD: The City Court and the CFI have jurisdiction. The private respondents are not members or shareholders in the condominium corporation. The Condominium Act leaves to the Master Deed the determination of when the shareholding in the corporation will be transferred to the purchaser of the unit. In this case, the Master Deed provides that ownership is transferred only upon full payment of the purchase price. Private respondents have not yet fully paid the purchase price, hence they are not shareholders and the SEC has no jurisdiction over the claims. *now, special courts handle intra-corporate disputes

What is a condominium? What is a separate interest in a unit? Interest in common in land and common areas? Can you sell unit but retain common areas? NO Directly or indirectly? Direct – each unit owner own common area; indirect – stockholder corporation owns What is a condominium corporation? Manages land, common areas and to hold indirect interest in the land and common areas. If you own condo unit where there is no condo corporation, can you sell you unit to the foreigner? NO. If corporation – yes provided Filipino interest remains 60% or more. Declaration of Restrictions must also be registered. Existence of condominium corporation coterminous with the building. Check out differences between regular corporation and condo Purpose – hold title over land and common areas Existence – 50 yrs Dissolution – ordinary may be voluntarily dissolved; condo – subject to conditions provided by law: project destroyed, uninhabitable, etc. Whenever you buy a unit, you are given a title (condo cert of title) but no title to the land. The sale is annotated in the title to certificate/s of title, if there is no condo corp. I fthere is a condo corp, land is in name of corp, no more


Page 27 of 42


No alterations may be made without the written consent of the homeowners; upon full payment of the purchase price, title must be transferred, despite a mortgage constituted by the developer; the developer must provide parking. G.O.A.L. v. CA NHA extended a loan to GOAL for the latter to construct a condominium. Construction began but the contractor abandoned the project when it was only 60% completed. A year after the abandonment by the contractor, GOAL offered units for sale; private respondents were purchasers who had fully paid for the units. GOAL obtained an additional loan from NHA to continue construction with a condition imposed by the latter for the former to hold on to the certificate/s of title. Private respondents raise 3 complaints: (1) to stop the illegal continuation of the construction; (2) to deliver private respondent Teng’s certificate/s of title; (3) to provide adequate parking spaces. The HLURB and the OPLA ruled in favor of the respondents. ISSUE: Whether the developer, GOAL, can be compelled (1) to stop the illegal continuation of the construction; (2) to deliver private respondent Teng’s certificate/s of title; (3) to provide adequate parking spaces. HELD: Yes. PD 957 provides: (1)No developer can alter plans without the permission of the HLURB and the written conformity of the homeowners. This is an amendment of the master deed. (2)Upon full payment of the purchase price, the developer is mandated by law to deliver the certificate/s of title to the buyers. In fact, even if the unit is mortgaged by the developer, the developer must redeem the mortgaged and deliver certificate/s of title to the buyer. (3)Only street parking is excluded from what should be given for free by the developer. Free parking may be in the basement or on the first floor. Furthermore, in a condominium, unit owners have an undivided interest over common areas and facilities, including parking spaces.

Article 491. None of the co-owners shall,
without the consent of the others, make alterations in the thing owned in common, even though benefits for all would result therefrom. However, if the withholding of the consent by one or more of the co-owners is clearly prejudicial to the common interest, the courts may afford adequate relief. *What is an alteration? (1) It is a CHANGE; (2) Which is more or less PERMANENT; (3) And changes the USE of the thing; (4) And PREJUDICES the condition of the thing or its enjoyment by others. Or, according to Manresa: It is an act of ownership, which may be material (changes nature) or metaphysical (changes use), and gives rise to a real right over the property owned in common. What are examples of an alteration? 1. Sale, donation, or mortgage of the whole property (the transaction would be void only to the extent of the co-owner who did not consent); Sale, donation or mortgage of part of the property with definite boundaries (the sale is valid but subject to the result of the subsequent partition); A voluntary easement; Lease of real property if a. b. 5. 6. The lease is registered; Or the lease is for more than one year (whether recorded or not)


3. 4.

The construction of a house on a lot owned in common; Any other act of strict dominion or ownership where any encumbrance or disposition was held implicitly to be an act of alteration; Impliedly, contracts of long duration.


When is an alteration deemed illegal? An alteration is deemed illegal when it is made without the express or implied consent of the co-owners.


Page 28 of 42


Note that implied consent by the others will not give the one making the alteration the right to seek reimbursement. What are the effects of an illegal alteration? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The co-owner responsible may lose what he has spent; He would be liable for losses and damages; Benefits derived by the co-ownership belong to it; Demolition can be compelled; In case a house is constructed on a common lot, all the co-owners will be entitled to a proportionate share of the rent. Imperial v. CA Mariano and Adela were siblings who inherited 2 lots (1052 and 1091) from their mother. To facilitate titling of the lots, A executed a waiver of rights in favor of Mariano; another document was executed where Mariano acknowledged the simulated character of the waiver and Adela’s ½ share in the inheritance. Fraudulently, M sold 1052 to a third person/s. The CA ruled that since M sold 1052 and failed to give the heirs of A their share in the proceeds, he is deemed to have waived his right to 1091. Damages were also awarded. Imperial effectively partitioned the property. The SC affirmed the CA’s decision.

