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
The property in question was given with the intention of its being the site of the Philippine Embassy. The provincial fiscal later filed a complaint alleging that the property leased was of public character and therefore the contract was null and void. 422. is patrimonial property. 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.
Conversion of a property’s character from public to patrimonial requires a formal declaration of abandonment of the public character. conversely. the council gave notice to petitioner to vacate the land within 5 months. Garcia The government sought to sell a property located in Japan which it acquired through a reparation agreement with the Japanese government. 421.
corresponding contract of procurement which bind both the Philippine government and the Japanese government. Respondents claim that the property is governed not by the Civil Code but by Japanese law and assuming that the CC were applicable. It is outside the commerce of man. canals constructed by private persons within private lands are of private ownership. ISSUE: Whether the property is public or patrimonial.
which is not of the character stated in the preceding article. conversion of a property’s character from public to patrimonial requires a formal declaration of abandonment of the public character. Property belonging to the public domain is outside the commerce of man and cannot be the object of any contract. Article 420 states that canals constructed by the State are of public ownership. Property of public dominion. The property is of public dominion and intended for public service under Article 420 of the Civil Code. HELD: The contract of lease is ultra vires and null and void. Contrary to respondents’ claim.ISSUE: whether the canals are of public dominion or private ownership. the municipality never having had authority to exclude it from public use and lease it out. There is no reimbursement if lessee derived substantial benefit from the use of said property. (341a)
Public plazas and streets are of public character and may not be leased out by the municipality. 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. *Even if the property were patrimonial. and built buildings of light materials – rent was paid. Being so. All other property of the State. it was given with the understanding that it would be used for the government sector. Mun. *The book says that Rojas received no benefit but the facts show that occupation was enjoyed and a house was built. it cannot be alienated. (340a)
Art. there could be no sale as there is no law authorizing the same. Rojas The municipal council of Cavite withdrew from public use and leased to Rojas a portion of the town plaza. Sanchez v. when
no longer intended for public use or for public service.
Art. HELD: The property is public – its ownership is collective and resides in the sovereign people. Asingan. Municipality of Cavite v. of Asingan Petitioner occupied a parcel of land owned by the municipality. shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State. When a new set of officials took over. HELD: The canals are private. with the implied consent of the latter.
Page 5 of 42
. Laurel v. Compare to Sanchez v. The defendant must return the land and the municipality must reimburse rentals paid. their destruction may not be ordered.
public. municipal streets.
Examples of property for public use being streets. Assuming that the property is public. The property of provinces. cities. fountains. playgrounds.
Property of a political subdivision is public only if it is devoted to public use. Nor can the system be considered “public works for public service” under Article 424 because such classification is qualified by ejusdem generis. HELD: The property is patrimonial and not subject to legislative control. if for profit. All other property possessed by any of them is patrimonial and shall be governed by this Code. city streets. Part of the proceeds of this loan was used to fund the construction of the City’s sewage system. without prejudice to the provisions of special laws. and public works for public service paid for by said provinces. and schools. etc. as an alternative course of action. City of Cebu v. promenades. patrimonial. NAWASA sought to expropriate the sewage system. It was not for public use not was it for public service. promenades. National wealth – still property for public use under the regalian doctrine. cities. NAWASA The City of Cebu obtained a loan which was to be paid with its own funds. ISSUE: Whether the land is public or patrimonial. NAWASA averred. 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. It is property of the city. CA HERE 5.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. 424. and municipalities. it is enough that the property be devoted for governmental purposes for it to be classified as public.
Page 6 of 42
and municipalities is divided into property for public use and patrimonial property. Unlike the Rojas case. or municipalities. Province of Zamboanga v. fountains. HELD: The land is patrimonial property of the municipality. NAWASA offered unliquidated assets and liabilities. public waters. it must be of the same character as the preceding items. there can still be no reimbursement as petitioner derived substantial benefit from the use of said property. What if a courthouse is constructed with municipal funds? clarify City constructs public market Cemetery public use patrimonial
Under the Law of Municipal Corporations. cities. hospitals. 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. 423.
INSERT REPUBLIC V. the squares.
Art. ISSUE: Whether the property is patrimonial property of the city or property for public use. The implied lease agreement is therefore valid and may be terminated upon notice. This was opposed with the arguments that there was no payment of just compensation. The properties were the capital site. Property for public use. prayed for reimbursement. in the
provinces. that the property is one for public use and under the control of the legislature.
Art. the land here is not of public character. If paid for by the political subdivision. There is to be no reimbursement. It is therefore patrimonial under the Civil Code. purchased with private funds and not devoted to public use (it is for profit). consist of the provincial roads. citing the Rojas case.
Also the LMC is a special law. The LMC provides that a property is public if it is devoted to public use. HELD: The properties are public and exempt from execution. HELD: Yes. --
Page 7 of 42
. Roa has failed to show any of the modes of acquiring ownership. HELD: The land belongs to the municipality as shown by several town resolutions signed by Roa himself. Roa The Municipality of Oas sought to recover land from Roa claiming it was part of the town’s public square. The CC itself provides that its provisions apply without prejudice to special laws. He had erected a substantial building on the property without opposition from the municipality. Municipal law applies because the controversy is more municipal than civil and the properties are needed for the performance of governmental functions. Since both parties are in bad faith (Roa’s construction despite knowledge. 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. it is sufficient that the property be devoted to governmental purposes. Roa claims he is the owner of the property. Viuda de Tan Toco v. The character of the property depends on the use to which it is devoted. police stations. Iloilo’s defense is that the properties are public and exempt from execution. consequences are dire (acquisition through adverse possession).ISSUE: Whether Congress can transfer the properties to the City without compensating the province. Municipality of Oas v. If the province owns the properties in it public and governmental capacity. Tan Toco caused a writ of execution to be issued against municipal property: street sprinkling trucks. The problem is which applies. Because Iloilo had no money. 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. Municipal Council of Iloilo Iloilo was sentenced to pay Tan Toco compensation for properties taken from her and used for street-widening. Although the property is now patrimonial and susceptible of ownership. If the CC classification is used. In this case. The town may sell the land to Roa or Roa may sell the improvements to Roa. a property is public if it is for the free and indiscriminate use of everyone.
A town plaza loses its public character when the town ceases using it as such and subjects it to patrimonial use. applying the CC. The market. the properties are not for public use but merely for public service. the properties are public and subject to the absolute control of Congress. The vehicles and the police station all serve governmental functions. Civil Code or Law of Municipal Corporations? Under the CC. and markets. It is patrimonial because the town had long since ceased using it as a plaza and had started using it as storage space.
How do we resolve what determines character? Salas v. The buildings on the lots are also public because accessory follows the principal. Under municipal law. police cars. However. they shall be treated as though they are both in good faith.
Public properties are exempt from execution because of their necessity for governmental functions. tolerance by the municipality). the property is public and Congress has absolute control over it.
b.possession. jewelry. but legal means must be used.) – Ownership is the independent and general right of a person to control a thing particularly in his possession. It means that the thing or right is subject to control of my will. Naked ownership equals full ownership minus usufruct.
ii. from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. cities. a. 427. Usufruct equals full ownership minus naked ownership. or Abuse Right To Encumber Or Alienate 3/7/2004
. Reasonable force may be used to prevent or repel physical invasion.
Art. Ownership may be exercised over
things or rights.
Right to the Fruits i. 425. without prejudice to the provisions of the law. stocks and bonds. or the individual declaration." or "movable things or property. scientific or artistic collections. either individually or collectively. b. The owner has the right to enjoy
and dispose of a thing. enjoyment. provinces. Right to Enjoy a. disposition. In General
6. Whenever by provision of the law. liquids and merchandise. i. the contrary clearly appears. medals. books." is used. disposition.
2. arms.Art. except where from the context of the law. But to recover. it shall be deemed to include. or other things which do not have as their principal object the furnishing or ornamenting of a building. respectively. Independent – stands by itself and gives you the right to control the property General . and recovery Kinds of Ownership (not discussed) (a) Full ownership – this includes all the rights of an owner. 428.
Art. as a rule.
(c) Sole ownership – where the ownership is vested in only one person. (b) Naked ownership – this is ownership where the right to use and the fruits has been denied. the things enumerated in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2. (d) Co-ownership (or Tenancy in Common) – when the ownership is vested in two or more owners.
or an individual declaration. Destroy. (345a)
i. 426. consists of all property belonging to private persons. the expression "immovable things or property. Property of private ownership." is used alone. (346a) II. What
Right to Dispose Right to Consume. clothing.
Art. credits. commercial securities. enjoyment. The right to hold a thing or to enjoy a right. and recovery. no force. Ownership (def.
besides the patrimonial property of the State. 1.
A. 2. it shall not be deemed to include money.
Right to Use The right to exclude any person. subject to no restrictions except those imposed by the state or private persons. without other limitations than those established by law. and municipalities. Whenever the word "muebles." or "furniture. horses or carriages and their accessories.
Naked ownership plus usufruct equals full ownership. grains. The rights of an owner: 1. Right to Possess i. Page 8 of 42 c. The owner has also a right of action against the holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover it. Ownership
or by any other means without detriment to servitudes constituted thereon. 430. stealth. The owner or lawful possessor of a
thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. FE possession is unlawful from the outset c.
Unlawful Detainer (MTC) i.
ii. Forcible Entry (MTC) i. Replevin
2. live or dead hedges. Possession is lawful form the beginning. threats. or If the reason is nonpayment of rent.
d. de jure and not de facto possession is the issue here.
Art. Every owner may enclose or fence
his land or tenements by means of walls.
iii. ISSUE? The issue involved is mere physical possession and not juridical possession nor ownership. intimidation.
Page 9 of 42
. One year from expiration of lease. WHAT? This is an action to recover ownership over real property.
iii. 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. ISSUE? The issue involved is one of ownership. ditches.3. ISSUE? The issue involved is who has a better right to posses. WHEN? Must be brought within one year from the time the possession becomes unlawful. strategy) Possession is unlawful from the beginning. ISSUE? The issue involved is mere physical possession and not juridical possession nor ownership. 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. ii. Accion Reivindicatoria i.
ii. For this purpose. WHAT? This is the action that must be brought when possession by a landlord.
b. WHEN? Must be brought within one year from dispossession. 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. 429.
2. 1. Recovery of Personal Property a.
Right to Recover iii. iii. WHAT? This is the action for the recovery of the better right to possess.
Actions to Recover Property: 1. vendor.
**Difference between unlawful detainer and forcible entry: UD possession of other is initially lawful. ii. Recovery of Real Property a.
one year from demand to vacate. the period should be counted from discovery. WHEN? This must be brought within 10/30 years depending on whether the other party seeks to obtain ownership through ordinary/extraordinary prescription. WHEN? Must be brought within ten years. Accion Publiciana (plenary action) i. but in case of strategy or stealth.