HELD: No. The co-ownership has already been terminated. Article 484 provides that there is no coownership when the different portions owned by different people are already concretely determined and separately identifiable. In this case, it is evident that the deeds of sale to each son particularly identified the conveyed portion of the master lot.

Article 492. For the administration and
better enjoyment of the thing owned in common, the resolutions of the majority of the co-owners shall be binding. There shall be no majority unless the resolution is approved by the co-owners who represent the controlling interest in the object of the co-ownership. Should there be no majority, or should the resolution of the majority be seriously prejudicial to those interested in the property owned in common, the court, at the instance of an interested party, shall order such measures as it may deem proper, including the appointment of an administrator. Whenever a part of the thing belongs exclusively to one of the co-owners, and the remainder is owned in common, the preceding provisions shall apply only to the part owned in common. What are acts of administration of management? They are those: (a) that do not involve an alteration;

There is no co-ownership when the different portions owned by different people are already concretely determined and separately identifiable. Si v. CA The Armada siblings, C, J, and S, received from their parents property in Pasay. The deeds of sale particularly described the portion conveyed to each son in metes and bounds. However, the certificate of title of the original lot remained intact. C later sold his share to Si. J and S sought to annul the sale, claiming they had a right of redemption. ISSUE: Whether the brothers have the right of redemption.

(b) those that may be renewed from time to time; (c) those that have transitory effects, that is, do not bind the co-ownership for a long time in the future; (d) those that do not give rise to a real right over the thing owned in common; those, which even if called an alteration, do not affect the substance or nature of the thing; (e) those for the common benefit of all the co-owners and not for only one or some of them. How can we tell if the act is alteration or administration?


Page 29 of 42


What are examples of acts of administration? (a) Lease of one year or less, if unregistered; (b) Appointment of a co-owner or a third person as administrator. What are the limitations on the right of the financial majority? (a) There must be NOTICE to the minority of resolutions; (b) Only the urgency of the case and difficulty of meeting would justify proceeding without notice; (c) The minority may appeal to the court against the majority decision when: a. b. There is no real majority; The majority refuses to correct abuse of administration or maladministration; The minority is made victim of fraud; An alteration is agreed upon. The resolution is SERIOUSLY PREJUDICIAL to the rights of an individual co-owner; i. ii. Loans without sufficient security; Encumbrance or disposition is made (alteration); Abusive administrator is not replaced.

The sale is valid only insofar as his share is concerned. In case a co-owner sells his share, who participates in the partition, the vendor or the vendee? It depends. If the vendee is already in possession, then he alone may participate. If, however, after the share is sold, the vendor retains a real right over it, both he and the vendee may participate. Can a co-owner’s share be attached even if there hasn’t been partition? Yes. If A, B and C are co-owners of a residence, each owning a floor, can one of them sell his share to a third person/s who will convert the same into a factory? No. In this case, the use of the building would change and the interests of the others would be jeopardized. If A and B own a common dwelling, can one of them sell his share to a stranger? No. The interest and privacy of the other would be jeopardized. “Personal right,” as it is used in Article 493 should be understood to be NOT a technical term.

c. d. e.

Article 494. No co-owner shall be obliged
to remain in the co-ownership. Each coowner may demand at ANY TIME the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned. Nevertheless, an agreement to keep the thing undivided for a certain period of time, not exceeding ten years, shall be valid. This term may be extended by a new agreement. A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a period which shall not exceed twenty years. Neither shall there be any partition when it is prohibited by law. No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership. *What is the reason for allowing partition at ANY TIME? The law discourages co-ownership because to remain in such an arrangement subjects a person to the desires of the rest and conflicts in management are bound to arise. 3/7/2004


Article 493. Each co-owner shall have the
full ownership of his part and the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership. What is the effect of a co-owner’s sale of the entire property without authority of the others?


Page 30 of 42

*When may a co-owner NOT successfully demand partition? (a) if by agreement, partition is prohibited (10 years max.); (b) if partition is prohibited by a donor or testator (20 years max.); What if all donees agree to partition then donor challenges partition? The donation may be revoked due to a violation of a condition imposed by the donor. What if heirs violate partition prohibition of testator? No one can bring an action to challenge partition. What about administrator? (c) if partition is prohibited by law (CPG); (d) if physical partition would render the property unserviceable (the property may be allotted to one who will indemnify the others or it may be sold to a third person/s); (e) if the legal nature of the common property does not allow partition (like party walls). Requirements a. b. c. d. Repudiation with notice Must be in a clear and convincing manner Other requirements of prescription Period of prescription

In 1953, Galileo caused the property to be registered in his name alone. In 1968, the heirs of the excluded siblings brought suit against the heirs of Galileo for the partition or reconveyance of the property. ISSUE: Whether the heirs of the excluded siblings have a right of action against the heirs of Galileo. HELD: No; the action has already prescribed. Generally, prescription does not run against co-owners, as long as the one possessing recognizes the co-ownership. However, a co-owner in possession of the coowned property is deemed an implied trustee and possession adverse to the implied trust is recognized as a repudiation of the coownership. This repudiation, if made unequivocally and with knowledge to the co-owners, if proved convincingly, can cause prescription to run. When Galileo registered the property in his name, this is deemed to be a repudiation sufficient to cause the running of prescription. An action to reconvey land based on an implied trust prescribes after 10 years – the action was brought 15 years after the registration.

A contract providing for the nondissolution of the co-ownership until the subdivided lots are sold is valid. Tuason v. Tuason, Gregorio Araneta, Inc. One of the three Tuason siblings sold her share to GA. GA then proposed to the remaining two the subdivision of the property and its sale to the public; both assented. The terms of the contract provided that the co-ownership should subsist until all of the subdivided lots have been sold. One of the Tuason siblings decided that she wanted out of the co-ownership and filed a complaint for partition. The lower court dismissed the complaint. In her appeal, she raised the issue of: ISSUE: Whether the terms of the contract requiring co-ownership until the sale of all the lots is contrary to the Civil Code provision

Is a tax declaration in one’s name repudiation? It is not sufficient notice of repudiation. Is registration of property in one’s name repudiation? Yes, registration is sufficient repudiation. Registration of the co-owned property by a co-owner is an act of repudiation and is a constructive trust wherein the action to assail must be brought within 10 years of registration. Si v. CA Siblings Galileo, Eulalio, Juanita, and Vicente inherited a parcel of land from their brother.


Page 31 of 42


prohibiting co-owners from being obliged to remain part of the community. HELD: The contract is perfectly valid. The contract is, in fact, designed for the ultimate end of terminating the co-ownership. At the time of the appeal, already 97.5% of the subdivision had been sold, and for a handsome profit as well. The co-owners being forced to remain in the co-ownership should be taken to be a means to an end of disposing the lots and terminating the co-ownership. Q: What it the lots aren’t sold within ten years? Could there be an indirect violation of Article 494? No, by agreeing to subdivide, develop, and sell the property, the parties actually entered into an agreement for partition.

son of Eliseo had been occupying the property even before the death of the testators.

Article 495. Notwithstanding the
provisions of the preceding article, the coowners cannot demand a physical division of the thing owned in common, when to do so would render it unserviceable for the use for which it is intended. But the co-ownership may be terminated in accordance with Article 498.

Article 496. Partition may be made by
agreement between the parties or by judicial proceedings. Partition shall be governed by the Rules of Court insofar as they are consistent with this Code. What are the classifications of partition? As to CAUSE: 1. extrajudicial or conventional judicial

Clear repudiation is required for prescription to run against co-owners. Santos v. Santos Eliseo and Ladislao Santos, brothers, inherited from their sister and father, parcels of land. Eliseo claims that Ladislao executed a Combined Deed of Partition whereby the latter conveyed the entire property to the former. When Ladislao sued for reconveyance or partition, Eliseo set up the defense of the Combined Deed of Partition and acquisitive prescription. ISSUE: Whether Ladislao has a cause of action. HELD: Yes, the co-ownership subsists. Eliseo failed to present the deed upon which his claim is based. The claim of subsisting ownership must be refuted by the best evidence obtainable. The issue more important is prescription: Did Eliseo acquire Ladislao’s share through prescription? No. Prescription of an action to recover from an implied trust requires clear repudiation by the possessor of the object of the coownership. In this case, there was no such repudiation. Though Eliseo’s son remained on the property belonging to Ladislao, this can be considered as being assented to by the latter since the cmt


As to PERMANENCE: 1. 2. provisional or temporary permanent

As to SUBJECT MATTER: 1. 2. real property personal property

As to FORMS AND SOLEMNITIES: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. partition by judicial decree partition registered in the Registry of Property partition in a private instrument partition in a public instrument oral partition

What law governs partition? a. b. The Civil Code Suppletorily, the Rules of Court.

What must a person seeking partition do? He must set forth in his complaint the (1) description of the real estate, the (2) nature and extent of his title, and he must (3) join all those with an interest in the property as defendants. What must the court do if it finds that plaintiff has a right to demand partition? 3/7/2004

Page 32 of 42

It shall order partition of the property. The parties may partition the property among themselves. What if the parties fail to agree on the partition? The court will appoint not more than 3 disinterested persons as commissioners to make the partition, commanding them to allocate to the parties a part of the property as the court shall order.

Her heirs now claim that the property was conjugal, having been acquired during the marriage of their parents. Being so, upon the death of their father, they became owners of one half of the property. Cruz claims that the property is paraphernal, the certificate/s of title indicating that Gertrudes is a widow and the title is in her name. Cruz also argues that when Gertrudes redeemed the property after a previous mortgage, it became hers alone. ISSUE: Whether the mortgage of the property was valid. HELD: Yes, the mortgage was valid. Though as a rule, a co-owner can dispose or encumber only his share of the co-ownership, in this case, the certificate/s of title indicated Gertrudes as the absolute owner of the property. A person dealing with registered land is not required to go beyond the certificate/s of title to determine the condition of the property.