Best proof is a Torrens certificate. 434. land will be sufficiently subdivided. The true owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of the property. 433. CA (skipped) The heirs of Vencilao claim that they (and prior to them. Is a technical description required or will a statement of boundaries suffice? If in a developed area. it is rebuttable. Heirs of Miranda v. Property must be identified a. acting as administrator of the estate. WHY? Burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue. 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). Heirs of Vencilao v. the heirs of Miranda entered the property and prevented Agerico from cultivating it. Agerico. a. tax declarations are only prima facie evidence of ownership.Art. Tax receipts. CA (skipped) In 1957. (2) BAD FAITH 30 years in adverse possession. once registered.
Art. open. and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim. if the interference is necessary to avert an imminent danger and the threatened damage. The owner may demand from the person benefited indemnity for the damage to him. Without need of title or of good faith. The owner of a thing has no right
to prohibit the interference of another with the same. In 1991. b. Charito. Reliance on title of the plaintiff and not on the weakness of the defense’s claim. the
property must be identified. The action of the heirs has been barred by prescription. they could also claim ownership through extraordinary prescription by possessing the property in the concept of owner for thirty years. They present tax receipts and CARP documents to support their claim. Actual possession under claim of
ownership raises disputable presumption of ownership. an action for forcible entry was brought and the heirs of Miranda were ordered to vacate the land.
7. cannot be defeated even by adverse. sold the property in issue to private respondent.
Page 10 of 42
. 431. 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. The heirs filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of the title. 2. Ownership over real property is acquired by acquisitive prescription through adverse possession with title and in good faith for ten years. Requisites In An Action To Recover: 1. ownership and other real rights over immovables is acquired through uninterrupted adverse possession for 30 years. In this case. HELD: The property belongs to Agerico/Charito. and notorious possession. 432.
It is a well settled rule that a title. their father) have been in adverse possession of the property in issue for over thirty years. Agerico has been in possession and cultivation since then. The owner of a thing cannot make
use thereof in such manner as to injure the rights of a third person.
Art. the son of Miranda. ISSUE: Whether the property belongs to Agerico/Charito or to the heirs of Miranda.
Art. is much greater.
Acquisitive prescription: (1) GOOD FAITH 10 years with just title and adverse possession. The property was titled in the name of Agerico’s daughter. compared to the damage arising to the owner from the interference. In an action to recover.
2. 3. Should this requirement be not first complied with. or other precious objects. the buyer has a right to rely on what appears on the face of the document. If there is nothing that indicates any irregularity. the heirs of Vencilao are estopped from claiming ownership to the land due to their silence (1) when the property was mortgaged. Nevertheless. * The owner of a parcel of land is the owner of its surface and of everything under it.
Art. 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. without detriment to servitudes and subject to special laws and ordinances. 5. reasonable requirements of aerial navigation. When the TCT is in the name of the seller when the land is sold. 435. safety or security. 2.
Meaning of other precious objects: 1. onehalf thereof shall be allowed to the finder. Requisites: 1. unless he can show that such condemnation or seizure is unjustified. When any property is condemned or seized by competent authority in the interest of health. 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). If the things found be of interest to science or the arts. the lawful ownership of which does not appear. jewelry.
Finding in others’ property. Hidden and unknown deposit (finding it must be a discovery. Consists of money. jewelry. in a proper case. open. Servitudes or easements. and (3) sold. * Hidden treasure belongs to the
owner of the land. building. and by chance. No person shall be deprived of his property except by competent authority and for public use and always upon payment of just compensation. 439. It is a well settled rule that a title. (2) foreclosed. He cannot treasure is understood. 437. 436. when the discovery is made on the property of another. 4. for legal purposes. ordinances. *(technical description) By
Art. who owns the money? School. any hidden and unknown deposit of money. and notorious possession. the owner thereof shall not be entitled to compensation. 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. Restricted by ejusdem generis to mean objects of the same class as money and jewelry. or other precious objects. in this case. restore the owner in his possession. and he can construct thereon any works or make any plantations and excavations which he may deem proper. or of the State or any of its subdivisions. How about money found in a book loaned from the library. 3. Surface Right of a Land Owner is subject to: 1. It must be by chance
Page 11 of 42
. cannot be defeated even by adverse. Art.
Art. which shall be divided in conformity with the rule stated.The Gepalagos (private respondents) claim ownership of the land based on the TCT. they are no longer innocent purchasers for value. once registered. the courts shall protect and.
complain of the reasonable requirements of aerial navigation. If the finder is a trespasser.
2. They claim to have acquired the land in a public bidding following its foreclosure by PNB. Art. Special Laws (mining law). he shall not be entitled to any share of the treasure. requisites: 1. 438. On the other hand. as is the case here. Their lawful ownership does not appear. or other property on which it is found. the State may acquire them at their just price.
Article 440. engrafment attachment weaving
Page 12 of 42
. building planting sowing
Article 441. ii. PLAK-CL. or which is incorporated or attached thereto. To the owner belongs:
(1)The natural fruits. Accession to the fruits (discreta) a. justice. either naturally or artificially (accession continua).
What does by chance mean? SC/Paras – by chance means by good luck.
Is accession a mode of acquiring ownership? No. What are the classifications of accession? A. (3)The civil fruits. pure and simple. commixtion – solids) specification
iii. 5. 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. b. 2. the owner of the principal should own the attachment. 2. Natural fruits Industrial fruits Civil fruits
mixture (confusion – liquids. 3.
Personal property i. RBPLLOP-PLAOSI] *When does the owner of the land NOT own the fruits? [PAUL]
b.a. or b) incorporated or attached thereto.
4. b) As to incorporation and attachment. Accession industrial 1. 4. the price of leases of lands and other property and the amount of perpetual or life annuities or other similar income. Real property i. and economic convenience (better to have one owner than two)
B. 3. Natural fruits are the
spontaneous products of the soil. Civil fruits are the rents of building. and the young and other products of animals. 2. Industrial fruits are those produced by lands of any kind through cultivation or labor. because the one who owns the thing should own its fruits.
Finder must not be a trespasser. alluvium avulsion change of course of rivers formation of islands
Article 442. (2)The industrial fruits. either naturally or artificially. ii. [OPRAE-PIANA] *What is accession? It is the right of a property owner to everything which is: a) produced thereby (accession discreta).
2. Accession by attachment or incorporation (continua) a. [SPS-YOPA. The ownership of property
gives the right by accession to everything which is produced thereby.
Accession natural 1. Adjunction or conjunction 1. 3.
c) Usufructuary (right to enjoy the fruits). Though it is possible to consider the bonus as income. PNB claims that it owns the fruits. as a creditor of Ledesma. mango and coconut trees) – deemed to exist only when they actually appear. In this case. rice. wheat. On the other hand. He who receives the fruits is…? … the owner of the land. because the lease is onerous (if it were commodatum. Ledesma. Bachrach Motor Co. Civil fruits are the rents of the buildings. Talisay-Silay Milling Company. Talisay obtained a loan from PNB with a REM provided by one of its planters. the bonus is not based on the value of the land but rather on the amount of the outstanding obligation of Talisay. PLANTING. gathering. is the planter in bad faith still entitled to reimbursement? Only if the owner still requires delivery of the fruits. The common denominator. the offspring would belong to the owner of the female). *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. and not excessive. But if the female is leased. They must be necessary. which is absent in the bonus.
Page 13 of 42
. If the fruits have not yet been gathered? Article 448 applies if the planter or sower is in good faith. (1) the paternity is uncertain and (2) during pregnancy. or preservation. To whom does this provision apply? Article 443 applies only to a planter/possessor in bad faith. Annual (must be planted every year/must re-plant after harvest. They must be those normally required by the crop.
What if the expenses exceed the value of the product. He who receives the fruits has
the obligation to pay the expenses made by a third person in their production.
d) Lessee gets the natural and industrial fruits (owner gets civil fruits). SOWING. leases of lands. thereby giving PNB a preferential right over it. the female is useless and her owner bears the expenses. v. Perennial (only planted once and bear fruit for several seasons. What are the kinds of expenses subject to reimbursement? a. They must be for production. the lessee owns the offspring. Bachrach. ISSUE: Whether the bonus is a civil fruit. To compensate Ledesma for the accommodation.
compensation for the risk assumed by the owner. because under Article 2127. corn) – deemed manifest the moment their seedlings appear. It is clearly meant to be cmt
Article 444. laid a claim to the bonus received by the latter. Only such as are manifest or
born are considered as natural or industrial fruits. Ledesma. Article 449 if he is in bad faith. 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. *When can we say that the fruit is in existence? It depends on the type of fruit: a.a) Possessor of the land receives the fruits in good faith. or other similar sources of income. where the creditor gets the fruits. it is not similar income to the items in the preceding enumeration.
Article 443. is derivation of the income from the land itself. the mortgage extends to the civil fruits of the property. and preservation. gathering. he is entitled to the fruits already received. Improvements are not included. HELD: The bonus is not a civil fruit. and income from life annuities. b) Antichresis. Talisay granted him a bonus whose value was computed as a percentage of the balance of the loan.
b. The rule is that if the planter is in good faith.
However. Natural and industrial fruits. the property produces 1.
Article 446. All works. subject to the provisions of the following articles. e. A built house with B’s materials. ordinarily. This is because civil fruits accrue DAILY. 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.000/month. with a right to be reimbursed for damages. A is entitled to 15K and B is entitled to 15K. and. House rented for 30.
Article 448. They should be considered existing only at the commencement of the maximum ordinary period for gestation. he should deliver half of that to B. He who is in good faith may be held responsible but not penalized.
Article 447. with damages in either case. That all works. sowing. sowing and planting are made by the owner. shall pay their value. the owner of the materials may remove them in any event. planted or
sown on the land of another and the improvements or repairs made thereon.
Article 445. he shall also be obliged to the reparation of damages. and planting
are presumed made by the owner and at his expense. If both are in bad faith. When both are in bad faith. they cannot be pro-rated. b. they will be treated as if they were in good faith. Both were in good faith. constructions or works being destroyed. 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. If A is in bad faith. sown or cmt Page 14 of 42 3/7/2004
. Accessory follows the principal With certain exceptions. unless the contrary is proved. they shall be treated as if they were in good faith. At his own expense. b. When is the builder/landowner in good faith/ bad faith? When he believed the materials were his own/knew the materials belonged to another. What are the rights of the parties? Who calls the shots? B.*When are animal young considered as existing? They are considered existing even if still in the maternal womb. A may be compelled to pay for the materials. B is entitled to remove the materials provided no damage is caused. No one shall unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another. The owner of the land who
makes thereon. Ex. Apply now the principle that civil fruits accrue daily. are considered as real property.