Partition may be oral or written; in a private or public document. Pada Kilario v. CA, Pada During Jacinto’s lifetime, he allowed his brother, the father of petitioner herein, to occupy a portion of his property. When Jacinto died, his heirs executed an extrajudicial partition in a private document. They asked petitioner to leave the property; she refused. An action for ejectment was filed. Petitioner claims that the partition was invalid for being in a private document and that the portion she is occupying was subsequently donated to her by a number of the heirs of Jacinto. ISSUE: Whether the extrajudicial partition in a private document is valid. HELD: Yes, the partition is valid. A partition may be in a public or private document or even oral. Since the partition was valid, the conveyance to petitioner is invalid because those who made the conveyance were no longer owners of the property conveyed.

Where several properties were orally partitioned but one was inadvertently left out of the court order approving the partition, the oral partition shall be given effect. Maestrado v. CA Ramon Chavez died, leaving several heirs. An oral partition was conducted and the same was approved by the court. Concepcion, Angel, Amparo, and Salvador received lot 3046. Josefa and Carmen received 4 lots, including the property in dispute, lot 5872. However, 5872 was not included in the court’s order approving the partition.

Where a co-owned property is titled in the name of one co-owner and there is no indication on the certificate/s of title of co-ownership, a third person may rely on the face of the title in his purchase of the said property. Cruz v. Leis Getrudes Leis obtained a loan from Cruz; this was secured by a REM on the subject property. She failed to pay and the property was foreclosed.

To set things straight, Concepcion, Angel, Amparo, and Salvador (or their successors) executed quitclaims confirming the existence of the oral partition. Subsequently, Concepcion, Angel, Amparo, and Salvador (or their successors) requested for the partition of 5872 and the distribution of their respective shares. Petitioners, Josefa and Carmen filed an action for quieting of title.


Page 33 of 42


ISSUE: Whether private respondents, Concepcion, Angel, Amparo, and Salvador (or their successors), have a right to the property. HELD: They have no right. The property was ceded to petitioners upon the execution of the oral partition which they themselves confirmed in their quitclaims.

Of course, essentially indivisible objects, such as automobiles. However, essentially divisible objects, such as land, may also be covered if their division would be to the prejudice of the interests of the parties. What is the procedure in the partition of an essentially indivisible object? 1. 2. Allot the thing to a co-owner, who shall indemnify the others; If the above is not agreed upon, sell the thing and distribute the proceeds.

Article 497. The creditors or assignees of
the co-owners may take part in the division of the thing owned in common and object to its being effected without their concurrence. But they cannot impugn any partition already executed, unless there has been fraud, or in case it was made notwithstanding a formal opposition presented to prevent it, without prejudice to the right of the debtor or assignor to maintain its validity. *May creditors or assignees impugn a partition already executed? Generally they may NOT, except: 1. 2. Where there has been fraud; Where a formal opposition has been previously presented.

Article 499. The partition of a thing
owned in common shall not prejudice third persons, who shall retain the rights of mortgage, servitude, or any other real rights belonging to them before the division was made. Personal rights pertaining to third persons against the co-ownership shall also remain in force, notwithstanding the partition. If A, B, and C, as co-owners of a lot, mortgage the same to X and then subsequently partition it, what happens to the mortgage? The mortgage would subsist over the 3 postpartition lots. Who are third person/s in this article? All those who did not participate in the partition.

Is a mortgage sufficient security against fraud? Yes. Who are the creditors referred to in this article? All creditors who became so during the existence of the co-ownership. In case a co-owner sells his share, who participates in the partition, the vendor or the vendee? It depends. If the vendee is already in possession, then he alone may participate. If, however, after the share is sold, the vendor retains a real right over it, both he and the vendee may participate.

Article 500. Upon partition, there shall be
a mutual accounting for benefits received and reimbursements for expenses made. Likewise, each co-owner shall pay for damages caused by reason of his negligence or fraud.

Article 501. Every co-owner shall, after
partition, be liable for defects of title and quality of the portion assigned to each of the co-owners. *What are the effects of partition? 1. 2. 3. 4. mutual accounting for benefits received; mutual reimbursement for expenses; indemnity for damages caused by negligence or fraud; reciprocal warranty for: a. defects of title 3/7/2004

Article 498. Whenever the thing is
essentially indivisible and the co-owners cannot agree that it be allotted to one of them who shall indemnify the others, it shall be sold and its proceeds distributed. What objects are included in this article?


Page 34 of 42

b. 5.

quality or hidden defects

each former co-owner is deemed to have had exclusive possession of the part allotted to him for the entire period during which the co-possession lasted; partition confers upon each the exclusive title over his respective share.

(a) Grammatical – mere holding without having any right (thief) (b) Juridical – possession with juridical title but not ownership (lessee, depositary, pledge) (c) Real – possession with just title but not from the true owner (purchase of property not owned by seller in good faith (d) Dominium – possession with a title of dominium or a just title from the owner *What are the requisites or elements of possession? (a) There must be a holding, detention or control of a thing or a right, actual or constructive; (b) There must be a deliberate intention to possess; this is a state of mind (animus possidendi); (c) The possession must be by virtue of one’s own right (real or dominium; not possession because of agency) What does actual or constructive holding or detention mean? Ex. There is a large tract of land, of which the owner actually occupies only a fraction and constructively occupies the rest. It is essential in constructive possession that the property be not in the adverse possession of another. What are the classes of possession? (a) In one’s own name or that of another (Article 524); (b) In the concept of owner and in the concept of holder(Article 525); (c) In good or bad faith. Are ownership and possession the same? No. Ownership is different from possession. Though one owns property, the right to possess the same may be in the hands of another as a tenant or lessee.


How is co-ownership extinguished? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. judicial partition; extrajudicial partition; prescription by co-owner; prescription by stranger; merger in one co-owner; loss or destruction; expropriation.

If A and B partitioned land co-owned by them and later, X successfully claims ownership of the land allotted to A, what happens? A and B must both bear the loss. B must give half of the land allotted to him to A.

Article 523. Possession is the holding of a
thing or the enjoyment of a right. Why entire property to possession? Possessor may not be owner. Possession here is separate from ownership. Is possession a fact or a right? Both. It is a fact since it exists; but from the moment it exists, certain consequences follow, making it also a right. What are the viewpoints of possession? 1. Jus possidendi or right TO possession – this is an incident of ownership. Ex. I own a house; I am entitled to possess it. 2. Jus possesionis or right OF possession – this is a right independent of ownership. Ex. I am renting a house; I am entitled to possess it. *What are the degrees of possession? cmt

Article 524. Possession may be exercised
in one’s own name or in that of another. Who is in actual possession of a rented parcel of land? The lessor, through the tenant, is in actual possession in the concept of owner.

Page 35 of 42


The lessee is in actual possession in the concept of holder. What are the kinds of possession in another’s name? (a) Voluntary – as when the agent possesses for the principal by virtue of agreement; (b) Necessary – as when a mother possesses for a child still in her womb; (c) Unauthorized – this will become the principal’s possession only after there has been a ratification without prejudice to the effects of negotiorum gestio (officious management). Supposing a tenant is ousted by a third person, can the OWNER of the property bring an action for forcible entry? Yes. The landlord was in actual possession through the tenant and stands to lose possession and even ownership. Possession may be exercised in another’s name. Article 524 of the Civil Code provides: “Possession may be exercised in one’s own name or that of another.” De Luna v. CA De Luna filed a case of forcible entry against Dimaano, alleging that the latter entered his land, began plowing it, and erected a barbed wire fence. Dimmano raised the defense the De Luna was not the owner of the property and that the property was actually owned by Dequiña. He further claims that Dequiña leased the property to him. ISSUE: Whether possession may be exercised in another’s name. HELD: Yes, possession may be exercised in another’s name. Article 524 of the Civil Code provides: “Possession may be exercised in one’s own name or that of another.” The issue of prior possession had to be resolved to determine who had a better right to possess the property – the rule in ejectment cases being that the only issue to be resolved is who is entitled to physical or material possession of the premises or de facto possession. Now, if De Luna is able to prove prior possession in himself, then he may recover possession from Dimaano.

De Luna was able to prove prior possession through the testimony of his tenants who had been occupying the land for several years – this is the possession exercised by De Luna in another’s name. De Luna also proved through a neighbor’s testimony that Dequiña’s father delivered the property to him and his mother. However, since Dimaano alleged that Dequiña, and not De Luna, owned the property, the court felt the need to look into the issue of ownership. Dimaano attempted to prove Dequiña’s ownership through tax declarations by the latter on the property but the court held that this alone was not sufficient to prove ownership. The court held that the prior possession of De Luna beats the flimsy claim of Dimaano without prejudice to the subsequent determination of true ownership in an appropriate proceeding.

Article 525. The possession of things or
rights may be had in one of two concepts: either in the concept of owner, or in that of the holder of the thing or right to keep or enjoy it, the ownership pertaining to another person. Whose concept? Owner - Your own and others, must act and claim to be owner. Paying taxes, getting boarders. What is the importance of this classification? If in concept of holder, the owner benefits from your possession. If in the concept of owner, the possessor may get the property through acquisitive prescription. What are the two concepts of possession? 1. In the concept of owner – one who, whether in good or bad faith, claims to be, and acts as if he is the owner. In the concept of holder – one who recognizes another to be the owner.


Article 526. He is deemed a possessor in
good faith who is not aware that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it.