Ex. belong to the owner of the land. personally or through another. *When are civil fruits deemed to exist. if he acted in bad faith. The owner of the land on
which anything has been built. If this cannot be done or if B doesn’t want to remove the materials. regardless of damage caused or demand payment. d. plantings. Every day. Whatever is built.000 If B owned the property from 1-5 and B owned the property from 16-30. or without the plantings. how about natural fruits? a.
b. He who is in bad faith may be penalized. Civil fruits accrue daily and are considered personal property and may be pro-rated. There is no indemnity and A may seek for damages because the materials may be inferior in quality.
c. while still growing.
f. B can remove the materials. constructions or works with the materials of another. if the landowner acted in bad faith. it should be impossible to separate the principal and accessory without causing substantial damage. If A is paid 30K at the beginning of the month. A may keep the materials. If B is in bad faith. What are the presumptions of Article 446? a.
* What are the basic principles of accession continua (accession industrial)? a.
he shall pay reasonable rent. what is his obligation? The landowner must now indemnify the builder for the value of the building. Luxurious expenses a. the court shall fix the terms thereof. the proper rent. Those made for the preservation of the thing those without which the thing would deteriorate or be lost those incurred for cultivation. and the one who sowed.
Can the owner of the land choose to appropriate and then later change his mind? No. b) He may compel the builder or planter to buy the land and the sower to pay rents. or sown. What if the owner above allows the builder to remain but charges rentals for possession of the land? No rentals may be charged. However. 3. shall have the right to appropriate as his own the works. if he opts to sell the portion to the builder and the builder fails to pay. production. These are reimbursable only if the landowner decides to appropriate them. unless the value of the land is considerably more than the value of the building. the landowner fails to pay? The builder has the right to occupy the building up to the date of payment. in case it is the option to purchase the improvement. Once the choice has been made. What if the owner chooses to appropriate the building. sowing or planting. he may demolish the structure. The landowner is not the owner of the property until indemnification is made. and upkeep Repairs required by the wear and tear due to the natural use of the thing. If this is the case. Those that augment the income of the thing upon which they
Page 15 of 42
. b. or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land. the builder may be compelled. He cannot compel removal of the improvement.
are spent or add value to the property. 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. d. In such case. He has the right of retention until payment is made. c. Necessary expenses a. These are the only choices he has. can the builder be obliged to purchase the land? Generally. However if the value of the land is not considerably more. What if after choosing to appropriate the building. What if the owner refuses to make a choice? There are no remedies except those provided by the law in Article 448. What are the indemnities to be given to the builder in good faith? 1. In this case.planted in good faith. 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. they can agree on terms of lease. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement. What are the rules on good faith in Article 448? Both must be in good faith. the choice is irrevocable. after payment of the indemnity provided in articles 546 and 548. the duty is monetary and the landowner’s properties may be levied to satisfy the debt. However. if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. yes.
Useful expenses a. planted. the courts shall fix the same. and in case of disagreement. the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerable more than that of the building or trees. If the landowner chooses to compel the builder to buy the land.
Several years later. the heirs of Tinagan filed a complaint for recovery of possession against Alviola. with part of one house encroaching on the other’s partition. Private respondents. In this case. Since the structures are merely temporary. Article 546 also provides that a possessor in good faith. The lot was sold at public auction because of his failure to pay realty taxes. ISSUE: Whether 448 should apply. The landowner is not compelled to choose between appropriating the property and selling the land. Even though the construction wasn’t on the land of another. and the land is partitioned. CA Pecson owned a commercial lot on which he built an apartment building. he enjoys ownership until he is fully compensated. It follows that if Pecson is allowed to retain possession of the thing. in this case. Nuguids. However. Article 448 applies. HELD: 448 should apply. this can be accomplished by giving Pecson the present value of the building. The objective of Article 546 is to administer justice between the parties. Abesia). CA Alviola occupied Tinagan’s land and built a copra drier and put up a store where they engaged in copra trade. They to not have a permanent character and were not attached to the soil with an idea of perpetuity. 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. The right of retention enjoyed by the builder allows him to possess the property and its fruits until he is fully indemnified. Pecson v. the FMV of the structure should be used. 53K. If the land is co-owned. Article 448 applies. in separate suit for recovery of possession. Pecson is entitled to the right of retention. However.If the builder is the son of the landowner and permission is granted. ISSUE: Whether the construction value of the building should be paid. HELD: The fair market value of the building should be paid. are now the owners of the lot. the subsequent partition caused 448 to apply (Del Ocampo v. When Pecson challenged the auction. may retain the thing until he is reimbursed for it. he is also allowed to retain the income generated by the building and not pay rent. whether Pecson should pay rent. Pecson was also ordered to pay rentals of 21K per month (the income of the building from its tenants) until he vacates the premises. the owners of the lot caused judgment to be rendered ordering Pecson to transfer the building for the original cost of construction. but only as to indemnity. he cannot be made to pay rents. the dryer and store are temporary structures. this was done in bad faith but with the tolerance of Tinagan. 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. the landowner does not have to choose between buying the structures and selling the property. 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. Alviola v. as Pecson is. Alviola claims that the copra dryer and store are permanent structures (hollowblock walls and cement floor) and that 448 should apply. Since both parties were in bad faith. the builder is in good faith.
Page 16 of 42
In computing the amount to be paid to a builder in good faith.
The CA held that. and the sower the proper rent. Tecnogas should pay rent on the land until the time Uy communicates his choice. shall have the option to appropriate said structure upon payment of indemnity or sell the portion encroached upon to the other. However. in good faith. it was foreclosed. planted or sowed. HELD: Yes. of the property of Del Ocampo. though Tecnogas purchased the property with improvements already constructed. Abesia Del OCampo and Abeisa are co-owners of the subject property. good faith on the part of the builder passes on to his successor. ISSUE: Whether the Oretas have a better right over the property. the builder must pay rent until transfer of ownership. Article 448 provides that a property owner on whose property there has been built a structure by another.
Page 17 of 42
. or he may compel the builder or planter to pay the price of the land. Uy must choose between the two options in Article 448. should have made sure there was no adverse claim on the property before accepting it as a mortgage. respectively. 450. The owner of the land on which
anything has been built. Though the rule is that a purchaser need not go beyond the four corners of the title. Article 448 now applies. if the choice is compulsory sale. SIH. He who builds. it may be applied. in order to replace things in their former condition at the expense of the person who built. it had no authority to do so. planted or sown in bad faith may demand the demolition of the work.
The rule: a purchaser need not go beyond the title. despite the absence
Art. planted or sown without right to indemnity. because the property was partitioned. The exception: where there are facts that would induce a reasonably prudent man to make further inquiries. If the choice is compulsory sale.Good faith is presumed. it was not a purchaser in good faith. State Investment House v. CA Tecnogas’s property encroached on Uy’s property. plants or sows in
bad faith on the land of another. 2/3 and 1/3. Unless one is versed in the science of surveying. This negligence takes the place of registration of the rights of the Oretas. the exception is where the purchases has knowledge of facts to induce a prudent man to inquire into the status of the property. HELD: Yes.
of a deed of sale (unregistered sale v. Good faith is presumed and since there was no showing of bad faith on the part of the original builder. Tecnogas v. ISSUE: Whether Article 448 applies. Before a deed of sale could be executed. Oreta purchased a house and lot from SOLID. CA Sps. 449. ISSUE: Whether Article 448 can apply to this case considering the parties are co-owners. no one can determine the precise extent or location of his property by merely examining his title. An action for partition was filed and the partition showed that the house of Abesia occupied 5 sqm. registered mortgage). the character of possession passes on to the current possessor. it was in bad faith because an owner of a property is supposed to know its metes and bounds. HELD: Article 448 cannot apply to coownership situations. Tecnogas should continue paying rent until transfer of ownership. SOLID mortgaged the property to SIH. loses what is built. but when the property is partitioned and the circumstances covered by 448 are present.
Article 448 does not apply to co-owners. knowing the trade of SOLID. The builder’s right of retention exists only when the landowner opts to purchase the property. or that the planting or sowing be removed. SOLID no longer had ownership and free disposal when it mortgaged the property.
Art. Del Ocampo v.
what are the alternative rights of A? 1.
A IS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES IN EACH CASE.Art. In the cases of the two preceding
articles. in bad faith. provides that the planter in bad faith is entitled to reimbursement for necessary expenses for preservation of the land. Lumungo v. both parties expressed their cmt
A successor-in-interest is bound by the judgment (and summons) against his predecessors. A builder/planter in bad faith is not entitled to reimbursement for improvements. 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. knew of the dispute over the land when he purchased the same. production. not to gathered crops which are governed by Article 443 (the planter/sower is entitled to reimbursement for expenses in their gathering. 3. Datu Idiris filed a complaint for recovery of possession of the land. with knowledge of the same. with damages in either case. or order their demolition at the expense of Angeles. there was partial payment. are reimbursable. they are IMPROVEMENTS. Does Article 449 refer to both standing and gathered crops? No. is a buyer in bad faith. Angeles. While Article 449 applies. Santos v. which Usman did not contest. The builder. Article 449 applies only to standing crops. Construction on the litigated land after such judgment/summons is construction in bad faith. 452. Idiris was adjudged to be owner after which he sold the land to Lumungo. Land taxes. and preservation). a house on A’s land (A being in good faith). Article 452 does not. Mrs. 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. who was not a party to the suit. Usman then sold the lots to Angeles. on the other hand. compel Angeles to pay for the land. Subsequently. 451. whether or not the value is considerably more than that of the house. because trees are not necessary expenses for the preservation of the land. They failed to pay and a writ of execution was issued ordering them to vacate the lot. Angeles knew of the ongoing dispute between Idiris and Usman. Usman Datu Idiris sold the property in question to Mrs. owned a house on the lot – this house was reconstructed into a bigger one after his
Page 18 of 42
. Usman. planter or sower in
bad faith is entitled to reimbursement for the necessary expenses of preservation of the land. A may get the house without paying indemnity. In this case. Lumungo may appropriate (for free) the trees. If B builds. Mojica The lot in question was partitioned and Santos’s parents were ordered to pay rents for the portion they were occupying. Leonardo. Article 452. 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.
Art. planter or sower. though not technically necessary expenses. A buyer of land under litigation. at B’s expense. 2.
desire to resolve the contract but Datu Idiris never returned the money he received. the planter. who planted 3000 coconut trees. the landowner is entitled to damages from the builder. A may compel B to buy the land. A may demand demolition of the house.
(2) demand the destruction of the building at Bugatti’s expense. Articles 449-451 apply. ISSUE: Whether Leonardo Santos is in good faith.
Art. A being in bad faith. Landowner a.
Page 19 of 42
. 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. or Remove or destroy the house + damages. Bugatti occupied the property and began construction. When the act (building/planting/sowing) was done with his knowledge and without opposition on his part.parents were summoned in the above mentioned case. In a meeting. the rights of one and the other shall be the same as though both had acted in good faith. There was no meeting of the minds between the parties. Baguilat and inquired into the lease of their land.