Page 36 of 42


He is deemed a possessor in bad faith who possesses in any case contrary to the foregoing. Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith. The person here is not an owner – there is a flaw or defect. What is the importance of distinguishing gf and bf? Prescription Indemnity Buyer buys title thinking the vendor is the person on the title GF. Buys the property from the widow of a deceased person, did not know she had children GF Buys land with Torrens but title is annotated lis pendens BF If you are in the business of lending money, you have to look beyond the title. Can a person in possession of a valid Torrens title be in bad faith? No. The articles on bad faith must be reconciled with the doctrine of indefeasibility of a Torrens title. It has been held by the SC that a holder of a title is in good faith until such title is declared null and void by the court. What kind of mistake may be the basis of good faith? It must be a mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law provided such ignorance is not gross and inexcusable. Is bad faith transmissible to successors in interest? Not necessarily. A child or heir may be presumed to be in good faith notwithstanding the father’s bad faith.

Good faith is always presumed and bad faith must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Carreon v. Agcaoili Carreon claimed that property inherited from her husband was hers along; a corresponding certificate/s of title was issued. The land was later sold to Agcaoili and a certificate/s of title was issued in his name. Carreon’s children filed a complaint against Agcaoili to have the deed of sale declared as a mortgage and to recover ½ of the property – their action was predicated on Agcaoili’s bad faith. ISSUE: Whether Agcaoili was in bad faith. HELD: Agcaoili was in good faith. Good faith is always presumed and bad faith must be established by clear and convincing evidence. In this case, there was no showing of bad faith on Agcaoili’s part. Though he was a townmate of the Carreon’s, he cannot be expected to know that his vendor had children. Besides, the property was titled and the buyer had no responsibility to look beyond the title: which had an expired lien that was of no consequence to the purchase.

One who purchases real property which is in the actual possession of others should, at least, make some inquiry concerning the rights of those in possession. Republic v. CA. 102 SCRA 331. L-42856. Ramos filed a Homestead application for land in Nueva Ecija. Pending this application, Ramos went to Isabela and found a piece of land covered by a Homestead application by Lopez but clearly abandoned by the latter. Ramos filed another application over this land. Both Ramos’s applications were granted and he obtained a loan from PNB with the Isabela land as REM. Subsequently, Ramos discovered that there were people occupying his Isabela land, he filed a complaint for the recovery of possession against them and won. These 3/7/2004

Article 527. Good faith is always
presumed, and upon him who alleges bad faith on the part of the possessor rests the burden of proof. What is the reason for presuming good faith? Presumption of innocence; everyone should be presumed honest until proven otherwise.


Page 37 of 42

people sent a petition to the SANR and alleged the nullity of Ramos’s second Homestead application, desiring to apply for patents on the same land. ISSUE: Aside from the many Public Land Act issues, whether PNB, in accepting the REM of the Isabela property was in bad faith. HELD: PNB was in bad faith. One who purchases/accepts for REM real property which is in the actual possession of others should, at least, make some inquiry concerning the rights of those in possession. In the absence of such an inquiry, PNB cannot be considered as a good faith mortgagor as against such possessors. However, since Ramos’s title over the land is valid, the REM is valid as between Ramos and PNB.

Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law, provided such ignorance is not gross and inexcusable, can be the basis of good faith. Kasilag v. Rodriguez Ambrosia, the mother of the plaintiffs herein, mortgaged, in a public document, the improvements on the property in dispute to Rodriguez. Because of her failure to pay interests when due, the parties entered into a verbal agreement whereby Rodriguez would condone interest but take possession of the land and enjoy the fruits; he also introduced signifact improvements. However, the land was acquired by Ambrosia as a homestead and could not be subject to a real encumbrance, as a contract of antichresis is. The heirs of Ambrosia seek to recover the property from Rodriguez. ISSUE: Whether Rodriguez was a possessor in good faith entitling him to indemnity for the improvements constructed. HELD: Rodriguez is in good faith. Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law, provided such ignorance is not gross and inexcusable, can be the basis of good faith. Rodriguez is not a lawyer and is not expected to know the various intricacies of a contract of antichresis. He is entitled to indemnity.

There is presumptive knowledge of the existence of a Torrens Title. J.M. Tuason v. Munar J.M. Tuason, the owner of a subdivision, brought an action for ejectment against Munar. Munar claims possession in good faith and raises the defense that Tuason’s certificate/s of title, which was issued more than 20 years before, was void due to fraud and that pursuant to a compromise agreement between Tuason and Deudor (Munar’s predecessor in interest), Munar had a right to occupy the property. ISSUE: Whether Munar can assail Tuason’s decree of registration and corresponding certificate/s of title 20 years after its issuance and whether Munar was a possessor in good faith. HELD: Munar is barred from assailing the title 20 years after its registration. He is in bad faith because there is presumptive knowledge of the issuance of the certificate/s of title to Tuason. Munar instead chose to ignore the certificate/s of title and relied on his predecessor’s claim of ownership.

Article 528. Possession acquired in good
faith does not lose this character except in the case and from the moment facts exist which show that the possessor is not unaware that he possesses the thing improperly or wrongfully. Examples of when bad faith begins: 1. 2. Receipt of judicial summons; Receipt of a letter demanding vacation of the property, if the person does not investigate and he is later defeated.

Article 529. It is presumed that
possession continues to be enjoyed in the same character in which it was acquired until the contrary is proved. What are the presumptions regarding possession?


Page 38 of 42


(a) Good faith is presumed; (b) Continuity of character of possession; (c) Non-interruption of possession; (d) Presumption of just title; (e) Non-interruption of possession of property unjustly lost but legally recovered; (f) Possession during intervening period; (g) Possession of movable with real property; (h) Exclusive possession of common property.

What are the essential requirements for possession? (a) corpus – the thing physically detained; (b) animus – intent to possess (express/implied); Can land adversely occupied by one be contstructively possessed by another? No. If an entire parcel is possessed under claim of ownership, there is constructive possession of the entire parcel, unless a portion thereof is adversely possessed by another.

Article 532. Possession may be acquired
by the same person who is to enjoy it, by his legal representative, by his agent, or by any person without any power whatever; but in the last case, the possession shall not be considered as acquired until the person in whose name the act of possession was executed has ratified the same, without prejudice to the consequences of negotiorum gestio in a proper case. How is possession acquired from the viewpoint of who possesses and what are the essential requisites for each? (a) Personal; (a) Intent to possess (b) Capacity to possess (c) Object must be capable of possession. (b) Through an authorized person; (d) Intent to possess for a principal (e) Capacity to possess for another (f) Principal has intent and capacity to possess (c) Through an unauthorized person upon ratification (negotiorum gestio). (g) Intent to possess for another (h) Capacity of principal to possess (i) Ratification by principal (retroactive) What is negotiorum gestio? It is the voluntary taking charge of another’s business or property without any power from the owner when the property or business is neglected or abandoned.

Article 530. Only things and rights which
are susceptible of being appropriated may be the object of possession. What is res nullius and can it be possessed? It is abandoned or ownerless property. It may be possessed but it cannot be acquired through prescription, which presupposes prior ownership in another. It can be acquired through occupation.

Article 531. Possession is acquired by the
material occupation of a thing or the exercise of a right, or by the fact that it is subject to the action of our will, or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right. How is possession acquired? (a) Material occupation or detention a. Constitutom possesorium (possessed as owner, now juridical possession) Tradition brevi manu (juridical possession, now possesses as owner)


(b) Exercise of a right (c) Subjection to our will – by mere agreement or the delivery of keys a. Tradition longa manu (delivery by consent)

(d) Constructive possession or proper acts and legal formalities – succession, donation, execution of public instruments, court order)


Page 39 of 42


Article 533. The possession of hereditary
property is deemed transmitted to the heir without interruption an from the moment of the death of the decedent, in case the inheritance is accepted. One who validly renounces an inheritance is deemed never to have possessed the same. Importance is for acquisitive prescription. When does the heir acquire possession of the inherited property? 1. If the heir accepts – from the moment of death, since there is no interruption; the possession of the deceased is tacked to the possession of the heir. If the heir refuses or is incapacitated to inherit – he is deemed never to have possessed.

consequences of the wrongful possession of the decedent, if it is not shown that he was aware of the flaws affecting it; but the effects of possession in good faith shall not benefit him except upon the death of the decedent. Can good faith be tacked onto bad faith? J.H. yes, JPSP, no.

Article 535. Minors and incapacitated
person may acquire the possession of things; but they need the assistance of their legal representatives in order to exercise the rights which from the possession arise in their favor. Reason for the rule? Practicality – candy example. Example: A minor may acquire the possession of a fountain pen donated to him, but in a case of court action regarding ownership of the pen, his legal representatives must intervene. What type of acquisition of possession is referred to in this article? This article refers to acquisition of possession only in those matters where the incapacitated person has capacity to act such as occupation of res nullius, succession, prescription, or donation.


Problem: Father dies on January 1; son accepts on January 30; in the meantime, an administrator manages and is in possession of the property. Who is in possession of the property from Jan. 1-30? The son is in actual possession in the concept of owner through the admininstrator, who possessed it in the concept of holder. Who may institute an action for forcible entry against an intruder? Either the son or the administrator. What happens if the son enters the property before acceptance? The administrator may file a complaint for forcible entry against him. Problem: A, B, and C inherited, in equal parts, a parcel of land. Day 1: A sold his share to X. Day 2: B repudiated his inheritance. Day 3: Partition is made. How much does X get? X gets ½ of the property; this was really A’s share upon the death of the father. This is because B is deemed never to have inherited.

Article 536. In no case may possession
be acquired through force or intimidation as long as there is a possessor who objects thereto. He who believes that he has an action or a right to deprive another of the holding of a thing, must invoke the aid of the competent court, if the holder should refuse to deliver the thing. What are the modes through which possession may not be acquired? a. b. Force or Intimidation; Tolerance – possession is with the consent of the owner and redounds to his benefit; Clandestine, secret possession.


Article 537. Acts merely tolerated, and
those executed clandestinely and without the knowledge of the possessor of a thing, or by violence, do not affect possession.