Builder a. The judge. ordered the house demolished. It is obvious that the essential element of consent was absent. If B.
part because they repeatedly gave him verbal and written orders to cease his construction. Even before preparing the lease. but also on the part of the owner of such land. they agreed provided that the contract would contain certain terms and conditions. Bugatti is a builder in BAD faith. B may: 1.
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. There is bad faith on Bugatti’s part because he had no right to occupy the property. Neither can Bugatti claim bad faith on the Baguilats
2. the spouses laid down their terms and conditions: the lease would be for 9 years at 500 per month. Mojica. 2. They are also entitled to damages equivalent to rentals beginning from the time of occupation until eventual eviction. Bugatti v. planter or sower proceeded in good faith. Compel A to pay for the house + damages. thereby entitling him to the benefits of Article 448. not only
on the part of the person who built. CA Bugatti approached Sps. the Baguilat’s have the option to: (1) take possession of the building without payment of indemnity. he is their successor in interest. What is the definition of bad faith? 1. HELD: No. When he buys land knowing that there has been construction by a person other than the owner and who pays only for the land. When the landowner acted in bad
faith and the builder. 453. When building / planting / sowing is knowingly done on land belonging to another. any improvements he made are lost in favor of the landowners (3 options). in good faith. or (3) compel Bugatti to purchase the land whether or not its value considerably exceeds the value of the improvement. 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. he was bound by the judgment because his claim was under that of his parents. If there was bad faith. much less construct a building thereupon. the house should be demolished. the provisions of article 447 shall apply. ISSUE: Whether Bugatti is a builder in good faith? HELD: No. and a building not exceeding 40k would be constructed by Bugatti with the cost of the building offsetting the lease. As such. planted or sowed on the land of another.
Art. 454. Though not a party to the suit in which his parents were ordered to vacate the lot. builds on A’s land. Santos is in BAD FAITH.
Art. The owner of the materials. who is also in bad faith. X is NOT subsidiarily liable because B is in bad faith as to him. This provision shall not apply if the owner makes use of the right granted by article 450. Must reimburse the builder who has paid for the materials IF he makes use of the materials (appropriates the improvement). as far as rights between them are concerned. the latter may demand from the landowner the value of the materials and labor.
Appropriate the improvement. in bad faith. The builder. c. 457. IF he makes use of the materials (appropriates the improvement). good faith does not necessarily exclude negligence. Article 461 applies. 4. regardless of cost. If the materials.Art. 3. A must reimburse B for the cost of the materials. to build on X’s land. (d) The river must continue to exist. 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.
a. 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 are their rights and obligations? (a) A and B shall be treated as if they were both in good faith. What are the forms of accretion? 1. Allluvium Avulsion Change of course of rivers Formation of islands
The landowner. What are the essential elements of alluvium? [CREIG] (a) The deposit should be gradual and imperceptible (as a process). The soil is alluvium. deposit belongs to the state). In the cases regulated in the
preceding articles. How many parties are involved in this provision? Three: 1. Subsidiarily liable for the cost of the materials. which gives right to damages under article 2176.
c. Compel A to purchase the land. Not liable if he chooses to compel the builder to purchase the land (this is the right granted by Article 450). (c) X is entitled to damages from A and B and may:
Page 20 of 42
. a. Primarily liable for the cost of the materials. 3. (c) Current must be that of a river (if lake. 2. uses the materials of B.
Art. a. 2. (b) Cause is the current of the river and not artificial. Spanish Law of Waters applies. planter or sower. and gradually received as an effect of the current of the waters.
b. What is accretion? Accretion is the process whereby the soil is deposited. b. 456. plants or seeds has been paid by the builder. plants or seeds
belong to a third person who has not acted in bad faith. If the owner of the materials. if sea. What is the liability for negligence? The negligent party must pay for the damage done. if not. 455.
A. (e) The increase must be comparatively little and not such that would increase he area of the riparian land by 150%. or Demolish the structure at A’s expense.
What is alluvium? Alluvium is the soil deposited or added to the lands adjoining the banks of rivers. (b) In case A cannot pay for the materials.
the land Manalo claims by accretion must be adjacent to Lot 307. (3) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the riverbank. who had a fishpond lease of the foreshore with the Bureau of Lands.
(2) that it be the result of the action of the river. Manalo Binalay purchased two parcels of land which were later consolidated into one title. The law of waters states that the natural bed of a river is the highest ground covered by its waters during the highest floods. This submerged potion belongs not to him but to the State. it is property of the public domain. HELD: Manalo does not own Lot 821. Heirs of Pascual Pascual sought to have land registered. However. Since the state needs said property for drainage purposes. Applying the rules. the perennially submerged portion causes the river to have two branches. it cannot come under private ownership. (c) The interests of agriculture require that the soil be given to the person who is in the best position to cultivate the same. IAC. is property of public domain. the 821 is not adjacent to 307 but to the submerged portion claimed by Manalo. (b) To compensate him because the property is subject to encumbrances and legal easements. ISSUE: Whether Manalo owns Lot 821 by accretion to the perennially submerged portion. the strip of land is denominated as Lots 821 and 822. immediately after learning of the occupation. ISSUE: Whether the dried up bed is public or private land. when the survey to consolidate the lands into 307 was conducted.
Heirs of Navarro v. the submerged portion is part of the river bed which. There are 3 requisites for accretion: (1) the deposit should be gradual and imperceptible. 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. and on the north by Manila Bay. Ronquillo had been occupying the lot since 1945 and Del Rosario in 1960. the accession being automatically his the moment the soil deposit can be seen. its sale is dependent on the Director of Lands. CA Estero Calubcub changed course due to dumping by the people living alongside it. HELD: The dried up bed was artificially caused. as long as he has already the beneficial or equitable title. it may as well be given to the person who can best utilize it. (d) It cannot be said from whom the soil came. it cannot be the subject of a sale. The riparian owner should make an express act of possession. Pascual’s property is bounded on the west by the Bulacan River. Ronquillo claims the courts have no jurisdiction because the land is public and subject to the disposition of the Director of Lands. Binalay claims ownership of Lot 821 by accretion. with an island formed in the middle. it does not fall under 307/461. opposed Pascual’s registration. The riparian owner has completely paid for the value of the riparian estate.It is NOT necessary that: a. The land sought to be registered as accretion is at the tip of Pascual’s property.
b. Lot 307. However. Hence.
Ronquillo v. During the wet months. on the east by the Talisay River. which he claimed the land was an accretion to his property.
Page 21 of 42
. The Del Rosarios claim ownership over the dried up bed as riparian owners. ordered him to vacate the lot.
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. Binalay v. under the Civil Code. Navarro. the said portion was submerged and was not included in the consolidated title. Under Article 502. Being of public character.
Art. or lose that inundated by them in extraordinary floods. brooks. (3) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the riverbank. LAGOON – a small lake. Laguna de Bay is a lake. which is defined as a body of water formed in depressions of the earth. ordinarily of fresh water.
Ferrer v. 458. Colegio had title to land up to the lakeshore. In this case. What then is its bed? The law of waters defines the bed as level of the water at the highest ordinary depth. fed by floods. Undeniably. Even if the land was formed by accretion. The accretion was a result not of the flow of the rivers but of Manila Bay. HELD: The land is Colegio’s.
Definitions: POND – a body of stagnant water without an outlet. Laguna is a lake. Gov’t v. the hollow bed of which is bounded by the elevations of the land. (2) that it be the result of the action of the river. CREEKS. This in turn is considered as the level during the dry season. HELD: The land is Ferrer’s by accretion. There are 3 requisites for accretion: (1) the deposit should be gradual and imperceptible. its ownership passed automatically to Ferrer and the Director of Lands had no authority to grant a free patent over it. and connected to the sea by them. Bautista Ferrer claims the land in dispute by virtue of accretion. 2 of the 3 requisites are were not met. ISSUE: Whether the land is Pascual’s by accretion. NOT A LAGOON. 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. 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. However. LDB IS A LAKE. the land is property of the public domain. they still belong to Colegio. 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. The land is immediately south of Ferrer’s property. RIVERS SHALL CONTINUE TO REMAIN PROPERTY OF THE RESPECTIVE OWNERS. Pascual filed a complaint for ejectment against Navarro. THE LAW OF WATERS PROVIDES THAT LANDS ACCIDENTALLY INUNDATED BY LAKES. The rationale if to provide some compensation to the owners because of it subjection to destructive forces and easements. larger than a puddle but smaller than a lake. THE LAND IS NOT PARTY OF LAGUNA DE BAY’S BED.During the pendency of the registration case. or like a body of water with a small outlet. ISSUE: Whether the is Colegio’s or the State’s. or springs. 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. HELD: No. adjacent to Manila Bay.
Page 22 of 42
. ARTICLE 367/458 DOES NOT APPLY BEC. Bautista claims it by virtue of a free patent granted by the Director of Lands. The State claims the land is part of the lakeshore and of the public domain. and its bed is public. and is not very deep. ISSUE: Whether the land is Ferrer’s by accretion or Bautista’s by virtue of a free patent. The owners of estates adjoining
ponds or lagoons do not acquire the land left dry by the natural decrease of the waters. LDB is not a lagoon or pond but a LAKE. When the accretion was created. This is clear from the fact that the accretion is at the northern tip of the property. It is ordinarily of fresh water coming from rivers.
voidable. an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet such title. HELD: The land is Melad’s.
creek or torrent segregates from an estate on its bank a known portion of land and transfers it to another estate. the prescriptive period within which to quiet title accrues only form the time the adverse claim is made known. void. He also claims that Faja’s right to question the validity of the title had prescribed. by reason of any instrument. she prays that she be declared lawful owner of the property. In 1968. 459. actually invalid. which reversion cut through Melad’s property. record. creek or torrent segregates from an estate on its bank a know portion of land and deposits it on another. or barred by prescription. Faja v. and may be prejudicial to said title.
Alluvium v. The removal of a considerable quantity of earth upon or annexation to the land of another. claim. What kinds of actions are referred to in Article 476? 1.
2. Articles 459 and 463 apply to the situation. or unenforceable. ineffective. This article refers to avulsion. reducing Agustin’s property and increasing Melad’s. unenforceable. the owner retains possession. This ownership was not lost by the reversion of the river to its original course. An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being case upon title to real property or any interest therein. encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid. the owner of the segregated portion retains ownership provided he removes the same within 2 years.
Where the plaintiff is in possession of the land. 463 provides that when the current of a river separates a portion of land from an estate. cutting into Melad’s land. which is: 1. 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. ISSUE: Whether Agustin or Melad owns the property uncovered by the abrupt reversion of the river to its original course. extinguished. IAC Agustin owned the property to the east of the Cagayan river. c) but is. a big flood occurred. the river gradually shifted from west to east. Melad cultivated the land uncovered on the eastern portion of the river until Agustin drove them out. causing the bed to river to revert to its original course. Whenever the current of a river. and Preventative. Over 49 years. b) which is apparently valid or effective.
459 provides that when land is segregated and transferred to another estate. the owner of the land to which the segregated portion belonged retains the ownership of it. Melad owned the property to the west.
d) and may be prejudicial to thte title. Whenever there is a cloud on
title to real property or any interest therein. Faja claims that Frial never owned the property and his title was obtained through fraud. In her counterclaim. ineffective. 2. Melad acquired by accretion the land which was gradually deposited on his property. Remedial. suddenly and by the perceptible action of the water. more than 10 having passed since the issuance of the decree of registration. 3/7/2004
Page 23 of 42
.Art. CA Frial claims that Faja had been illegally occupying his titled property for 30 years.
Agustin v. provided that he removes the same within two years. the process whereby the current of a river.
J. CA Teokemian Sr. the prescriptive period within which to quiet title accrues only form the time the adverse claim is made known. 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.
Where the plaintiff is in possession of the land. leaving 3 children with a parcel of land. HELD: The action had not yet prescribed.
ISSUE: Whether the right of Cabrera to recover on the implied trust had already prescribed. including the 1/3 share of Felicidad Tokemian. 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. Viuda de Cabrera v. 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. HELD: The action had not yet prescribed. When the trustee is in possession of the land sought to be reconveyed. However. later selling it to Cabrera. ISSUE: Whether the plaintiffs have legal or equitable title to the property. died. 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. HELD: Plaintiffs have legal and equitable title to the property. title to property does not necessarily mena the OCT. conveying the property to Orais. which right can be claimed only by one who is in possession. praying that the Cabreras be ordered to vacate the property. Legal title means registered ownership while equitable title means beneficial ownership. 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.
Page 24 of 42
. Cabrera claims that there is was an implied trust created when Orais acquired the property through fraud. this applies only when the trustee is not in possession of the property. the prescriptive period within which to quiet title accrues only form the time the adverse claim is made known. though an action for reconveyance of property based on a constructive trust prescribes ten years from the date of titling of the property. which right can be claimed only by one who is in possession. Felicidad Teokemian remained in continuous possession of her 1/3 share.
Where the plaintiff is in possession of the land. A deed of sale was signed by ony two of the children (Felicidad Teokemian did not sign). more than ten years having elapsed. who likewise occupied the lot. Thirty years after the issuance of the title. Orais filed an action for reconveyance (quieting of title).Summary judgment was rendered in favor of Frial. Plaintiffs have been in open and adverse possession of the property since time immemorial. it can connote acquisitive prescription by possession in the concept of owner. ISSUE: Whether the right of Faja to question/quiet title had already prescribed. Orais claims that the action to recover on the implied trust had already prescribed.
Where the plaintiff is in possession of the land. Orais had the entire property surveyed and registered. the prescriptive period within which to quiet title accrues only form the time the adverse claim is made known. an action to quiet title to property in the possession of plaintiff is imprescriptible. Spouses Hadji Ali Mamadsual v. 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).
He later sold the property to his daughter.
Del Banco v. CA Donato and his brother inherited property from their mother. Donato’s sale of the property to his daughter was inofficious as far as the other half belonging to his brother was concerned. the only possible action would have been forcible entry. Several agreements were later executed as to the extent of ownership of each. whether Titong has a right to the property. this was opposed by the successors of the other co-owners. record. When Grace learned of the sale.Titong v. ISSUE: Whether an the island property had already been partitioned by virtue of the agreements entered into by the co-owners. redeemed the property. Fanesa has a lien over the property and is entitled to reimbursement. The Civil Code provides that such action is availing only when there is a cloud on title by reason of any instrument. The heirs of his brother filed a complaint to partition the property plus damages. when Laurio entered the property and attempted to till it himself. Fanesa. HELD: An action for quieting of title was improper. It is settled that redemption of a co-owner inures to the benefit of all other coowners. Some of the other heirs assigned their right to redeem in favor of Amparo. simple agreement is insufficient. he died and then the mortgage was foreclosed. an action for partition does not prescribe. possession being less than 30 years. Donato’s daughter claims exclusive ownership by virtue of the 2 sales and prescription. continued cultivating and tilling the land already sold and had been doing so for 20 years. encumbrance or proceeding. The property was levied by the government for tax delinquency and was redeemed by Fanesa. she filed a complaint for recovery of possession and legal redemption with damages against Mariano. However. Amparo then sold the lot to Mariano. HELD: There was no physical partition. Titong. ISSUE: Whether an action for quieting of title was proper. In this case. claim. can it be said that when Fanesa redeemed the entire property from the State.
Page 25 of 42
. ISSUE: Whether Fanesa is sole owner of the property. Donato caused the property to be registered in his name.
Paulmitan v. That the parties have been in possession of portions of the lot and have even acquired titles thereto. however. He left several heirs but only one. HELD: No. none of the causes were present.
Mariano v. she became sole owner? No. there is no proof of partition. there was only ideal partition as to the share of each co-owner. CA Titong sold a portion of his land to Espinosa. claiming he was the only surviving heir. Titong filed an action for quieting of title. an action for partition was brought by successors in interest of the original coowners. ISSUE: Whether Grace has a right to the property. the latter then sold it to private respondent Laurio. Titong has no right over the property. Later. The true issue is a boundary dispute. HELD: Yes. He cannot claim ordinary acquisitive prescription because he sold the property and yet altered the boundary line – obvious bad faith. Amparo. Extraordinary prescription is likewise absent. others did not (Grace). CA Gosiengfao mortgaged the lot in question. Redemption is not a mode of terminating ownership.
Also. who claimed that they had exclusive ownership of the properties which had already been partitioned. The redemption by one co-owner of the entire property does not vest title over the same. Partition requires a subdivision plain with respective titles issued to each. IAC Brothers Pansacol purchased an island in Tayabas as co-owners.
The Asejos filed for partition with accounting. The master deed shall contain the following: 1. 4. (c) It may include.
7. Sec. Twenty five years have passed since he had the land titled in his name.
Any reasonable restriction not contrary to law on the right of the condominium owner to dispose of his condominium. CA Felisa. an Asejo had all the while been occupying a portion of the property.Adille v. windows. and (b) an undivided interest in common directly or indirectly. 3. if he is other than those executing the master deed The following plans: a. In this case. and 3/7/2004
What is a condominium? It is an interest in real property consisting of:
Page 26 of 42
. 8. 2. 6. HELD: Yes. Sec. revoked. Prescription as a means of terminating coownership must be preceded by repudiation. which is subject to the following conditions: 1. Survey plan of the land Floor plan of the building
5. or industrial building. Felisa sold the property. in the land on which it is located and other common areas of the building. where the common areas are held by the unit owners as co-owners. It is settled that redemption of a co-owner inures to the benefit of all other coowners. except in cases of succession. 5. claiming Adille was only a trustee. floors.
Master deed may be amended. a separate interest in other portions of such real property. Prescription shall begin from the moment that the Asejos learned of the fraud. Moreover. the incidents of a condo grant are as follows: 1. Adille is then a trustee who acquired the property through fraud. The boundary are the interior surfaces of the walls. 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. 3. upon registration instrument executed by registered owners. such act is made known to the co-owners. 2. one Asejo continued to enjoy possession of a portion of the property. 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. Unless otherwise provided in the master deed.
(a) a separate interest in a unit in a residential. ISSUE: Whether the Asejos have a right to the property. 4. then died. has prescription set in? No. co-owner repudiated co-ownership. the evidence is clear and conclusive. ceilings. the co-owners were kept in the dark regarding the titling in his name. commercial. 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. the original owner of the property had children by two marriages: Adille from the first and the Asejos from the second. Sec. 4. no unit shall be transferred to non-Filipino citizens or corporations. in addition. pacto de retro. 6. he has been in possession in concept of owner for the required period. Any transfer of a unit shall include the transfer of the undivided interest in the common areas or the membership in the corporation PROVIDED. In fact. 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.
conduits. indirect – stockholder corporation owns What is a condominium corporation? Manages land. if there is no condo corp. which has exclusive original jurisdiction over controversies arising between shareholders of a corporation. condo – subject to conditions provided by law: project destroyed. 2. v. The Mater Deed determines when ownership of the unit and participation in the corporation vests in the purchaser. the Master Deed provides that ownership is transferred only upon full payment of the purchase price. The CFI agreed and held that pursuant to the Condominium Act. The private respondents are not members or shareholders in the condominium corporation. pledge. common areas and to hold indirect interest in the land and common areas. etc. No pay of dues. you are given a title (condo cert of title) but no title to the land. the condominium corporation. Whenever you buy a unit. ISSUE: Whether the CFI or the City Courts have jurisdiction over the claims filed by Sunset View. can you sell you unit to the foreigner? NO. The private respondents interposed the objection that the City Court and CFI have no jurisdiction. The sale is annotated in the title to certificate/s of title. 7. right to sell unless master deed requires offer to condominium owner. heating. Not included are utilities. In this case. lien by corporation on units. 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. Private respondents have not yet fully paid the purchase price. 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. no more
Page 27 of 42
Not every purchaser of a condominium unit is a shareholder in the corporation. etc. 5. 3. HELD: The City Court and the CFI have jurisdiction. I fthere is a condo corp. uninhabitable. the private respondents were holders of separate interests and consequently shareholders of the Sunset View. hence they are not shareholders and the SEC has no jurisdiction over the claims. 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. 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.
4. *now. Campos Sunset View filed for the collection of assessments levied against private respondents herein. 1 vote per unit. Declaration of Restrictions must also be registered. land is in name of corp. Existence of condominium corporation coterminous with the building. Easement shall pass as an appurtenance of the unit Unless otherwise provided. If you own condo unit where there is no condo corporation. 6.door.
annotation because you are a stockholder of the corporation. Sunset View Condominium Corp. The CFI ordered Sunset View to ventilate its grievance with the SEC. If corporation – yes provided Filipino interest remains 60% or more.
can be compelled (1) to stop the illegal continuation of the construction. (2)Upon full payment of the purchase price. including parking spaces.
7. Or the lease is for more than one year (whether recorded or not)
2. In fact. PD 957 provides: (1)No developer can alter plans without the permission of the HLURB and the written conformity of the homeowners. the courts may afford adequate relief. The lease is registered. (3)Only street parking is excluded from what should be given for free by the developer. A voluntary easement. (3) to provide adequate parking spaces.
without the consent of the others. the developer must provide parking. or mortgage of the whole property (the transaction would be void only to the extent of the co-owner who did not consent). This is an amendment of the master deed. and gives rise to a real right over the property owned in common. the developer must redeem the mortgaged and deliver certificate/s of title to the buyer. G. A year after the abandonment by the contractor. which may be material (changes nature) or metaphysical (changes use). Or.
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. 6. if the withholding of the consent by one or more of the co-owners is clearly prejudicial to the common interest. (2) Which is more or less PERMANENT. (3) And changes the USE of the thing. Any other act of strict dominion or ownership where any encumbrance or disposition was held implicitly to be an act of alteration.
Article 491. Impliedly.L. (2) to deliver private respondent Teng’s certificate/s of title. CA NHA extended a loan to GOAL for the latter to construct a condominium.O. donation. b.
The construction of a house on a lot owned in common. HELD: Yes. in a condominium. unit owners have an undivided interest over common areas and facilities. What are examples of an alteration? 1. (4) And PREJUDICES the condition of the thing or its enjoyment by others. title must be transferred. *What is an alteration? (1) It is a CHANGE. despite a mortgage constituted by the developer.No alterations may be made without the written consent of the homeowners. v. Free parking may be in the basement or on the first floor. even though benefits for all would result therefrom.
Page 28 of 42
. GOAL offered units for sale. Furthermore. donation or mortgage of part of the property with definite boundaries (the sale is valid but subject to the result of the subsequent partition). (2) to deliver private respondent Teng’s certificate/s of title. upon full payment of the purchase price. according to Manresa: It is an act of ownership.
3. Sale.A. Sale. 5. 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. contracts of long duration. ISSUE: Whether the developer. However. make alterations in the thing owned in common. Construction began but the contractor abandoned the project when it was only 60% completed. Lease of real property if a. The HLURB and the OPLA ruled in favor of the respondents. Private respondents raise 3 complaints: (1) to stop the illegal continuation of the construction. 4. even if the unit is mortgaged by the developer. GOAL. (3) to provide adequate parking spaces. private respondents were purchasers who had fully paid for the units. None of the co-owners shall. the developer is mandated by law to deliver the certificate/s of title to the buyers.
claiming they had a right of redemption. that is. shall order such measures as it may deem proper. He would be liable for losses and damages.
HELD: No. the preceding provisions shall apply only to the part owned in common. (c) those that have transitory effects. 3. and S.
(b) those that may be renewed from time to time. What are the effects of an illegal alteration? 1. Damages were also awarded. In this case. the certificate of title of the original lot remained intact. CA Mariano and Adela were siblings who inherited 2 lots (1052 and 1091) from their mother. 4.
There is no co-ownership when the different portions owned by different people are already concretely determined and separately identifiable. Imperial v. and the remainder is owned in common. 5. C. Fraudulently. the court. including the appointment of an administrator. which even if called an alteration. J. The CA ruled that since M sold 1052 and failed to give the heirs of A their share in the proceeds. received from their parents property in Pasay. CA The Armada siblings. 2. or should the resolution of the majority be seriously prejudicial to those interested in the property owned in common. Benefits derived by the co-ownership belong to it. The co-owner responsible may lose what he has spent.Note that implied consent by the others will not give the one making the alteration the right to seek reimbursement. For the administration and
better enjoyment of the thing owned in common. 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. (d) those that do not give rise to a real right over the thing owned in common. J and S sought to annul the sale. What are acts of administration of management? They are those: (a) that do not involve an alteration. Si v. M sold 1052 to a third person/s. Should there be no majority. In case a house is constructed on a common lot. Whenever a part of the thing belongs exclusively to one of the co-owners. (e) those for the common benefit of all the co-owners and not for only one or some of them. it is evident that the deeds of sale to each son particularly identified the conveyed portion of the master lot. at the instance of an interested party. another document was executed where Mariano acknowledged the simulated character of the waiver and Adela’s ½ share in the inheritance. he is deemed to have waived his right to 1091.
Article 492. those. How can we tell if the act is alteration or administration?
Page 29 of 42
. all the co-owners will be entitled to a proportionate share of the rent. do not affect the substance or nature of the thing. However. C later sold his share to Si. The SC affirmed the CA’s decision. The co-ownership has already been terminated. the resolutions of the majority of the co-owners shall be binding. do not bind the co-ownership for a long time in the future. Imperial effectively partitioned the property. Demolition can be compelled. A executed a waiver of rights in favor of Mariano. ISSUE: Whether the brothers have the right of redemption. The deeds of sale particularly described the portion conveyed to each son in metes and bounds. Article 484 provides that there is no coownership when the different portions owned by different people are already concretely determined and separately identifiable. To facilitate titling of the lots.
No co-owner shall be obliged
to remain in the co-ownership.” as it is used in Article 493 should be understood to be NOT a technical term. i. each owning a floor. then he alone may participate. and he may therefore alienate. the use of the building would change and the interests of the others would be jeopardized. The minority is made victim of fraud. both he and the vendee may participate. an agreement to keep the thing undivided for a certain period of time. 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. d. can one of them sell his share to a stranger? No.
c. *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. An alteration is agreed upon. the vendor retains a real right over it. Can a co-owner’s share be attached even if there hasn’t been partition? Yes. “Personal right. (c) The minority may appeal to the court against the majority decision when: a. after the share is sold. Encumbrance or disposition is made (alteration). can one of them sell his share to a third person/s who will convert the same into a factory? No. If A. however. b. who participates in the partition. Nevertheless.What are examples of acts of administration? (a) Lease of one year or less. The interest and privacy of the other would be jeopardized. (b) Only the urgency of the case and difficulty of meeting would justify proceeding without notice. (b) Appointment of a co-owner or a third person as administrator. the vendor or the vendee? It depends. if unregistered.
The sale is valid only insofar as his share is concerned. A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a period which shall not exceed twenty years. Loans without sufficient security. assign or mortgage it and even substitute another person in its enjoyment. ii. shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership. In this case. Each coowner may demand at ANY TIME the partition of the thing owned in common. If the vendee is already in possession.
Article 493. e. except when personal rights are involved. What is the effect of a co-owner’s sale of the entire property without authority of the others?
Page 30 of 42
. B and C are co-owners of a residence. Abusive administrator is not replaced. insofar as his share is concerned.
Article 494. shall be valid. If A and B own a common dwelling. The resolution is SERIOUSLY PREJUDICIAL to the rights of an individual co-owner. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage. There is no real majority. This term may be extended by a new agreement. The majority refuses to correct abuse of administration or maladministration. What are the limitations on the right of the financial majority? (a) There must be NOTICE to the minority of resolutions. In case a co-owner sells his share. Each co-owner shall have the
full ownership of his part and the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto. If. 3/7/2004
iii. Neither shall there be any partition when it is prohibited by law. not exceeding ten years. with respect to the co-owners.
this is deemed to be a repudiation sufficient to cause the running of prescription. as long as the one possessing recognizes the co-ownership. Inc. b. ISSUE: Whether the heirs of the excluded siblings have a right of action against the heirs of Galileo. In 1968. One of the three Tuason siblings sold her share to GA. partition is prohibited (10 years max. 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. if proved convincingly. 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.). if made unequivocally and with knowledge to the co-owners.*When may a co-owner NOT successfully demand partition? (a) if by agreement. However. Repudiation with notice Must be in a clear and convincing manner Other requirements of prescription Period of prescription
Page 31 of 42
. Tuason v. (b) if partition is prohibited by a donor or testator (20 years max. (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). the heirs of the excluded siblings brought suit against the heirs of Galileo for the partition or reconveyance of the property. c. (e) if the legal nature of the common property does not allow partition (like party walls). CA Siblings Galileo. Tuason. HELD: No. 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. 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. Eulalio. One of the Tuason siblings decided that she wanted out of the co-ownership and filed a complaint for partition. Gregorio Araneta. Juanita. registration is sufficient repudiation.
A contract providing for the nondissolution of the co-ownership until the subdivided lots are sold is valid. This repudiation. d. Requirements a. Is registration of property in one’s name repudiation? Yes. What about administrator? (c) if partition is prohibited by law (CPG). GA then proposed to the remaining two the subdivision of the property and its sale to the public. The terms of the contract provided that the co-ownership should subsist until all of the subdivided lots have been sold. the action has already prescribed. What if heirs violate partition prohibition of testator? No one can bring an action to challenge partition. The lower court dismissed the complaint. both assented. prescription does not run against co-owners. and Vicente inherited a parcel of land from their brother. When Galileo registered the property in his name. Galileo caused the property to be registered in his name alone. Generally.). An action to reconvey land based on an implied trust prescribes after 10 years – the action was brought 15 years after the registration. Si v. can cause prescription to run.
there was no such repudiation.
What must a person seeking partition do? He must set forth in his complaint the (1) description of the real estate. Partition may be made by
agreement between the parties or by judicial proceedings. brothers. the (2) nature and extent of his title. and for a handsome profit as well. Eliseo claims that Ladislao executed a Combined Deed of Partition whereby the latter conveyed the entire property to the former. in fact.
son of Eliseo had been occupying the property even before the death of the testators. provisional or temporary permanent
As to SUBJECT MATTER: 1. What are the classifications of partition? As to CAUSE: 1. But the co-ownership may be terminated in accordance with Article 498. HELD: The contract is perfectly valid. when to do so would render it unserviceable for the use for which it is intended. the Rules of Court. Partition shall be governed by the Rules of Court insofar as they are consistent with this Code. inherited from their sister and father. and sell the property. by agreeing to subdivide. What must the court do if it finds that plaintiff has a right to demand partition? 3/7/2004
Page 32 of 42
. Eliseo set up the defense of the Combined Deed of Partition and acquisitive prescription. The contract is. this can be considered as being assented to by the latter since the cmt
2. Eliseo failed to present the deed upon which his claim is based. extrajudicial or conventional judicial
Clear repudiation is required for prescription to run against co-owners. designed for the ultimate end of terminating the co-ownership. Though Eliseo’s son remained on the property belonging to Ladislao. Santos v. The claim of subsisting ownership must be refuted by the best evidence obtainable. ISSUE: Whether Ladislao has a cause of action.
As to PERMANENCE: 1. 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. 2. 2.5% of the subdivision had been sold. 2. Prescription of an action to recover from an implied trust requires clear repudiation by the possessor of the object of the coownership. develop. and he must (3) join all those with an interest in the property as defendants.
Article 496. When Ladislao sued for reconveyance or partition. the coowners cannot demand a physical division of the thing owned in common. Notwithstanding the
provisions of the preceding article. The Civil Code Suppletorily. 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. At the time of the appeal. b. the parties actually entered into an agreement for partition. 3.prohibiting co-owners from being obliged to remain part of the community. Santos Eliseo and Ladislao Santos. HELD: Yes. In this case. the co-ownership subsists. already 97. parcels of land. 4. 5. The issue more important is prescription: Did Eliseo acquire Ladislao’s share through prescription? No. Q: What it the lots aren’t sold within ten years? Could there be an indirect violation of Article 494? No. real property personal property
As to FORMS AND SOLEMNITIES: 1.
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. Being so. Josefa and Carmen filed an action for quieting of title. to occupy a portion of his property.
Partition may be oral or written. 5872 was not included in the court’s order approving the partition. and Salvador received lot 3046. the mortgage was valid. Maestrado v. ISSUE: Whether the extrajudicial partition in a private document is valid.
Her heirs now claim that the property was conjugal. the certificate/s of title indicated Gertrudes as the absolute owner of the property. Josefa and Carmen received 4 lots. HELD: Yes. his heirs executed an extrajudicial partition in a private document. Leis Getrudes Leis obtained a loan from Cruz. upon the death of their father. it became hers alone. An oral partition was conducted and the same was approved by the court. Cruz also argues that when Gertrudes redeemed the property after a previous mortgage. She failed to pay and the property was foreclosed. A person dealing with registered land is not required to go beyond the certificate/s of title to determine the condition of the property. Cruz v. An action for ejectment was filed. CA Ramon Chavez died. and Salvador (or their successors) requested for the partition of 5872 and the distribution of their respective shares. a third person may rely on the face of the title in his purchase of the said property. this was secured by a REM on the subject property. A partition may be in a public or private document or even oral. Cruz claims that the property is paraphernal. Though as a rule.
Page 33 of 42
. Concepcion. commanding them to allocate to the parties a part of the property as the court shall order. Angel. in a private or public document. Angel. having been acquired during the marriage of their parents. 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. HELD: Yes. Concepcion. Concepcion. the certificate/s of title indicating that Gertrudes is a widow and the title is in her name. and Salvador (or their successors) executed quitclaims confirming the existence of the oral partition. Pada Kilario v. a co-owner can dispose or encumber only his share of the co-ownership. CA. they became owners of one half of the property. Angel.It shall order partition of the property. in this case. Subsequently. ISSUE: Whether the mortgage of the property was valid. the father of petitioner herein. lot 5872. he allowed his brother. leaving several heirs.
Where several properties were orally partitioned but one was inadvertently left out of the court order approving the partition. The parties may partition the property among themselves. the partition is valid. However. 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. They asked petitioner to leave the property. Petitioners. Amparo. Amparo. including the property in dispute. the oral partition shall be given effect. Since the partition was valid. Amparo. the conveyance to petitioner is invalid because those who made the conveyance were no longer owners of the property conveyed. she refused. When Jacinto died. Pada During Jacinto’s lifetime.
To set things straight.
Where a formal opposition has been previously presented. or any other real rights belonging to them before the division was made. the vendor or the vendee? It depends. Likewise. may also be covered if their division would be to the prejudice of the interests of the parties. such as land. However. without prejudice to the right of the debtor or assignor to maintain its validity. have a right to the property. In case a co-owner sells his share. reciprocal warranty for: a.
Is a mortgage sufficient security against fraud? Yes. defects of title 3/7/2004
Article 498. both he and the vendee may participate. If. Who are third person/s in this article? All those who did not participate in the partition. and Salvador (or their successors). servitude. The property was ceded to petitioners upon the execution of the oral partition which they themselves confirmed in their quitclaims. Amparo. The partition of a thing
owned in common shall not prejudice third persons.
Article 500. sell the thing and distribute the proceeds. notwithstanding the partition.
Of course. Every co-owner shall. What is the procedure in the partition of an essentially indivisible object? 1. If the vendee is already in possession. Concepcion. 4. each co-owner shall pay for damages caused by reason of his negligence or fraud. 2. however. there shall be
a mutual accounting for benefits received and reimbursements for expenses made.
Article 501. If the above is not agreed upon. If A. the vendor retains a real right over it. such as automobiles. then he alone may participate. B. except: 1. who participates in the partition. Allot the thing to a co-owner. mutual accounting for benefits received. 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. Personal rights pertaining to third persons against the co-ownership shall also remain in force. 2. and C.ISSUE: Whether private respondents. *May creditors or assignees impugn a partition already executed? Generally they may NOT. as co-owners of a lot.
Article 499. 2. what happens to the mortgage? The mortgage would subsist over the 3 postpartition lots. mortgage the same to X and then subsequently partition it. Angel. essentially divisible objects. who shall retain the rights of mortgage. after the share is sold. be liable for defects of title and quality of the portion assigned to each of the co-owners. Where there has been fraud. *What are the effects of partition? 1. indemnity for damages caused by negligence or fraud.
Article 497. Upon partition. essentially indivisible objects. after
partition. HELD: They have no right. What objects are included in this article?
Page 34 of 42
. or in case it was made notwithstanding a formal opposition presented to prevent it. mutual reimbursement for expenses. But they cannot impugn any partition already executed. unless there has been fraud. 3. 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. Who are the creditors referred to in this article? All creditors who became so during the existence of the co-ownership. who shall indemnify the others.
It is a fact since it exists. this is a state of mind (animus possidendi). (c) The possession must be by virtue of one’s own right (real or dominium. but from the moment it exists. loss or destruction. not possession because of agency) What does actual or constructive holding or detention mean? Ex. Ex. prescription by co-owner. actual or constructive. merger in one co-owner. 4. Who is in actual possession of a rented parcel of land? The lessor. 5. the right to possess the same may be in the hands of another as a tenant or lessee. 6. Though one owns property. detention or control of a thing or a right. I own a house. Possession is the holding of a
thing or the enjoyment of a right. 2.
6. 7. It is essential in constructive possession that the property be not in the adverse possession of another. Ex. Jus possesionis or right OF possession – this is a right independent of ownership. what happens? A and B must both bear the loss. expropriation. 3. judicial partition. 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. of which the owner actually occupies only a fraction and constructively occupies the rest. (b) In the concept of owner and in the concept of holder(Article 525). partition confers upon each the exclusive title over his respective share. Are ownership and possession the same? No. There is a large tract of land.
If A and B partitioned land co-owned by them and later. Is possession a fact or a right? Both. is in actual possession in the concept of owner. 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. Possession may be exercised
in one’s own name or in that of another. making it also a right. *What are the degrees of possession? cmt
Article 524. B must give half of the land allotted to him to A. prescription by stranger. What are the classes of possession? (a) In one’s own name or that of another (Article 524). (c) In good or bad faith. (b) There must be a deliberate intention to possess. I am renting a house. I am entitled to possess it. What are the viewpoints of possession? 1. depositary. certain consequences follow. I am entitled to possess it. Ownership is different from possession.
Page 35 of 42
. Possession here is separate from ownership. 2.
How is co-ownership extinguished? 1. extrajudicial partition.
Article 523. X successfully claims ownership of the land allotted to A. through the tenant. Jus possidendi or right TO possession – this is an incident of ownership. Why entire property to possession? Possessor may not be owner.b.
(a) Grammatical – mere holding without having any right (thief) (b) Juridical – possession with juridical title but not ownership (lessee.
Whose concept? Owner . began plowing it. and erected a barbed wire fence. The landlord was in actual possession through the tenant and stands to lose possession and even ownership. if De Luna is able to prove prior possession in himself. ISSUE: Whether possession may be exercised in another’s name.Your own and others. Supposing a tenant is ousted by a third person. Article 524 of the Civil Code provides: “Possession may be exercised in one’s own name or that of another. What are the kinds of possession in another’s name? (a) Voluntary – as when the agent possesses for the principal by virtue of agreement. In the concept of owner – one who.
Article 526. must act and claim to be owner. the ownership pertaining to another person. the court felt the need to look into the issue of ownership. (b) Necessary – as when a mother possesses for a child still in her womb.
Page 36 of 42
. whether in good or bad faith. or in that of the holder of the thing or right to keep or enjoy it.
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. He further claims that Dequiña leased the property to him. and acts as if he is the owner. possession may be exercised in another’s name. can the OWNER of the property bring an action for forcible entry? Yes. owned the property. 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. What is the importance of this classification? If in concept of holder. In the concept of holder – one who recognizes another to be the owner. HELD: Yes.
Article 525. Possession may be exercised in another’s name.The lessee is in actual possession in the concept of holder. alleging that the latter entered his land. (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). De Luna also proved through a neighbor’s testimony that Dequiña’s father delivered the property to him and his mother. However. and not De Luna. Article 524 of the Civil Code provides: “Possession may be exercised in one’s own name or that of another. since Dimaano alleged that Dequiña. The possession of things or
rights may be had in one of two concepts: either in the concept of owner. the possessor may get the property through acquisitive prescription. What are the two concepts of possession? 1.
2. Paying taxes. If in the concept of owner. Now. CA De Luna filed a case of forcible entry against Dimaano. the owner benefits from your possession. getting boarders. Dimmano raised the defense the De Luna was not the owner of the property and that the property was actually owned by Dequiña. 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. claims to be. then he may recover possession from Dimaano.” 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. 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.” De Luna v.
Carreon v. 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. The land was later sold to Agcaoili and a certificate/s of title was issued in his name. Pending this application. Buys the property from the widow of a deceased person. In this case. Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith. Is bad faith transmissible to successors in interest? Not necessarily. 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. These 3/7/2004
Page 37 of 42
. and upon him who alleges bad faith on the part of the possessor rests the burden of proof. ISSUE: Whether Agcaoili was in bad faith. The person here is not an owner – there is a flaw or defect. Ramos discovered that there were people occupying his Isabela land. HELD: Agcaoili was in good faith. What is the importance of distinguishing gf and bf? Prescription Indemnity Buyer buys title thinking the vendor is the person on the title GF. Though he was a townmate of the Carreon’s.
Good faith is always presumed and bad faith must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Ramos filed a Homestead application for land in Nueva Ecija. Good faith is always
presumed. L-42856. Ramos filed another application over this land. A child or heir may be presumed to be in good faith notwithstanding the father’s bad faith. 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. The articles on bad faith must be reconciled with the doctrine of indefeasibility of a Torrens title. he filed a complaint for the recovery of possession against them and won. What is the reason for presuming good faith? Presumption of innocence. CA. at least. 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. Agcaoili Carreon claimed that property inherited from her husband was hers along. Ramos went to Isabela and found a piece of land covered by a Homestead application by Lopez but clearly abandoned by the latter. Republic v. he cannot be expected to know that his vendor had children. make some inquiry concerning the rights of those in possession. 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. Can a person in possession of a valid Torrens title be in bad faith? No. Besides. Good faith is always presumed and bad faith must be established by clear and convincing evidence. 102 SCRA 331. Subsequently.
One who purchases real property which is in the actual possession of others should.He is deemed a possessor in bad faith who possesses in any case contrary to the foregoing. a corresponding certificate/s of title was issued. Both Ramos’s applications were granted and he obtained a loan from PNB with the Isabela land as REM. you have to look beyond the title. there was no showing of bad faith on Agcaoili’s part. everyone should be presumed honest until proven otherwise.
HELD: PNB was in bad faith. if the person does not investigate and he is later defeated. Munar had a right to occupy the property. ISSUE: Whether Rodriguez was a possessor in good faith entitling him to indemnity for the improvements constructed.
There is presumptive knowledge of the existence of a Torrens Title. 2. One who purchases/accepts for REM real property which is in the actual possession of others should. Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law. since Ramos’s title over the land is valid. However. He is entitled to indemnity. ISSUE: Aside from the many Public Land Act issues. can be the basis of good faith. 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. The heirs of Ambrosia seek to recover the property from Rodriguez.
Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law. PNB cannot be considered as a good faith mortgagor as against such possessors. the improvements on the property in dispute to Rodriguez. Receipt of a letter demanding vacation of the property.M. which was issued more than 20 years before. Because of her failure to pay interests when due. It is presumed that
possession continues to be enjoyed in the same character in which it was acquired until the contrary is proved. 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. provided such ignorance is not gross and inexcusable. However. Examples of when bad faith begins: 1.people sent a petition to the SANR and alleged the nullity of Ramos’s second Homestead application. Rodriguez Ambrosia. Rodriguez is not a lawyer and is not expected to know the various intricacies of a contract of antichresis. make some inquiry concerning the rights of those in possession.
Article 529. brought an action for ejectment against Munar. the land was acquired by Ambrosia as a homestead and could not be subject to a real encumbrance.
Article 528. desiring to apply for patents on the same land. In the absence of such an inquiry. 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. mortgaged. the REM is valid as between Ramos and PNB. the mother of the plaintiffs herein. at least. was void due to fraud and that pursuant to a compromise agreement between Tuason and Deudor (Munar’s predecessor in interest). Receipt of judicial summons. Tuason. HELD: Rodriguez is in good faith. Kasilag v. Tuason v. can be the basis of good faith. Munar J. HELD: Munar is barred from assailing the title 20 years after its registration. in a public document. in accepting the REM of the Isabela property was in bad faith. He is in bad faith because there is presumptive knowledge of the issuance of the certificate/s of title to Tuason. the owner of a subdivision.M. provided such ignorance is not gross and inexcusable. whether PNB. J. Munar claims possession in good faith and raises the defense that Tuason’s certificate/s of title. Munar instead chose to ignore the certificate/s of title and relied on his predecessor’s claim of ownership. What are the presumptions regarding possession?
Page 38 of 42
. as a contract of antichresis is.
by his agent.(a) Good faith is presumed. (b) Through an authorized person. unless a portion thereof is adversely possessed by another. It can be acquired through occupation. donation. If an entire parcel is possessed under claim of ownership. (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. Possession is acquired by the
material occupation of a thing or the exercise of a right. Can land adversely occupied by one be contstructively possessed by another? No. now possesses as owner)
b. court order)
Page 39 of 42
. (g) Possession of movable with real property. (f) Possession during intervening period. execution of public instruments. What is res nullius and can it be possessed? It is abandoned or ownerless property. (b) animus – intent to possess (express/implied). How is possession acquired from the viewpoint of who possesses and what are the essential requisites for each? (a) Personal. or by any person without any power whatever. (c) Non-interruption of possession. How is possession acquired? (a) Material occupation or detention a. which presupposes prior ownership in another. Constitutom possesorium (possessed as owner. the possession shall not be considered as acquired until the person in whose name the act of possession was executed has ratified the same. there is constructive possession of the entire parcel.
Article 531. Tradition longa manu (delivery by consent)
(d) Constructive possession or proper acts and legal formalities – succession. or by the fact that it is subject to the action of our will. now juridical possession) Tradition brevi manu (juridical possession. without prejudice to the consequences of negotiorum gestio in a proper case. (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). (h) Exclusive possession of common property.
What are the essential requirements for possession? (a) corpus – the thing physically detained.
Article 532. Only things and rights which
are susceptible of being appropriated may be the object of possession. It may be possessed but it cannot be acquired through prescription. (d) Presumption of just title. (b) Continuity of character of possession. Possession may be acquired
by the same person who is to enjoy it.
Article 530. (e) Non-interruption of possession of property unjustly lost but legally recovered. by his legal representative. or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right.
(b) Exercise of a right (c) Subjection to our will – by mere agreement or the delivery of keys a. (a) Intent to possess (b) Capacity to possess (c) Object must be capable of possession. but in the last case.
consequences of the wrongful possession of the decedent. or by violence. no. If the heir refuses or is incapacitated to inherit – he is deemed never to have possessed. One who validly renounces an inheritance is deemed never to have possessed the same. When does the heir acquire possession of the inherited property? 1. the possession of the deceased is tacked to the possession of the heir. Who may institute an action for forcible entry against an intruder? Either the son or the administrator. If the heir accepts – from the moment of death. The possession of hereditary
property is deemed transmitted to the heir without interruption an from the moment of the death of the decedent. must invoke the aid of the competent court.
2. secret possession. if the holder should refuse to deliver the thing. succession. but in a case of court action regarding ownership of the pen. do not affect possession. One who succeeds by
hereditary title shall not suffer the
Page 40 of 42
. How much does X get? X gets ½ of the property. Importance is for acquisitive prescription. yes. Acts merely tolerated. a parcel of land. Example: A minor may acquire the possession of a fountain pen donated to him. This is because B is deemed never to have inherited. B. 1-30? The son is in actual possession in the concept of owner through the admininstrator. and C inherited. if it is not shown that he was aware of the flaws affecting it. Force or Intimidation. Can good faith be tacked onto bad faith? J. He who believes that he has an action or a right to deprive another of the holding of a thing.
Problem: Father dies on January 1. Reason for the rule? Practicality – candy example. and
those executed clandestinely and without the knowledge of the possessor of a thing. in equal parts.Article 533. b. in the meantime. prescription. Day 2: B repudiated his inheritance. What happens if the son enters the property before acceptance? The administrator may file a complaint for forcible entry against him. Minors and incapacitated
person may acquire the possession of things.H. or donation. this was really A’s share upon the death of the father.
c. Day 1: A sold his share to X. 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. Problem: A.
Article 534. but they need the assistance of their legal representatives in order to exercise the rights which from the possession arise in their favor. What are the modes through which possession may not be acquired? a. since there is no interruption. JPSP. but the effects of possession in good faith shall not benefit him except upon the death of the decedent. Clandestine. his legal representatives must intervene. Who is in possession of the property from Jan. Tolerance – possession is with the consent of the owner and redounds to his benefit. in case the inheritance is accepted. who possessed it in the concept of holder. Day 3: Partition is made. In no case may possession
be acquired through force or intimidation as long as there is a possessor who objects thereto. an administrator manages and is in possession of the property.
Article 537. son accepts on January 30.
Wong v. the one who presents a title. the present possessor shall be preferred. (b) The legal possessor. if the dates of the possession are the same. He did not put up any signs.
Execution of the deed of sale in a public document is equivalent to delivery of possession of the property. The exceptions are: cmt
(b) immovable property a. the one who presents a title. (b) If both are present. if there are two possessors. preference to he who first possessed in good faith
(c) The intruder cannot acquire the property by prescription. Mercado was issued a certificate/s of title. Mercado visited the property periodically. the thing shall be placed in judicial deposit pending determination by the court. c.
(a) co-possessors – there is no conflict of interest. they are co-owners. Carpio Giger sold the property to Mercado by virtue of a deed of sale with right to repurchase. or anything to indicate actual possession. one in the concept of owner and the other in the concept of holder.
Page 41 of 42
. Should a question arise regarding the fact of possession. 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. provided it was acquired in good faith
b. the person who presents to oldest title. What are the rules or criteria to be used in case of conflict or dispute regarding possession? (a) The present possessor shall be preferred. and made copra. property may be physically possessed by more than one but not legally possessed. (d) If all conditions are equal. What are the rules in case of double sale or double donation? In this case. Caretaker on your land with understanding that he will leave when you need the land – tolerance. Compare to rule on double sale.
c. structures. harvested coconuts. is still the possessor and is: a. Does this mean that property can be possessed by only one? No. Possession as a fact cannot
be recognized at the same time in two different personalities except in the case of co-possession. preference of ownership (not possession) is determined: (a) movable property a. the one longer in possession.What does it mean that the “acts…do not affect possession?” (a) The intruder does not acquire any right to possession. first who registered his right in good faith in the registry of property if there was no registration. even if ousted. the person who first possessed in good faith if there was no possession. (c) If the dates of possession are the same. Entitled to the fruits. the thing shall be placed in judicial deposit appending determination of its possession or ownership through proper proceedings.
Article 538. the one longer in possession. (b) possession in different concepts or degrees – both owner and tenant are possessors as a fact at the same time. and if all these conditions are equal. Entitled as possessor for all purposes favorable to his possession. b. You wake up in the morning and there is squatter in your yard – clandestine. Entitled to the benefits of prescription.
CA Salang filed an action for recovery of possession against Bishop. It was necessary to determine ownership in order to resolve the case for recovery of possession. the application was granted and title was issued. The act of entering the property and excluding the rightful possessor therefrom implies the exertion of force. in this case.
Page 42 of 42
. It seems that. Giger. HELD: Catchuela has no cause of action. or by the fact that it is subject to the action of our will. Mercado had possession. Applying the aforementioned doctrines. even the gathering of coconuts (enjoyment of a right to the fruits) constitutes possession. is better than Bishop’s. She never acquired a right over the lot in question. invoking their rights as registered owners of the land. de Catchuela v. Bishop v. unless there is a stipulation to the contrary. He then sold the property to Francisco. strategy. in relation to Article 531. Wong must remove himself from the property. the execution of a sale through a public instrument is equivalent to the delivery of the thing. ISSUE: Whether Salang claim on the land. Bishop raised the defense that the land was part of the public domain and could not have been registered. intimidation. Since prior possession of Mercado was proved. Obiters: The SC also said that entry into the property by force. She has no right to seek its reconveyance or continue in its possession. CA Diaz applied for the lot in question with the PHHC. Wong must pay rent from the time he learned of a defect in his title. the rightful owner. Catchuela had been occupying said property for several years when Francisco filed an action for ejectment.
An 82 year old title is incontrovertible and conclusive against the whole world. ISSUE: Whether Catchuela has a cause of action in the case for cancellation of title and reconveyance of property. A few months after the sale to Wong. Despite his initial elation. private respondent herein. as a cause of action in forcible entry covers all of the ways by which one can wrongfully enter a property. Salang’s title to the land is based on an OCT which was issued 82 years ago. Article 531 of the Civil Code provides that “possession is acquired by the material occupation of a thing or the exercise of a right. HELD: Salang has a better right. or stealth. Mercado later filed a complaint for forcible entry against Wong. Mercado learned that the former’s laborers built a hut were occupying the land. she is a mere squatter with the tolerance of Francisco. Catchuela filed an action for cancellation of title and reconveyance of property Francisco raised the defense that Cathcuela has no cause of action. or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right. Mercado was pleased. based on a certificate/s of title. It is now incontrovertible and conclusive against the whole world. from the time of service of summons.
Vda. the execution of the deed of sale in a public document (it was notarized) was equivalent to delivery of possession of the property. 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. ISSUE: Whether Mercado had possession of the property.” Also.Several years after the sale. he then bought it from Giger and was issued a certificate/s of title. HELD: Yes. Wong went to the land and saw that it was unoccupied.