Article 534. One who succeeds by
hereditary title shall not suffer the


Page 40 of 42


What does it mean that the “acts…do not affect possession?” (a) The intruder does not acquire any right to possession; (b) The legal possessor, even if ousted, is still the possessor and is: a. b. c. Entitled to the benefits of prescription; Entitled to the fruits; Entitled as possessor for all purposes favorable to his possession.

(a) co-possessors – there is no conflict of interest; they are co-owners; (b) possession in different concepts or degrees – both owner and tenant are possessors as a fact at the same time; one in the concept of owner and the other in the concept of holder. What are the rules or criteria to be used in case of conflict or dispute regarding possession? (a) The present possessor shall be preferred; (b) If both are present, the one longer in possession; (c) If the dates of possession are the same, the one who presents a title; (d) If all conditions are equal, the thing shall be placed in judicial deposit pending determination by the court. What are the rules in case of double sale or double donation? In this case, preference of ownership (not possession) is determined: (a) movable property a. preference to he who first possessed in good faith

(c) The intruder cannot acquire the property by prescription. You wake up in the morning and there is squatter in your yard – clandestine. Caretaker on your land with understanding that he will leave when you need the land – tolerance.

Article 538. Possession as a fact cannot
be recognized at the same time in two different personalities except in the case of co-possession. Should a question arise regarding the fact of possession, the present possessor shall be preferred; if there are two possessors, the one longer in possession; if the dates of the possession are the same, the one who presents a title; and if all these conditions are equal, the thing shall be placed in judicial deposit appending determination of its possession or ownership through proper proceedings. Does this mean that property can be possessed by only one? No, property may be physically possessed by more than one but not legally possessed. Compare to rule on double sale. What is the general rule regarding possession as a fact and what are the exceptions? The general rule is that possession as a fact cannot be recognized at the same time in two different personalities. The exceptions are: cmt

(b) immovable property a. first who registered his right in good faith in the registry of property if there was no registration, the person who first possessed in good faith if there was no possession, the person who presents to oldest title, provided it was acquired in good faith



Execution of the deed of sale in a public document is equivalent to delivery of possession of the property. Wong v. Carpio Giger sold the property to Mercado by virtue of a deed of sale with right to repurchase; Mercado was issued a certificate/s of title. Mercado visited the property periodically, harvested coconuts, and made copra. He did not put up any signs, structures, or anything to indicate actual possession.

Page 41 of 42


Several years after the sale, Wong went to the land and saw that it was unoccupied; he then bought it from Giger and was issued a certificate/s of title. A few months after the sale to Wong, Mercado learned that the former’s laborers built a hut were occupying the land; Mercado was pleased. Despite his initial elation, Mercado later filed a complaint for forcible entry against Wong. Wong raises the defense that Mercado has not established prior possession and that his acts of gathering coconuts and making copra were only tolerated by the true owner, Giger. ISSUE: Whether Mercado had possession of the property. HELD: Yes, Mercado had possession. Article 531 of the Civil Code provides that “possession is acquired by the material occupation of a thing or the exercise of a right, or by the fact that it is subject to the action of our will, or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right.” Also, the execution of a sale through a public instrument is equivalent to the delivery of the thing, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary. Applying the aforementioned doctrines, the execution of the deed of sale in a public document (it was notarized) was equivalent to delivery of possession of the property. Since prior possession of Mercado was proved, Wong must remove himself from the property. It seems that, in relation to Article 531, even the gathering of coconuts (enjoyment of a right to the fruits) constitutes possession. Obiters: The SC also said that entry into the property by force, intimidation, strategy, or stealth, as a cause of action in forcible entry covers all of the ways by which one can wrongfully enter a property. The act of entering the property and excluding the rightful possessor therefrom implies the exertion of force. Wong must pay rent from the time he learned of a defect in his title; in this case, from the time of service of summons.

An 82 year old title is incontrovertible and conclusive against the whole world. Bishop v. CA Salang filed an action for recovery of possession against Bishop, invoking their rights as registered owners of the land. Bishop raised the defense that the land was part of the public domain and could not have been registered. ISSUE: Whether Salang claim on the land, based on a certificate/s of title, is better than Bishop’s. HELD: Salang has a better right. It was necessary to determine ownership in order to resolve the case for recovery of possession. Salang’s title to the land is based on an OCT which was issued 82 years ago. It is now incontrovertible and conclusive against the whole world.

Vda. de Catchuela v. CA Diaz applied for the lot in question with the PHHC, the application was granted and title was issued. He then sold the property to Francisco, private respondent herein. Catchuela had been occupying said property for several years when Francisco filed an action for ejectment. Catchuela filed an action for cancellation of title and reconveyance of property Francisco raised the defense that Cathcuela has no cause of action. ISSUE: Whether Catchuela has a cause of action in the case for cancellation of title and reconveyance of property. HELD: Catchuela has no cause of action. She never acquired a right over the lot in question. She has no right to seek its reconveyance or continue in its possession; she is a mere squatter with the tolerance of Francisco, the rightful owner.


Page 42 of 42


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful