This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
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
Asingan. The property is of public dominion and intended for public service under Article 420 of the Civil Code. When a new set of officials took over. Laurel v. There is no reimbursement if lessee derived substantial benefit from the use of said property. the municipality never having had authority to exclude it from public use and lease it out. 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. 421. 422. (340a) Art. Being so. ISSUE: Whether the property is public or patrimonial. Respondents claim that the property is governed not by the Civil Code but by Japanese law and assuming that the CC were applicable. HELD: The canals are private. it was given with the understanding that it would be used for the government sector. cmt Page 5 of 42 3/7/2004 . Conversion of a property’s character from public to patrimonial requires a formal declaration of abandonment of the public character. with the implied consent of the latter. and built buildings of light materials – rent was paid. Article 420 states that canals constructed by the State are of public ownership. their destruction may not be ordered. Art. which is not of the character stated in the preceding article. Contrary to respondents’ claim. there could be no sale as there is no law authorizing the same. of Asingan Petitioner occupied a parcel of land owned by the municipality. *The book says that Rojas received no benefit but the facts show that occupation was enjoyed and a house was built. shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State. The property in question was given with the intention of its being the site of the Philippine Embassy. The defendant must return the land and the municipality must reimburse rentals paid. 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. Sanchez v. canals constructed by private persons within private lands are of private ownership. conversion of a property’s character from public to patrimonial requires a formal declaration of abandonment of the public character. corresponding contract of procurement which bind both the Philippine government and the Japanese government. Mun. Compare to Sanchez v. 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. All other property of the State. Municipality of Cavite v. conversely. The provincial fiscal later filed a complaint alleging that the property leased was of public character and therefore the contract was null and void. it cannot be alienated.ISSUE: whether the canals are of public dominion or private ownership. Property belonging to the public domain is outside the commerce of man and cannot be the object of any contract. Property of public dominion. *Even if the property were patrimonial. is patrimonial property. HELD: The property is public – its ownership is collective and resides in the sovereign people. Rojas The municipal council of Cavite withdrew from public use and leased to Rojas a portion of the town plaza. when no longer intended for public use or for public service. (341a) Public plazas and streets are of public character and may not be leased out by the municipality. HELD: The contract of lease is ultra vires and null and void. It is outside the commerce of man.
Part of the proceeds of this loan was used to fund the construction of the City’s sewage system. Property for public use. There is to be no reimbursement. Property of a political subdivision is public only if it is devoted to public use. City of Cebu v. purchased with private funds and not devoted to public use (it is for profit). or municipalities. promenades. hospitals. public. The properties were the capital site. promenades. Province of Zamboanga v. What if a courthouse is constructed with municipal funds? clarify City constructs public market Cemetery public use patrimonial Under the Law of Municipal Corporations. Art. If paid for by the political subdivision. 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 was not for public use not was it for public service. citing the Rojas case. patrimonial. that the property is one for public use and under the control of the legislature. cities. NAWASA sought to expropriate the sewage system. fountains. It is therefore patrimonial under the Civil Code. and schools. municipal streets. ISSUE: Whether the land is public or patrimonial. INSERT REPUBLIC V. the squares. ISSUE: Whether the property is patrimonial property of the city or property for public use. prayed for reimbursement. This was opposed with the arguments that there was no payment of just compensation. NAWASA The City of Cebu obtained a loan which was to be paid with its own funds. 423. It is property of the city. National wealth – still property for public use under the regalian doctrine. etc. it is enough that the property be devoted for governmental purposes for it to be classified as public. without prejudice to the provisions of special laws. it must be of the same character as the preceding items. HELD: The land is patrimonial property of the municipality. Assuming that the property is public. consist of the provincial roads. and public works for public service paid for by said provinces. public waters. there can still be no reimbursement as petitioner derived substantial benefit from the use of said property. cities. as an alternative course of action. playgrounds. The implied lease agreement is therefore valid and may be terminated upon notice. 424. CA HERE 5. Art. cmt Page 6 of 42 3/7/2004 . HELD: The property is patrimonial and not subject to legislative control. and municipalities. if for profit. The property of provinces. in the provinces. city streets. cities. NAWASA averred. All other property possessed by any of them is patrimonial and shall be governed by this Code. fountains. 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. Unlike the Rojas case. Examples of property for public use being streets. Nor can the system be considered “public works for public service” under Article 424 because such classification is qualified by ejusdem generis. NAWASA offered unliquidated assets and liabilities.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. and municipalities is divided into property for public use and patrimonial property. the land here is not of public character.
HELD: The land belongs to the municipality as shown by several town resolutions signed by Roa himself. The market. Although the property is now patrimonial and susceptible of ownership. -- cmt Page 7 of 42 3/7/2004 . Also the LMC is a special law. Municipal Council of Iloilo Iloilo was sentenced to pay Tan Toco compensation for properties taken from her and used for street-widening. If the province owns the properties in it public and governmental capacity. police cars. The town may sell the land to Roa or Roa may sell the improvements to Roa. Public properties are exempt from execution because of their necessity for governmental functions. Since both parties are in bad faith (Roa’s construction despite knowledge. a property is public if it is for the free and indiscriminate use of everyone. applying the CC. Civil Code or Law of Municipal Corporations? Under the CC. Roa claims he is the owner of the property. The character of the property depends on the use to which it is devoted. it is sufficient that the property be devoted to governmental purposes. How do we resolve what determines character? Salas v. consequences are dire (acquisition through adverse possession).ISSUE: Whether Congress can transfer the properties to the City without compensating the province. 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. they shall be treated as though they are both in good faith. the properties are public and subject to the absolute control of Congress. Under municipal law. He had erected a substantial building on the property without opposition from the municipality. and markets. The LMC provides that a property is public if it is devoted to public use. Municipality of Oas v. Viuda de Tan Toco v. It is patrimonial because the town had long since ceased using it as a plaza and had started using it as storage space. Because Iloilo had no money. The problem is which applies. the properties are not for public use but merely for public service. HELD: Yes. If the CC classification is used. tolerance by the municipality). the property is public and Congress has absolute control over it. Roa has failed to show any of the modes of acquiring ownership. However. though not purely public is also exempt because it would allow a third party to the franchise agreement to assume control without the approval of the administration. A town plaza loses its public character when the town ceases using it as such and subjects it to patrimonial use. Tan Toco caused a writ of execution to be issued against municipal property: street sprinkling trucks. police stations. Iloilo’s defense is that the properties are public and exempt from execution. In this case. The vehicles and the police station all serve governmental functions. Roa The Municipality of Oas sought to recover land from Roa claiming it was part of the town’s public square. The buildings on the lots are also public because accessory follows the principal. HELD: The properties are public and exempt from execution. The CC itself provides that its provisions apply without prejudice to special laws. Municipal law applies because the controversy is more municipal than civil and the properties are needed for the performance of governmental functions.
from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. Naked ownership plus usufruct equals full ownership. i." or "movable things or property. 428. a. besides the patrimonial property of the State. b. 425. ii. A. (d) Co-ownership (or Tenancy in Common) – when the ownership is vested in two or more owners. (346a) II. or Abuse Right To Encumber Or Alienate 3/7/2004 cmt . it shall not be deemed to include money. b. and recovery. Ownership may be exercised over things or rights. commercial securities. Page 8 of 42 c. enjoyment. 2. Independent – stands by itself and gives you the right to control the property General . scientific or artistic collections. jewelry. 2. Whenever the word "muebles. Right to Use The right to exclude any person. It means that the thing or right is subject to control of my will. Right to the Fruits i. or the individual declaration. Right to Possess i. disposition.Art. Art. books. Art. credits. arms. Reasonable force may be used to prevent or repel physical invasion. (c) Sole ownership – where the ownership is vested in only one person. as a rule. Right to Enjoy a. What Right to Dispose Right to Consume." is used alone. (b) Naked ownership – this is ownership where the right to use and the fruits has been denied. and municipalities. without other limitations than those established by law. except where from the context of the law. enjoyment. Whenever by provision of the law. Ownership (def. Naked ownership equals full ownership minus usufruct. grains. Usufruct equals full ownership minus naked ownership. subject to no restrictions except those imposed by the state or private persons. liquids and merchandise. the things enumerated in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2. 427. 426.) – Ownership is the independent and general right of a person to control a thing particularly in his possession. medals. Property of private ownership. Destroy." is used. (345a) i. The right to hold a thing or to enjoy a right. no force. the contrary clearly appears. disposition.possession. Ownership iii. the expression "immovable things or property. consists of all property belonging to private persons. The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing. stocks and bonds. respectively. either individually or collectively. it shall be deemed to include. and recovery Kinds of Ownership (not discussed) (a) Full ownership – this includes all the rights of an owner." or "furniture. 1. The rights of an owner: 1. The owner has also a right of action against the holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover it. or an individual declaration. But to recover. but legal means must be used. cities. or other things which do not have as their principal object the furnishing or ornamenting of a building. provinces. clothing. Art. without prejudice to the provisions of the law. In General 6. horses or carriages and their accessories.
the period should be counted from discovery. WHAT? This is a summary action to recover physical possession of real property when a person originally in possession was deprived thereof by FISTS (force. intimidation.3. ii. WHEN? This must be brought within 10/30 years depending on whether the other party seeks to obtain ownership through ordinary/extraordinary prescription. cmt Page 9 of 42 3/7/2004 . iii. Accion Reivindicatoria i. 2. b. iii. Art. Every owner may enclose or fence his land or tenements by means of walls. d. Recovery of Real Property a. but in case of strategy or stealth. vendor. or by any other means without detriment to servitudes constituted thereon. ISSUE? The issue involved is mere physical possession and not juridical possession nor ownership. For this purpose. ii. strategy) Possession is unlawful from the beginning. threats. FE possession is unlawful from the outset c. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. 430. ISSUE? The issue involved is mere physical possession and not juridical possession nor ownership. WHEN? Must be brought within one year from dispossession. **Difference between unlawful detainer and forcible entry: UD possession of other is initially lawful. 429. WHAT? This is the action for the recovery of the better right to possess. WHEN? Must be brought within ten years. Recovery of Personal Property a. or If the reason is nonpayment of rent. 1. one year from demand to vacate. de jure and not de facto possession is the issue here. Actions to Recover Property: 1. live or dead hedges. One year from expiration of lease. ii. Right to Recover iii. ISSUE? The issue involved is one of ownership. Possession is lawful form the beginning. iii. 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. Forcible Entry (MTC) i. WHAT? This is the action that must be brought when possession by a landlord. stealth. 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. Replevin 2. ditches. Art. Accion Publiciana (plenary action) i. ISSUE? The issue involved is who has a better right to posses. ii. Unlawful Detainer (MTC) i. WHEN? Must be brought within one year from the time the possession becomes unlawful. WHAT? This is an action to recover ownership over real property.
their father) have been in adverse possession of the property in issue for over thirty years. 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. They present tax receipts and CARP documents to support their claim. land will be sufficiently subdivided. Heirs of Vencilao v. The true owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of the property. 7. 433. if the interference is necessary to avert an imminent danger and the threatened damage. Best proof is a Torrens certificate. they could also claim ownership through extraordinary prescription by possessing the property in the concept of owner for thirty years. In this case. is much greater. once registered. HELD: The property belongs to Agerico/Charito. sold the property in issue to private respondent. 432.Art. an action for forcible entry was brought and the heirs of Miranda were ordered to vacate the land. Agerico has been in possession and cultivation since then. open. Requisites In An Action To Recover: 1. compared to the damage arising to the owner from the interference. (2) BAD FAITH 30 years in adverse possession. The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the interference of another with the same. The owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such manner as to injure the rights of a third person. ownership and other real rights over immovables is acquired through uninterrupted adverse possession for 30 years. The action of the heirs has been barred by prescription. acting as administrator of the estate. Art. 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). 431. In an action to recover. Art. Art. the son of Miranda. Ownership over real property is acquired by acquisitive prescription through adverse possession with title and in good faith for ten years. Agerico. Heirs of Miranda v. cmt Page 10 of 42 3/7/2004 . WHY? Burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue. the heirs of Miranda entered the property and prevented Agerico from cultivating it. Property must be identified a. 2. Tax receipts. The heirs filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of the title. The owner may demand from the person benefited indemnity for the damage to him. b. CA (skipped) In 1957. In 1991. It is a well settled rule that a title. a. Acquisitive prescription: (1) GOOD FAITH 10 years with just title and adverse possession. Actual possession under claim of ownership raises disputable presumption of ownership. Reliance on title of the plaintiff and not on the weakness of the defense’s claim. ISSUE: Whether the property belongs to Agerico/Charito or to the heirs of Miranda. The property was titled in the name of Agerico’s daughter. Without need of title or of good faith. and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim. and notorious possession. CA (skipped) The heirs of Vencilao claim that they (and prior to them. the property must be identified. cannot be defeated even by adverse. Is a technical description required or will a statement of boundaries suffice? If in a developed area. it is rebuttable. tax declarations are only prima facie evidence of ownership. 434. Charito.
for legal purposes. Finding in others’ property. the courts shall protect and. 2. and by chance. he shall not be entitled to any share of the treasure. It is a well settled rule that a title. complain of the reasonable requirements of aerial navigation. If there is nothing that indicates any irregularity. requisites: 1. the heirs of Vencilao are estopped from claiming ownership to the land due to their silence (1) when the property was mortgaged. Requisites: 1. * The owner of a parcel of land is the owner of its surface and of everything under it. the buyer has a right to rely on what appears on the face of the document. jewelry. Their lawful ownership does not appear. the State may acquire them at their just price. When any property is condemned or seized by competent authority in the interest of health. 3. Meaning of other precious objects: 1. Art. Hidden and unknown deposit (finding it must be a discovery. jewelry. On the other hand. once registered. Servitudes or easements. or of the State or any of its subdivisions. unless he can show that such condemnation or seizure is unjustified. Should this requirement be not first complied with. restore the owner in his possession. Consists of money. who owns the money? School. in this case. they are no longer innocent purchasers for value. 439. Special Laws (mining law). 2. If the things found be of interest to science or the arts. Art. Surface Right of a Land Owner is subject to: 1. How about money found in a book loaned from the library. any hidden and unknown deposit of money. or other precious objects. and notorious possession. without detriment to servitudes and subject to special laws and ordinances. Art. safety or security. cannot be defeated even by adverse. It must be by chance cmt Page 11 of 42 3/7/2004 . 435. or other property on which it is found.The Gepalagos (private respondents) claim ownership of the land based on the TCT. he in not expected to make further investigations or inquiries. in a proper case. They claim to have acquired the land in a public bidding following its foreclosure by PNB. 5. Restricted by ejusdem generis to mean objects of the same class as money and jewelry. when the discovery is made on the property of another. open. the lawful ownership of which does not appear. *(technical description) By Art. which shall be divided in conformity with the rule stated. If the finder is a trespasser. 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. The only exception is when an irregularity appears and the buyer chooses to ignore the same. reasonable requirements of aerial navigation. (2) foreclosed. the owner thereof shall not be entitled to compensation. 438. and (3) sold. 4. building. as is the case here. * Hidden treasure belongs to the owner of the land. 3. When the TCT is in the name of the seller when the land is sold. and he can construct thereon any works or make any plantations and excavations which he may deem proper. 436. 2. ordinances. No person shall be deprived of his property except by competent authority and for public use and always upon payment of just compensation. 437. Nevertheless. Art. or other precious objects. onehalf thereof shall be allowed to the finder. He cannot treasure is understood. 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).
b. What are the classifications of accession? A. 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. ii. (2)The industrial fruits. ii. or which is incorporated or attached thereto. either naturally or artificially.a. Adjunction or conjunction 1. Article 440. either naturally or artificially (accession continua). Finder must not be a trespasser. Accession by attachment or incorporation (continua) a. c. engrafment attachment weaving cmt Page 12 of 42 3/7/2004 . Natural fruits Industrial fruits Civil fruits mixture (confusion – liquids. The ownership of property gives the right by accession to everything which is produced thereby. Accession industrial 1. [SPS-YOPA. commixtion – solids) specification iii. the owner of the principal should own the attachment. pure and simple. Accession natural 1. 3. Industrial fruits are those produced by lands of any kind through cultivation or labor. 2. Accession to the fruits (discreta) a. 3. Real property i. 4. 5. RBPLLOP-PLAOSI] *When does the owner of the land NOT own the fruits? [PAUL] b. To the owner belongs: (1)The natural fruits. 4. and economic convenience (better to have one owner than two) B. 3. (3)The civil fruits. the price of leases of lands and other property and the amount of perpetual or life annuities or other similar income. What does by chance mean? SC/Paras – by chance means by good luck. b) As to incorporation and attachment. building planting sowing Article 441. 2. Civil fruits are the rents of building. 2. justice. because the one who owns the thing should own its fruits. Natural fruits are the spontaneous products of the soil. painting writing 2. [OPRAE-PIANA] *What is accession? It is the right of a property owner to everything which is: a) produced thereby (accession discreta). Personal property i. alluvium avulsion change of course of rivers formation of islands Article 442. or b) incorporated or attached thereto. and the young and other products of animals. PLAK-CL. Is accession a mode of acquiring ownership? No.
it is not similar income to the items in the preceding enumeration. Only such as are manifest or born are considered as natural or industrial fruits. b. mango and coconut trees) – deemed to exist only when they actually appear. They must be for production. Article 449 if he is in bad faith. Ledesma. Article 443. Perennial (only planted once and bear fruit for several seasons. the mortgage extends to the civil fruits of the property. In this case. To whom does this provision apply? Article 443 applies only to a planter/possessor in bad faith. *When can we say that the fruit is in existence? It depends on the type of fruit: a. the female is useless and her owner bears the expenses. the lessee owns the offspring. rice. the bonus is not based on the value of the land but rather on the amount of the outstanding obligation of Talisay. because the lease is onerous (if it were commodatum. Article 444. Civil fruits are the rents of the buildings. Annual (must be planted every year/must re-plant after harvest. leases of lands. *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 preservation. or preservation. laid a claim to the bonus received by the latter. PLANTING. c) Usufructuary (right to enjoy the fruits). compensation for the risk assumed by the owner. ISSUE: Whether the bonus is a civil fruit. or other similar sources of income. 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. the offspring would belong to the owner of the female). Bachrach Motor Co. where the creditor gets the fruits. They must be necessary. and not excessive. gathering. The common denominator. PNB claims that it owns the fruits. HELD: The bonus is not a civil fruit. because under Article 2127. They must be those normally required by the crop. corn) – deemed manifest the moment their seedlings appear. What are the kinds of expenses subject to reimbursement? a. is derivation of the income from the land itself. But if the female is leased. v. wheat. 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. Improvements are not included. To compensate Ledesma for the accommodation. Talisay-Silay Milling Company. He who receives the fruits is…? … the owner of the land.a) Possessor of the land receives the fruits in good faith. is the planter in bad faith still entitled to reimbursement? Only if the owner still requires delivery of the fruits. Bachrach. 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. Ledesma. he is entitled to the fruits already received. The rule is that if the planter is in good faith. and income from life annuities. Talisay obtained a loan from PNB with a REM provided by one of its planters. d) Lessee gets the natural and industrial fruits (owner gets civil fruits). On the other hand. thereby giving PNB a preferential right over it. which is absent in the bonus. as a creditor of Ledesma. b) Antichresis. Though it is possible to consider the bonus as income. SOWING. Talisay granted him a bonus whose value was computed as a percentage of the balance of the loan. It is clearly meant to be cmt b. Page 13 of 42 3/7/2004 . gathering.
Ex. Apply now the principle that civil fruits accrue daily. If B is in bad faith. If A is in bad faith. When both are in bad faith. Whatever is built. he shall also be obliged to the reparation of damages. c. A built house with B’s materials. and. b. Civil fruits accrue daily and are considered personal property and may be pro-rated. e. Both were in good faith. personally or through another. they will be treated as if they were in good faith. unless the contrary is proved. * What are the basic principles of accession continua (accession industrial)? a. constructions or works with the materials of another. if the landowner acted in bad faith. constructions or works being destroyed. f. All works.*When are animal young considered as existing? They are considered existing even if still in the maternal womb. That all works. they shall be treated as if they were in good faith. 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. What are the rights of the parties? Who calls the shots? B. B can remove the materials. However. or without the plantings. the property produces 1. If this cannot be done or if B doesn’t want to remove the materials. sown or cmt Page 14 of 42 3/7/2004 . sowing and planting are made by the owner. The owner of the land on which anything has been built. Article 446. b. belong to the owner of the land.000 If B owned the property from 1-5 and B owned the property from 16-30. the owner of the materials may remove them in any event. He who is in good faith may be held responsible but not penalized. House rented for 30. shall pay their value. how about natural fruits? a. are considered as real property. When is the builder/landowner in good faith/ bad faith? When he believed the materials were his own/knew the materials belonged to another. Article 448. If A is paid 30K at the beginning of the month. if he acted in bad faith. The owner of the land who makes thereon. 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. while still growing. regardless of damage caused or demand payment. A is entitled to 15K and B is entitled to 15K. b. What are the presumptions of Article 446? a. B is entitled to remove the materials provided no damage is caused. No one shall unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another. sowing. Natural and industrial fruits. it should be impossible to separate the principal and accessory without causing substantial damage. Every day. A may keep the materials.000/month. with damages in either case. If both are in bad faith. plantings. d. he should deliver half of that to B. Accessory follows the principal With certain exceptions. planted or sown on the land of another and the improvements or repairs made thereon. This is because civil fruits accrue DAILY. with a right to be reimbursed for damages. and planting are presumed made by the owner and at his expense. They should be considered existing only at the commencement of the maximum ordinary period for gestation. ordinarily. Article 447. *When are civil fruits deemed to exist. they cannot be pro-rated. subject to the provisions of the following articles. He who is in bad faith may be penalized. At his own expense. Ex. A may be compelled to pay for the materials. Article 445. There is no indemnity and A may seek for damages because the materials may be inferior in quality.
the choice is irrevocable. the proper rent. the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerable more than that of the building or trees. sowing or planting. What if the owner refuses to make a choice? There are no remedies except those provided by the law in Article 448. he may demolish the structure. shall have the right to appropriate as his own the works. He cannot compel removal of the improvement. In such case. However. Once the choice has been made. the landowner fails to pay? The builder has the right to occupy the building up to the date of payment. Those that augment the income of the thing upon which they cmt Page 15 of 42 3/7/2004 . However if the value of the land is not considerably more. and the one who sowed. and in case of disagreement. if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. 3. However. Those made for the preservation of the thing those without which the thing would deteriorate or be lost those incurred for cultivation. Luxurious expenses a. unless the value of the land is considerably more than the value of the building.planted in good faith. In this case. What if after choosing to appropriate the building. Necessary expenses a. What if the owner chooses to appropriate the building. what is his obligation? The landowner must now indemnify the builder for the value of the building. they can agree on terms of lease. production. d. 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. he shall pay reasonable rent. These are reimbursable only if the landowner decides to appropriate them. b. 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. the duty is monetary and the landowner’s properties may be levied to satisfy the debt. in case it is the option to purchase the improvement. b) He may compel the builder or planter to buy the land and the sower to pay rents. The landowner is not the owner of the property until indemnification is made. What are the indemnities to be given to the builder in good faith? 1. yes. are spent or add value to the property. If the landowner chooses to compel the builder to buy the land. Can the owner of the land choose to appropriate and then later change his mind? No. These are the only choices he has. the court shall fix the terms thereof. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement. 2. if he opts to sell the portion to the builder and the builder fails to pay. If this is the case. can the builder be obliged to purchase the land? Generally. or sown. and upkeep Repairs required by the wear and tear due to the natural use of the thing. the builder may be compelled. c. He has the right of retention until payment is made. What if the owner above allows the builder to remain but charges rentals for possession of the land? No rentals may be charged. or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land. Useful expenses a. planted. What are the rules on good faith in Article 448? Both must be in good faith. after payment of the indemnity provided in articles 546 and 548. the courts shall fix the same.
the builder is in good faith. When Pecson challenged the auction. Several years later. If the land is co-owned. the subsequent partition caused 448 to apply (Del Ocampo v. this can be accomplished by giving Pecson the present value of the building. whether Pecson should pay rent. he cannot be made to pay rents.If the builder is the son of the landowner and permission is granted. Article 448 applies. but only as to indemnity. It follows that if Pecson is allowed to retain possession of the thing. The lot was sold at public auction because of his failure to pay realty taxes. ISSUE: Whether the construction value of the building should be paid. HELD: The fair market value of the building should be paid. In this case. In computing the amount to be paid to a builder in good faith. HELD: 448 should apply. are now the owners of the lot. Abesia). They to not have a permanent character and were not attached to the soil with an idea of perpetuity. Alviola claims that the copra dryer and store are permanent structures (hollowblock walls and cement floor) and that 448 should apply. the FMV of the structure should be used. cmt Page 16 of 42 3/7/2004 . Alviola v. ISSUE: Whether 448 should apply. Nuguids. Even though the construction wasn’t on the land of another. in separate suit for recovery of possession. this was done in bad faith but with the tolerance of Tinagan. 53K. CA Alviola occupied Tinagan’s land and built a copra drier and put up a store where they engaged in copra trade. However. Since both parties were in bad faith. 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 objective of Article 546 is to administer justice between the parties. in this case. The right of retention enjoyed by the builder allows him to possess the property and its fruits until he is fully indemnified. Since the structures are merely temporary. he is also allowed to retain the income generated by the building and not pay rent. Pecson is entitled to the right of retention. the owners of the lot caused judgment to be rendered ordering Pecson to transfer the building for the original cost of construction. the dryer and store are temporary structures. and the land is partitioned. CA Pecson owned a commercial lot on which he built an apartment building. Article 546 also provides that a possessor in good faith. as Pecson is. The landowner is not compelled to choose between appropriating the property and selling the land. However. 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. 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. may retain the thing until he is reimbursed for it. the heirs of Tinagan filed a complaint for recovery of possession against Alviola. with part of one house encroaching on the other’s partition. the landowner does not have to choose between buying the structures and selling the property. he enjoys ownership until he is fully compensated. 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. Article 448 applies. Pecson v. Private respondents.
it was not a purchaser in good faith. 449. though Tecnogas purchased the property with improvements already constructed. ISSUE: Whether the Oretas have a better right over the property. The builder’s right of retention exists only when the landowner opts to purchase the property. 450. plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another. Tecnogas should continue paying rent until transfer of ownership. HELD: Yes. Before a deed of sale could be executed. planted or sown without right to indemnity. SOLID mortgaged the property to SIH. or he may compel the builder or planter to pay the price of the land. SIH. HELD: Yes. planted or sowed. Uy must choose between the two options in Article 448. Tecnogas v. planted or sown in bad faith may demand the demolition of the work. Art. if the choice is compulsory sale. The CA held that. He who builds. loses what is built. and the sower the proper rent. cmt Page 17 of 42 3/7/2004 . The exception: where there are facts that would induce a reasonably prudent man to make further inquiries. The rule: a purchaser need not go beyond the title. respectively. This negligence takes the place of registration of the rights of the Oretas. However. The owner of the land on which anything has been built. in good faith. ISSUE: Whether Article 448 can apply to this case considering the parties are co-owners. Del Ocampo v. Article 448 does not apply to co-owners. it had no authority to do so. registered mortgage). Tecnogas should pay rent on the land until the time Uy communicates his choice. Unless one is versed in the science of surveying. Article 448 now applies. the character of possession passes on to the current possessor. HELD: Article 448 cannot apply to coownership situations. knowing the trade of SOLID. no one can determine the precise extent or location of his property by merely examining his title. shall have the option to appropriate said structure upon payment of indemnity or sell the portion encroached upon to the other. it may be applied. Good faith is presumed and since there was no showing of bad faith on the part of the original builder. Article 448 provides that a property owner on whose property there has been built a structure by another. Oreta purchased a house and lot from SOLID. ISSUE: Whether Article 448 applies. 2/3 and 1/3. in order to replace things in their former condition at the expense of the person who built. of the property of Del Ocampo. the builder must pay rent until transfer of ownership. Though the rule is that a purchaser need not go beyond the four corners of the title. but when the property is partitioned and the circumstances covered by 448 are present. or that the planting or sowing be removed. If the choice is compulsory sale. of a deed of sale (unregistered sale v. despite the absence Art. the exception is where the purchases has knowledge of facts to induce a prudent man to inquire into the status of the property. it was foreclosed.Good faith is presumed. should have made sure there was no adverse claim on the property before accepting it as a mortgage. CA Sps. Abesia Del OCampo and Abeisa are co-owners of the subject property. it was in bad faith because an owner of a property is supposed to know its metes and bounds. good faith on the part of the builder passes on to his successor. because the property was partitioned. An action for partition was filed and the partition showed that the house of Abesia occupied 5 sqm. CA Tecnogas’s property encroached on Uy’s property. State Investment House v. SOLID no longer had ownership and free disposal when it mortgaged the property.
they are IMPROVEMENTS. and preservation). Article 449 applies only to standing crops. Angeles knew of the ongoing dispute between Idiris and Usman. Santos v. Usman. A builder/planter in bad faith is not entitled to reimbursement for improvements. Land taxes. though not technically necessary expenses. Mrs. Leonardo. While Article 449 applies. A may demand demolition of the house. 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. Subsequently. Datu Idiris filed a complaint for recovery of possession of the land. Lumungo v. They failed to pay and a writ of execution was issued ordering them to vacate the lot. provides that the planter in bad faith is entitled to reimbursement for necessary expenses for preservation of the land. A may compel B to buy the land.Art. Idiris was adjudged to be owner after which he sold the land to Lumungo. the landowner is entitled to damages from the builder. owned a house on the lot – this house was reconstructed into a bigger one after his Page 18 of 42 3/7/2004 . there was partial payment. on the other hand. compel Angeles to pay for the land. 3. because trees are not necessary expenses for the preservation of the land. A may get the house without paying indemnity. or order their demolition at the expense of Angeles. both parties expressed their cmt A successor-in-interest is bound by the judgment (and summons) against his predecessors. with knowledge of the same. which Usman did not contest. in bad faith. knew of the dispute over the land when he purchased the same. who was not a party to the suit. Angeles. Construction on the litigated land after such judgment/summons is construction in bad faith. In this case. not to gathered crops which are governed by Article 443 (the planter/sower is entitled to reimbursement for expenses in their gathering. planter or sower in bad faith is entitled to reimbursement for the necessary expenses of preservation of the land. 2. In the cases of the two preceding articles. Does Article 449 refer to both standing and gathered crops? No. are reimbursable. is a buyer in bad faith. who planted 3000 coconut trees. A IS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES IN EACH CASE. A buyer of land under litigation. Usman then sold the lots to Angeles. The builder. Lumungo may appropriate (for free) the trees. 451. Article 452 does not. at B’s expense. whether or not the value is considerably more than that of the house. Mojica The lot in question was partitioned and Santos’s parents were ordered to pay rents for the portion they were occupying. a house on A’s land (A being in good faith). HELD: Angeles is NOT entitled to reimbursement Article 449 provides that he who plants in bad faith on the land of another loses the right to indemnity. Article 452. Art. desire to resolve the contract but Datu Idiris never returned the money he received. with damages in either case. what are the alternative rights of A? 1. 452. Usman Datu Idiris sold the property in question to Mrs. the planter. planter or sower. 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. production. If B builds.
In a meeting. ordered the house demolished. Landowner a. (2) demand the destruction of the building at Bugatti’s expense. If there was bad faith. Art. There is bad faith on Bugatti’s part because he had no right to occupy the property. the house should be demolished. ISSUE: Whether Bugatti is a builder in good faith? HELD: No. Compel A to pay for the house + damages. 2. As such. They are also entitled to damages equivalent to rentals beginning from the time of occupation until eventual eviction. 453. the Baguilat’s have the option to: (1) take possession of the building without payment of indemnity. planted or sowed on the land of another. cmt Page 19 of 42 3/7/2004 . the spouses laid down their terms and conditions: the lease would be for 9 years at 500 per month. 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. CA Bugatti approached Sps. he is their successor in interest. Bugatti is a builder in BAD faith. Mojica. or (3) compel Bugatti to purchase the land whether or not its value considerably exceeds the value of the improvement. If B. planter or sower proceeded in good faith. What is the definition of bad faith? 1. much less construct a building thereupon. When building / planting / sowing is knowingly done on land belonging to another. 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. Art. Builder a. but also on the part of the owner of such land. he was bound by the judgment because his claim was under that of his parents. 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. Even before preparing the lease. they agreed provided that the contract would contain certain terms and conditions. It is obvious that the essential element of consent was absent. HELD: No. Though not a party to the suit in which his parents were ordered to vacate the lot. Bugatti v. When the act (building/planting/sowing) was done with his knowledge and without opposition on his part. builds on A’s land. Neither can Bugatti claim bad faith on the Baguilats b. or Remove or destroy the house + damages. 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. B may: 1. Bugatti occupied the property and began construction. The judge. the provisions of article 447 shall apply. A being in bad faith. any improvements he made are lost in favor of the landowners (3 options). 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. ISSUE: Whether Leonardo Santos is in good faith. 454. not only on the part of the person who built. 2. and a building not exceeding 40k would be constructed by Bugatti with the cost of the building offsetting the lease.parents were summoned in the above mentioned case. Santos is in BAD FAITH. Baguilat and inquired into the lease of their land. Articles 449-451 apply. part because they repeatedly gave him verbal and written orders to cease his construction. in good faith. thereby entitling him to the benefits of Article 448.
uses the materials of B. (d) The river must continue to exist. (b) In case A cannot pay for the materials. Art. X is NOT subsidiarily liable because B is in bad faith as to him. IF he makes use of the materials (appropriates the improvement). the latter may demand from the landowner the value of the materials and labor. Spanish Law of Waters applies. and gradually received as an effect 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.Art. plants or seeds has been paid by the builder. What is accretion? Accretion is the process whereby the soil is deposited. 4. Article 461 applies. The soil is alluvium. c. (c) Current must be that of a river (if lake. plants or seeds belong to a third person who has not acted in bad faith. In the cases regulated in the preceding articles. 456. if not. a. to build on X’s land. 457. a. 2. How many parties are involved in this provision? Three: 1. If the materials. (c) X is entitled to damages from A and B and may: cmt Page 20 of 42 3/7/2004 . What is the liability for negligence? The negligent party must pay for the damage done. What are the forms of accretion? 1. The builder. if sea. This provision shall not apply if the owner makes use of the right granted by article 450. b. Art. regardless of cost. deposit belongs to the state). 3. What is alluvium? Alluvium is the soil deposited or added to the lands adjoining the banks of rivers. 3. who is also in bad faith. A. planter or sower. 2. Compel A to purchase the land. which gives right to damages under article 2176. Not liable if he chooses to compel the builder to purchase the land (this is the right granted by Article 450). Subsidiarily liable for the cost of the materials. Appropriate the improvement. 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). A must reimburse B for the cost of the materials. Primarily liable for the cost of the materials. or Demolish the structure at A’s expense. (b) Cause is the current of the river and not artificial. If the owner of the materials. 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. a. 455. b. as far as rights between them are concerned. (e) The increase must be comparatively little and not such that would increase he area of the riparian land by 150%. c. in bad faith. the owner of the land shall answer subsidiarily for their value and only in the event that the one who made use of them has no property with which to pay. good faith does not necessarily exclude negligence. The owner of the materials. Must reimburse the builder who has paid for the materials IF he makes use of the materials (appropriates the improvement).
the accession being automatically his the moment the soil deposit can be seen.It is NOT necessary that: a. (b) To compensate him because the property is subject to encumbrances and legal easements. There are 3 requisites for accretion: (1) the deposit should be gradual and imperceptible. Under Article 502. The law of waters states that the natural bed of a river is the highest ground covered by its waters during the highest floods. the 821 is not adjacent to 307 but to the submerged portion claimed by Manalo. the land Manalo claims by accretion must be adjacent to Lot 307. Since the state needs said property for drainage purposes. it does not fall under 307/461. Being of public character. The Del Rosarios claim ownership over the dried up bed as riparian owners. opposed Pascual’s registration. Ronquillo had been occupying the lot since 1945 and Del Rosario in 1960. (3) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the riverbank. Heirs of Pascual Pascual sought to have land registered. Binalay claims ownership of Lot 821 by accretion. The land sought to be registered as accretion is at the tip of Pascual’s property. with an island formed in the middle. it cannot be the subject of a sale. the submerged portion is part of the river bed which. HELD: The dried up bed was artificially caused. under the Civil Code. Ronquillo claims the courts have no jurisdiction because the land is public and subject to the disposition of the Director of Lands. ISSUE: Whether Manalo owns Lot 821 by accretion to the perennially submerged portion. 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. as long as he has already the beneficial or equitable title. Manalo Binalay purchased two parcels of land which were later consolidated into one title. Lot 307. During the wet months. (c) The interests of agriculture require that the soil be given to the person who is in the best position to cultivate the same. who had a fishpond lease of the foreshore with the Bureau of Lands. cmt Page 21 of 42 3/7/2004 . is property of public domain. b. the perennially submerged portion causes the river to have two branches. it cannot come under private ownership. Binalay v. Hence. immediately after learning of the occupation. it is property of the public domain. Ronquillo v. 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. CA Estero Calubcub changed course due to dumping by the people living alongside it. the said portion was submerged and was not included in the consolidated title. HELD: Manalo does not own Lot 821. it may as well be given to the person who can best utilize it. Navarro. which he claimed the land was an accretion to his property. on the east by the Talisay River. However. (d) It cannot be said from whom the soil came. (2) that it be the result of the action of the river. the strip of land is denominated as Lots 821 and 822. IAC. This submerged potion belongs not to him but to the State. ISSUE: Whether the dried up bed is public or private land. The riparian owner should make an express act of possession. The riparian owner has completely paid for the value of the riparian estate. and on the north by Manila Bay. However. when the survey to consolidate the lands into 307 was conducted. Heirs of Navarro v. its sale is dependent on the Director of Lands. Pascual’s property is bounded on the west by the Bulacan River. ordered him to vacate the lot. Applying the rules.
NOT A LAGOON. cmt Page 22 of 42 3/7/2004 . THE LAND IS NOT PARTY OF LAGUNA DE BAY’S BED. Colegio had title to land up to the lakeshore. The State claims the land is part of the lakeshore and of the public domain. Bautista claims it by virtue of a free patent granted by the Director of Lands. larger than a puddle but smaller than a lake. There are 3 requisites for accretion: (1) the deposit should be gradual and imperceptible. HELD: The land is Colegio’s. 2 of the 3 requisites are were not met. Undeniably.During the pendency of the registration case. This in turn is considered as the level during the dry season. ISSUE: Whether the land is Pascual’s by accretion. The rationale if to provide some compensation to the owners because of it subjection to destructive forces and easements. and is not very deep. What then is its bed? The law of waters defines the bed as level of the water at the highest ordinary depth. 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. the land is property of the public domain. Definitions: POND – a body of stagnant water without an outlet. ARTICLE 367/458 DOES NOT APPLY BEC. The accretion was a result not of the flow of the rivers but of Manila Bay. ordinarily of fresh water. The land is immediately south of Ferrer’s property. 458. When the accretion was created. ISSUE: Whether the land is Ferrer’s by accretion or Bautista’s by virtue of a free patent. LDB IS A LAKE. and its bed is public. The owners of estates adjoining ponds or lagoons do not acquire the land left dry by the natural decrease of the waters. Gov’t v. they still belong to Colegio. Pascual filed a complaint for ejectment against Navarro. 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. ISSUE: Whether the is Colegio’s or the State’s. or lose that inundated by them in extraordinary floods. 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. fed by floods. Laguna is a lake. Art. brooks. However. THE LAW OF WATERS PROVIDES THAT LANDS ACCIDENTALLY INUNDATED BY LAKES. RIVERS SHALL CONTINUE TO REMAIN PROPERTY OF THE RESPECTIVE OWNERS. Ferrer v. the hollow bed of which is bounded by the elevations of the land. or like a body of water with a small outlet. LDB is not a lagoon or pond but a LAKE. its ownership passed automatically to Ferrer and the Director of Lands had no authority to grant a free patent over it. (3) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the riverbank. (2) that it be the result of the action of the river. or springs. HELD: No. This is clear from the fact that the accretion is at the northern tip of the property. In this case. HELD: The land is Ferrer’s by accretion. LAGOON – a small lake. which is defined as a body of water formed in depressions of the earth. adjacent to Manila Bay. Laguna de Bay is a lake. It is ordinarily of fresh water coming from rivers. Bautista Ferrer claims the land in dispute by virtue of accretion. Even if the land was formed by accretion. CREEKS. and connected to the sea by them. 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.
which is: 1. record. a big flood occurred. unenforceable. the owner of the land to which the segregated portion belonged retains the ownership of it. ineffective. The removal of a considerable quantity of earth upon or annexation to the land of another. Articles 459 and 463 apply to the situation. or unenforceable. actually invalid. ineffective. provided that he removes the same within two years. Remedial. the river gradually shifted from west to east. 2. Over 49 years. which reversion cut through Melad’s property.Art. He also claims that Faja’s right to question the validity of the title had prescribed. 2. void. by reason of any instrument. the process whereby the current of a river. Melad acquired by accretion the land which was gradually deposited on his property. causing the bed to river to revert to its original course. or barred by prescription. and Preventative. suddenly and by the perceptible action of the water. Melad cultivated the land uncovered on the eastern portion of the river until Agustin drove them out. d) and may be prejudicial to thte title. b) which is apparently valid or effective. Whenever the current of a river. creek or torrent segregates from an estate on its bank a know portion of land and deposits it on another. 463 provides that when the current of a river separates a portion of land from an estate. cutting into Melad’s land. an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet such title. This ownership was not lost by the reversion of the river to its original course. the owner retains possession. voidable. CA Frial claims that Faja had been illegally occupying his titled property for 30 years. Agustin v. Melad owned the property to the west. reducing Agustin’s property and increasing Melad’s. 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. ISSUE: Whether Agustin or Melad owns the property uncovered by the abrupt reversion of the river to its original course. the owner of the segregated portion retains ownership provided he removes the same within 2 years. Article 476. c) but is. 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. 3/7/2004 cmt Page 23 of 42 . Alluvium v. 459. IAC Agustin owned the property to the east of the Cagayan river. HELD: The land is Melad’s. extinguished. 459 provides that when land is segregated and transferred to another estate. Faja v. the prescriptive period within which to quiet title accrues only form the time the adverse claim is made known. An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being case upon title to real property or any interest therein. and may be prejudicial to said title. claim. encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid. more than 10 having passed since the issuance of the decree of registration. What kinds of actions are referred to in Article 476? 1. In her counterclaim. she prays that she be declared lawful owner of the property. Where the plaintiff is in possession of the land. This article refers to avulsion. creek or torrent segregates from an estate on its bank a known portion of land and transfers it to another estate. In 1968.
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). ISSUE: Whether the right of Faja to question/quiet title had already prescribed. J. Spouses Hadji Ali Mamadsual v. an action to quiet title to property in the possession of plaintiff is imprescriptible. the prescriptive period within which to quiet title accrues only form the time the adverse claim is made known. cmt Page 24 of 42 3/7/2004 . Where the plaintiff is in possession of the land. Cabrera claims that there is was an implied trust created when Orais acquired the property through fraud. Orais filed an action for reconveyance (quieting of title). Viuda de Cabrera v. ISSUE: Whether the right of Cabrera to recover on the implied trust had already prescribed. 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. Where the plaintiff is in possession of the land. 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. A deed of sale was signed by ony two of the children (Felicidad Teokemian did not sign). ISSUE: Whether the plaintiffs have legal or equitable title to the property. died. HELD: The action had not yet prescribed. Orais had the entire property surveyed and registered. When the trustee is in possession of the land sought to be reconveyed. leaving 3 children with a parcel of land. title to property does not necessarily mena the OCT. Orais claims that the action to recover on the implied trust had already prescribed. it can connote acquisitive prescription by possession in the concept of owner. CA Teokemian Sr. the prescriptive period within which to quiet title accrues only form the time the adverse claim is made known. which right can be claimed only by one who is in possession. HELD: Plaintiffs have legal and equitable title to the property. 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. this applies only when the trustee is not in possession of the property. more than ten years having elapsed. 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. Thirty years after the issuance of the title. later selling it to Cabrera.Summary judgment was rendered in favor of Frial. However. including the 1/3 share of Felicidad Tokemian. Plaintiffs have been in open and adverse possession of the property since time immemorial. the prescriptive period within which to quiet title accrues only form the time the adverse claim is made known. which right can be claimed only by one who is in possession. HELD: The action had not yet prescribed. Felicidad Teokemian remained in continuous possession of her 1/3 share. Where the plaintiff is in possession of the land. praying that the Cabreras be ordered to vacate the property. conveying the property to Orais. who likewise occupied the lot. 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. Legal title means registered ownership while equitable title means beneficial ownership. though an action for reconveyance of property based on a constructive trust prescribes ten years from the date of titling of the property.
It is settled that redemption of a co-owner inures to the benefit of all other coowners. this was opposed by the successors of the other co-owners. an action for partition does not prescribe. Several agreements were later executed as to the extent of ownership of each. the only possible action would have been forcible entry. claiming he was the only surviving heir. HELD: Yes. HELD: There was no physical partition. When Grace learned of the sale. Fanesa. encumbrance or proceeding. she became sole owner? No.Titong v. However. Some of the other heirs assigned their right to redeem in favor of Amparo. Mariano v. Titong has no right over the property. Titong. redeemed the property. Amparo. when Laurio entered the property and attempted to till it himself. there is no proof of partition. Donato’s daughter claims exclusive ownership by virtue of the 2 sales and prescription. who claimed that they had exclusive ownership of the properties which had already been partitioned. can it be said that when Fanesa redeemed the entire property from the State. CA Titong sold a portion of his land to Espinosa. there was only ideal partition as to the share of each co-owner. ISSUE: Whether an the island property had already been partitioned by virtue of the agreements entered into by the co-owners. she filed a complaint for recovery of possession and legal redemption with damages against Mariano. That the parties have been in possession of portions of the lot and have even acquired titles thereto. Donato caused the property to be registered in his name. an action for partition was brought by successors in interest of the original coowners. The property was levied by the government for tax delinquency and was redeemed by Fanesa. ISSUE: Whether Grace has a right to the property. Extraordinary prescription is likewise absent. The redemption by one co-owner of the entire property does not vest title over the same. CA Gosiengfao mortgaged the lot in question. CA Donato and his brother inherited property from their mother. Titong filed an action for quieting of title. Fanesa has a lien over the property and is entitled to reimbursement. In this case. none of the causes were present. Donato’s sale of the property to his daughter was inofficious as far as the other half belonging to his brother was concerned. Also. simple agreement is insufficient. whether Titong has a right to the property. HELD: An action for quieting of title was improper. possession being less than 30 years. ISSUE: Whether Fanesa is sole owner of the property. HELD: No. He later sold the property to his daughter. He cannot claim ordinary acquisitive prescription because he sold the property and yet altered the boundary line – obvious bad faith. Later. ISSUE: Whether an action for quieting of title was proper. Del Banco v. continued cultivating and tilling the land already sold and had been doing so for 20 years. Redemption is not a mode of terminating ownership. however. Partition requires a subdivision plain with respective titles issued to each. The heirs of his brother filed a complaint to partition the property plus damages. the latter then sold it to private respondent Laurio. others did not (Grace). IAC Brothers Pansacol purchased an island in Tayabas as co-owners. he died and then the mortgage was foreclosed. claim. Paulmitan v. record. The true issue is a boundary dispute. He left several heirs but only one. Amparo then sold the lot to Mariano. cmt Page 25 of 42 3/7/2004 . The Civil Code provides that such action is availing only when there is a cloud on title by reason of any instrument.
The boundary are the interior surfaces of the walls. 2. In this case. claiming Adille was only a trustee. revoked. no unit shall be transferred to non-Filipino citizens or corporations. such act is made known to the co-owners. Any transfer of a unit shall include the transfer of the undivided interest in the common areas or the membership in the corporation PROVIDED. 6. windows. has prescription set in? No. and (b) an undivided interest in common directly or indirectly. one Asejo continued to enjoy possession of a portion of the property. upon registration instrument executed by registered owners. The Asejos filed for partition with accounting. (a) a separate interest in a unit in a residential. the co-owners were kept in the dark regarding the titling in his name. ceilings. Moreover. 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. pacto de retro. Prescription shall begin from the moment that the Asejos learned of the fraud. which is subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 8. 3. or industrial building. where the common areas are held by the unit owners as co-owners. in addition. 4. The master deed shall contain the following: 1. a separate interest in other portions of such real property. It is settled that redemption of a co-owner inures to the benefit of all other coowners. the incidents of a condo grant are as follows: 1. 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. 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. Felisa sold the property. commercial. 5. 7. Twenty five years have passed since he had the land titled in his name. Sec. In fact. Sec.Adille v. 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. Master deed may be amended. HELD: Yes. if he is other than those executing the master deed The following plans: a. the evidence is clear and conclusive. Adille is then a trustee who acquired the property through fraud. co-owner repudiated co-ownership. (c) It may include. then died. and 3/7/2004 CONDOMINIUM ACT What is a condominium? It is an interest in real property consisting of: cmt Page 26 of 42 . 4. CA Felisa. 4. he has been in possession in concept of owner for the required period. Any reasonable restriction not contrary to law on the right of the condominium owner to dispose of his condominium. in the land on which it is located and other common areas of the building. Sec. 3. 6. Unless otherwise provided in the master deed. Prescription as a means of terminating coownership must be preceded by repudiation. floors. ISSUE: Whether the Asejos have a right to the property. except in cases of succession. Survey plan of the land Floor plan of the building 5. the original owner of the property had children by two marriages: Adille from the first and the Asejos from the second. an Asejo had all the while been occupying a portion of the property.
pledge. if there is no condo corp. 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. lien by corporation on units. ISSUE: Whether the CFI or the City Courts have jurisdiction over the claims filed by Sunset View. uninhabitable. 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. 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. If corporation – yes provided Filipino interest remains 60% or more. conduits. Easement shall pass as an appurtenance of the unit Unless otherwise provided. Existence of condominium corporation coterminous with the building. The CFI ordered Sunset View to ventilate its grievance with the SEC. etc. etc. which has exclusive original jurisdiction over controversies arising between shareholders of a corporation. no more cmt Page 27 of 42 3/7/2004 . 4. Campos Sunset View filed for the collection of assessments levied against private respondents herein. 7. 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. The Mater Deed determines when ownership of the unit and participation in the corporation vests in the purchaser. annotation because you are a stockholder of the corporation. Whenever you buy a unit. condo – subject to conditions provided by law: project destroyed. hence they are not shareholders and the SEC has no jurisdiction over the claims. Not every purchaser of a condominium unit is a shareholder in the corporation. 6. land is in name of corp. If you own condo unit where there is no condo corporation. Declaration of Restrictions must also be registered. heating. indirect – stockholder corporation owns What is a condominium corporation? Manages land. The private respondents are not members or shareholders in the condominium corporation. Sunset View Condominium Corp. Private respondents have not yet fully paid the purchase price. In this case. common areas and to hold indirect interest in the land and common areas. right to sell unless master deed requires offer to condominium owner. No pay of dues. 5. I fthere is a condo corp. the Master Deed provides that ownership is transferred only upon full payment of the purchase price. HELD: The City Court and the CFI have jurisdiction. 1 vote per unit. Not included are utilities. 3. The private respondents interposed the objection that the City Court and CFI have no jurisdiction. 2. the private respondents were holders of separate interests and consequently shareholders of the Sunset View.door. The CFI agreed and held that pursuant to the Condominium Act. you are given a title (condo cert of title) but no title to the land. The sale is annotated in the title to certificate/s of title. v. can you sell you unit to the foreigner? NO. the condominium corporation. *now.
in a condominium. Lease of real property if a.A. without the consent of the others. The HLURB and the OPLA ruled in favor of the respondents. Article 491. Or the lease is for more than one year (whether recorded or not) 2. donation or mortgage of part of the property with definite boundaries (the sale is valid but subject to the result of the subsequent partition). Sale. 6. Construction began but the contractor abandoned the project when it was only 60% completed. Furthermore. including parking spaces. None of the co-owners shall. and gives rise to a real right over the property owned in common.O. The construction of a house on a lot owned in common. the developer is mandated by law to deliver the certificate/s of title to the buyers. upon full payment of the purchase price. Or. or mortgage of the whole property (the transaction would be void only to the extent of the co-owner who did not consent). which may be material (changes nature) or metaphysical (changes use). *What is an alteration? (1) It is a CHANGE. (3)Only street parking is excluded from what should be given for free by the developer. Sale. donation. ISSUE: Whether the developer. A year after the abandonment by the contractor. if the withholding of the consent by one or more of the co-owners is clearly prejudicial to the common interest. CA NHA extended a loan to GOAL for the latter to construct a condominium. the courts may afford adequate relief. (2) to deliver private respondent Teng’s certificate/s of title. GOAL offered units for sale. v. the developer must redeem the mortgaged and deliver certificate/s of title to the buyer. In fact. Private respondents raise 3 complaints: (1) to stop the illegal continuation of the construction. can be compelled (1) to stop the illegal continuation of the construction. Any other act of strict dominion or ownership where any encumbrance or disposition was held implicitly to be an act of alteration. (4) And PREJUDICES the condition of the thing or its enjoyment by others. 7. b. (2)Upon full payment of the purchase price. (3) to provide adequate parking spaces. unit owners have an undivided interest over common areas and facilities. HELD: Yes. 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. (3) to provide adequate parking spaces. 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. Impliedly. even if the unit is mortgaged by the developer. (2) Which is more or less PERMANENT. What are examples of an alteration? 1. even though benefits for all would result therefrom.No alterations may be made without the written consent of the homeowners. the developer must provide parking. cmt Page 28 of 42 3/7/2004 . The lease is registered. make alterations in the thing owned in common. 4. PD 957 provides: (1)No developer can alter plans without the permission of the HLURB and the written conformity of the homeowners. G. (2) to deliver private respondent Teng’s certificate/s of title. 5. Free parking may be in the basement or on the first floor. despite a mortgage constituted by the developer. title must be transferred. 3. contracts of long duration. according to Manresa: It is an act of ownership. A voluntary easement. This is an amendment of the master deed. However. (3) And changes the USE of the thing. private respondents were purchasers who had fully paid for the units. GOAL.L.
2. the resolutions of the majority of the co-owners shall be binding. shall order such measures as it may deem proper. 3. To facilitate titling of the lots. (e) those for the common benefit of all the co-owners and not for only one or some of them. received from their parents property in Pasay. The CA ruled that since M sold 1052 and failed to give the heirs of A their share in the proceeds. the court. J and S sought to annul the sale. ISSUE: Whether the brothers have the right of redemption. and the remainder is owned in common. (c) those that have transitory effects. What are acts of administration of management? They are those: (a) that do not involve an alteration. The deeds of sale particularly described the portion conveyed to each son in metes and bounds. Fraudulently. it is evident that the deeds of sale to each son particularly identified the conveyed portion of the master lot. Damages were also awarded. J. or should the resolution of the majority be seriously prejudicial to those interested in the property owned in common. do not bind the co-ownership for a long time in the future. those. HELD: No. the certificate of title of the original lot remained intact. There is no co-ownership when the different portions owned by different people are already concretely determined and separately identifiable. and S. The co-owner responsible may lose what he has spent. (b) those that may be renewed from time to time. What are the effects of an illegal alteration? 1. the preceding provisions shall apply only to the part owned in common. M sold 1052 to a third person/s. Demolition can be compelled. Imperial v. all the co-owners will be entitled to a proportionate share of the rent. including the appointment of an administrator. Whenever a part of the thing belongs exclusively to one of the co-owners. CA The Armada siblings. (d) those that do not give rise to a real right over the thing owned in common.Note that implied consent by the others will not give the one making the alteration the right to seek reimbursement. However. In case a house is constructed on a common lot. which even if called an alteration. Article 492. 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. C. he is deemed to have waived his right to 1091. C later sold his share to Si. Article 484 provides that there is no coownership when the different portions owned by different people are already concretely determined and separately identifiable. The co-ownership has already been terminated. Benefits derived by the co-ownership belong to it. A executed a waiver of rights in favor of Mariano. claiming they had a right of redemption. Si v. do not affect the substance or nature of the thing. 4. that is. at the instance of an interested party. The SC affirmed the CA’s decision. He would be liable for losses and damages. Imperial effectively partitioned the property. another document was executed where Mariano acknowledged the simulated character of the waiver and Adela’s ½ share in the inheritance. Should there be no majority. How can we tell if the act is alteration or administration? cmt Page 29 of 42 3/7/2004 . 5. CA Mariano and Adela were siblings who inherited 2 lots (1052 and 1091) from their mother. In this case.
can one of them sell his share to a third person/s who will convert the same into a factory? No. after the share is sold. insofar as his share is concerned. c. 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. Abusive administrator is not replaced. The interest and privacy of the other would be jeopardized. No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. b. except when personal rights are involved. Article 494. (b) Appointment of a co-owner or a third person as administrator. If A. each owning a floor. (c) The minority may appeal to the court against the majority decision when: a. assign or mortgage it and even substitute another person in its enjoyment. an agreement to keep the thing undivided for a certain period of time. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto. “Personal right. if unregistered. If the vendee is already in possession. Article 493. d. not exceeding ten years. the vendor retains a real right over it. If. The sale is valid only insofar as his share is concerned. then he alone may participate.” as it is used in Article 493 should be understood to be NOT a technical term. 3/7/2004 iii. Neither shall there be any partition when it is prohibited by law. shall be valid. and he may therefore alienate. ii. can one of them sell his share to a stranger? No. What are the limitations on the right of the financial majority? (a) There must be NOTICE to the minority of resolutions. Can a co-owner’s share be attached even if there hasn’t been partition? Yes. The resolution is SERIOUSLY PREJUDICIAL to the rights of an individual co-owner. B and C are co-owners of a residence. Each coowner may demand at ANY TIME the partition of the thing owned in common. This term may be extended by a new agreement. shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership. An alteration is agreed upon. Nevertheless. the use of the building would change and the interests of the others would be jeopardized. with respect to the co-owners. e. In this case. both he and the vendee may participate. A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a period which shall not exceed twenty years. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage. however. Loans without sufficient security. (b) Only the urgency of the case and difficulty of meeting would justify proceeding without notice. Encumbrance or disposition is made (alteration). The majority refuses to correct abuse of administration or maladministration. If A and B own a common dwelling. There is no real majority. The minority is made victim of fraud. the vendor or the vendee? It depends. who participates in the partition. i. What is the effect of a co-owner’s sale of the entire property without authority of the others? cmt Page 30 of 42 . In case a co-owner sells his share.What are examples of acts of administration? (a) Lease of one year or less. *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.
One of the Tuason siblings decided that she wanted out of the co-ownership and filed a complaint for partition. the heirs of the excluded siblings brought suit against the heirs of Galileo for the partition or reconveyance of the property. if made unequivocally and with knowledge to the co-owners. Galileo caused the property to be registered in his name alone. When Galileo registered the property in his name. Tuason. Juanita. The lower court dismissed the complaint. and Vicente inherited a parcel of land from their brother. ISSUE: Whether the heirs of the excluded siblings have a right of action against the heirs of Galileo. The terms of the contract provided that the co-ownership should subsist until all of the subdivided lots have been sold. In 1968. if proved convincingly. 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. d. the action has already prescribed. In her appeal. cmt Page 31 of 42 3/7/2004 . (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). 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. both assented.). (e) if the legal nature of the common property does not allow partition (like party walls). Si v. 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. Tuason v. HELD: No. as long as the one possessing recognizes the co-ownership. GA then proposed to the remaining two the subdivision of the property and its sale to the public. this is deemed to be a repudiation sufficient to cause the running of prescription. Eulalio. However. registration is sufficient repudiation. (b) if partition is prohibited by a donor or testator (20 years max. Gregorio Araneta. Is registration of property in one’s name repudiation? Yes. prescription does not run against co-owners. One of the three Tuason siblings sold her share to GA.*When may a co-owner NOT successfully demand partition? (a) if by agreement. CA Siblings Galileo. An action to reconvey land based on an implied trust prescribes after 10 years – the action was brought 15 years after the registration. Requirements a.). What about administrator? (c) if partition is prohibited by law (CPG). b. This repudiation. What if heirs violate partition prohibition of testator? No one can bring an action to challenge partition. c. Repudiation with notice Must be in a clear and convincing manner Other requirements of prescription Period of prescription In 1953. A contract providing for the nondissolution of the co-ownership until the subdivided lots are sold is valid. partition is prohibited (10 years max. What if all donees agree to partition then donor challenges partition? The donation may be revoked due to a violation of a condition imposed by the donor. Generally. Inc. can cause prescription to run.
When Ladislao sued for reconveyance or partition. the coowners cannot demand a physical division of the thing owned in common. by agreeing to subdivide. brothers. son of Eliseo had been occupying the property even before the death of the testators. The claim of subsisting ownership must be refuted by the best evidence obtainable. the parties actually entered into an agreement for partition. b. real property personal property As to FORMS AND SOLEMNITIES: 1. 5. Eliseo set up the defense of the Combined Deed of Partition and acquisitive prescription. Q: What it the lots aren’t sold within ten years? Could there be an indirect violation of Article 494? No. this can be considered as being assented to by the latter since the cmt 2.prohibiting co-owners from being obliged to remain part of the community. Article 495. What must the court do if it finds that plaintiff has a right to demand partition? 3/7/2004 Page 32 of 42 . Eliseo failed to present the deed upon which his claim is based. parcels of land. 2. develop. What must a person seeking partition do? He must set forth in his complaint the (1) description of the real estate. the Rules of Court. inherited from their sister and father. But the co-ownership may be terminated in accordance with Article 498. 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. Partition may be made by agreement between the parties or by judicial proceedings. already 97. Santos v. Article 496. designed for the ultimate end of terminating the co-ownership. when to do so would render it unserviceable for the use for which it is intended. extrajudicial or conventional judicial Clear repudiation is required for prescription to run against co-owners. What are the classifications of partition? As to CAUSE: 1. 3. the (2) nature and extent of his title. there was no such repudiation. The issue more important is prescription: Did Eliseo acquire Ladislao’s share through prescription? No. and sell the property. As to PERMANENCE: 1. The contract is. The Civil Code Suppletorily. Santos Eliseo and Ladislao Santos. HELD: The contract is perfectly valid. 2. 4. provisional or temporary permanent As to SUBJECT MATTER: 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding article. At the time of the appeal. 2. 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. HELD: Yes. Partition shall be governed by the Rules of Court insofar as they are consistent with this Code. ISSUE: Whether Ladislao has a cause of action. 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. in fact. and he must (3) join all those with an interest in the property as defendants. In this case. Though Eliseo’s son remained on the property belonging to Ladislao. Prescription of an action to recover from an implied trust requires clear repudiation by the possessor of the object of the coownership. the co-ownership subsists.5% of the subdivision had been sold.
commanding them to allocate to the parties a part of the property as the court shall order. ISSUE: Whether the mortgage of the property was valid. a co-owner can dispose or encumber only his share of the co-ownership. his heirs executed an extrajudicial partition in a private document. Amparo. Where several properties were orally partitioned but one was inadvertently left out of the court order approving the partition. Amparo. Concepcion. and Salvador (or their successors) executed quitclaims confirming the existence of the oral partition. Angel. Maestrado v. Cruz v. it became hers alone. 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. An action for ejectment was filed. the certificate/s of title indicated Gertrudes as the absolute owner of the property. 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. However. having been acquired during the marriage of their parents. the father of petitioner herein. the mortgage was valid. CA Ramon Chavez died. A person dealing with registered land is not required to go beyond the certificate/s of title to determine the condition of the property. Angel. Cruz also argues that when Gertrudes redeemed the property after a previous mortgage. Josefa and Carmen filed an action for quieting of title. and Salvador (or their successors) requested for the partition of 5872 and the distribution of their respective shares. in a private or public document. this was secured by a REM on the subject property. Pada During Jacinto’s lifetime. lot 5872. the oral partition shall be given effect. 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. the conveyance to petitioner is invalid because those who made the conveyance were no longer owners of the property conveyed. Partition may be oral or written. in this case. she refused. Amparo. Josefa and Carmen received 4 lots. To set things straight. Since the partition was valid. A partition may be in a public or private document or even oral. the partition is valid. When Jacinto died. Cruz claims that the property is paraphernal. Concepcion. The parties may partition the property among themselves. he allowed his brother. Though as a rule. they became owners of one half of the property. cmt Page 33 of 42 3/7/2004 . ISSUE: Whether the extrajudicial partition in a private document is valid. Being so. CA. Petitioners. 5872 was not included in the court’s order approving the partition. and Salvador received lot 3046. Subsequently. to occupy a portion of his property. the certificate/s of title indicating that Gertrudes is a widow and the title is in her name.It shall order partition of the property. including the property in dispute. HELD: Yes. leaving several heirs. Angel. a third person may rely on the face of the title in his purchase of the said property. upon the death of their father. They asked petitioner to leave the property. She failed to pay and the property was foreclosed. Concepcion. Leis Getrudes Leis obtained a loan from Cruz. An oral partition was conducted and the same was approved by the court. Pada Kilario v. Her heirs now claim that the property was conjugal. HELD: Yes.
However. and Salvador (or their successors). Of course. who shall indemnify the others. Article 499. after the share is sold. Article 500. the vendor retains a real right over it. the vendor or the vendee? It depends. who participates in the partition. then he alone may participate. Where there has been fraud. Article 501. In case a co-owner sells his share. however. mortgage the same to X and then subsequently partition it. reciprocal warranty for: a. have a right to the property. 4. indemnity for damages caused by negligence or fraud. Angel. But they cannot impugn any partition already executed. 2. The property was ceded to petitioners upon the execution of the oral partition which they themselves confirmed in their quitclaims. be liable for defects of title and quality of the portion assigned to each of the co-owners. Amparo. except: 1. mutual accounting for benefits received. Concepcion. both he and the vendee may participate. sell the thing and distribute the proceeds. What objects are included in this article? cmt Page 34 of 42 . servitude. 2. after partition. 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. 2. Personal rights pertaining to third persons against the co-ownership shall also remain in force. Article 497. it shall be sold and its proceeds distributed. mutual reimbursement for expenses. who shall retain the rights of mortgage. 3. or any other real rights belonging to them before the division was made. Who are the creditors referred to in this article? All creditors who became so during the existence of the co-ownership. each co-owner shall pay for damages caused by reason of his negligence or fraud. B. Who are third person/s in this article? All those who did not participate in the partition. what happens to the mortgage? The mortgage would subsist over the 3 postpartition lots. as co-owners of a lot.ISSUE: Whether private respondents. If A. If. Is a mortgage sufficient security against fraud? Yes. Every co-owner shall. Likewise. Upon partition. and C. such as land. Where a formal opposition has been previously presented. defects of title 3/7/2004 Article 498. What is the procedure in the partition of an essentially indivisible object? 1. essentially divisible objects. Allot the thing to a co-owner. may also be covered if their division would be to the prejudice of the interests of the parties. such as automobiles. *May creditors or assignees impugn a partition already executed? Generally they may NOT. there shall be a mutual accounting for benefits received and reimbursements for expenses made. If the above is not agreed upon. essentially indivisible objects. notwithstanding the partition. without prejudice to the right of the debtor or assignor to maintain its validity. 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. *What are the effects of partition? 1. HELD: They have no right. If the vendee is already in possession. unless there has been fraud. or in case it was made notwithstanding a formal opposition presented to prevent it. The partition of a thing owned in common shall not prejudice third persons.
*What are the degrees of possession? cmt Article 524. If A and B partitioned land co-owned by them and later. Page 35 of 42 3/7/2004 . I am renting a house. Jus possesionis or right OF possession – this is a right independent of ownership. Why entire property to possession? Possessor may not be owner. I am entitled to possess it. (a) Grammatical – mere holding without having any right (thief) (b) Juridical – possession with juridical title but not ownership (lessee. POSSESSION Article 523. Ex. (b) There must be a deliberate intention to possess. What are the classes of possession? (a) In one’s own name or that of another (Article 524). There is a large tract of land. Are ownership and possession the same? No. through the tenant. extrajudicial partition. X successfully claims ownership of the land allotted to A. (c) The possession must be by virtue of one’s own right (real or dominium. What are the viewpoints of possession? 1. loss or destruction. expropriation. I am entitled to possess it. of which the owner actually occupies only a fraction and constructively occupies the rest. 5. the right to possess the same may be in the hands of another as a tenant or lessee. making it also a right. 3. what happens? A and B must both bear the loss. Is possession a fact or a right? Both. Ownership is different from possession. 6. Possession here is separate from ownership. (b) In the concept of owner and in the concept of holder(Article 525). detention or control of a thing or a right. prescription by stranger. certain consequences follow. Though one owns property. Who is in actual possession of a rented parcel of land? The lessor. depositary. is in actual possession in the concept of owner. B must give half of the land allotted to him to A. (c) In good or bad faith. but from the moment it exists. 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. 5. 2. judicial partition. Possession may be exercised in one’s own name or in that of another. Jus possidendi or right TO possession – this is an incident of ownership. actual or constructive. 2. not possession because of agency) What does actual or constructive holding or detention mean? Ex. 7. partition confers upon each the exclusive title over his respective share. It is essential in constructive possession that the property be not in the adverse possession of another. I own a house. It is a fact since it exists. prescription by co-owner. this is a state of mind (animus possidendi). 4.b. 6. 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. merger in one co-owner. Ex. How is co-ownership extinguished? 1. Possession is the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a right.
(b) Necessary – as when a mother possesses for a child still in her womb. Dimmano raised the defense the De Luna was not the owner of the property and that the property was actually owned by Dequiña. since Dimaano alleged that Dequiña. Paying taxes. Whose concept? Owner . Now. The possession of things or rights may be had in one of two concepts: either in the concept of owner. CA De Luna filed a case of forcible entry against Dimaano.” De Luna v. alleging that the latter entered his land. the court felt the need to look into the issue of ownership. What are the kinds of possession in another’s name? (a) Voluntary – as when the agent possesses for the principal by virtue of agreement. He further claims that Dequiña leased the property to him. In the concept of owner – one who. The landlord was in actual possession through the tenant and stands to lose possession and even ownership. Dimaano attempted to prove Dequiña’s ownership through tax declarations by the latter on the property but the court held that this alone was not sufficient to prove ownership. The court held that the prior possession of De Luna beats the flimsy claim of Dimaano without prejudice to the subsequent determination of true ownership in an appropriate proceeding. (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). What are the two concepts of possession? 1. the possessor may get the property through acquisitive prescription. getting boarders. possession may be exercised in another’s name. owned the property. can the OWNER of the property bring an action for forcible entry? Yes. then he may recover possession from Dimaano. the ownership pertaining to another person. and not De Luna. Article 526.” 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. began plowing it. whether in good or bad faith.Your own and others. 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. or in that of the holder of the thing or right to keep or enjoy it. 2. Article 524 of the Civil Code provides: “Possession may be exercised in one’s own name or that of another. cmt Page 36 of 42 3/7/2004 . the owner benefits from your possession. HELD: Yes. Article 525. ISSUE: Whether possession may be exercised in another’s name. if De Luna is able to prove prior possession in himself. and erected a barbed wire fence. Possession may be exercised in another’s name. must act and claim to be owner. and acts as if he is the owner. 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.The lessee is in actual possession in the concept of holder. Article 524 of the Civil Code provides: “Possession may be exercised in one’s own name or that of another. If in the concept of owner. However. Supposing a tenant is ousted by a third person. claims to be. 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. De Luna also proved through a neighbor’s testimony that Dequiña’s father delivered the property to him and his mother.
What is the importance of distinguishing gf and bf? Prescription Indemnity Buyer buys title thinking the vendor is the person on the title GF. Buys the property from the widow of a deceased person. 102 SCRA 331. In this case. 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.He is deemed a possessor in bad faith who possesses in any case contrary to the foregoing. 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. Is bad faith transmissible to successors in interest? Not necessarily. he cannot be expected to know that his vendor had children. you have to look beyond the title. Carreon v. cmt Page 37 of 42 . The person here is not an owner – there is a flaw or defect. Good faith is always presumed and bad faith must be established by clear and convincing evidence. there was no showing of bad faith on Agcaoili’s part. Can a person in possession of a valid Torrens title be in bad faith? No. 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. 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. A child or heir may be presumed to be in good faith notwithstanding the father’s bad faith. make some inquiry concerning the rights of those in possession. HELD: Agcaoili was in good faith. Pending this application. ISSUE: Whether Agcaoili was in bad faith. These 3/7/2004 Article 527. Good faith is always presumed and bad faith must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Besides. and upon him who alleges bad faith on the part of the possessor rests the burden of proof. Ramos filed a Homestead application for land in Nueva Ecija. Subsequently. Though he was a townmate of the Carreon’s. Good faith is always presumed. he filed a complaint for the recovery of possession against them and won. L-42856. Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith. One who purchases real property which is in the actual possession of others should. everyone should be presumed honest until proven otherwise. Agcaoili Carreon claimed that property inherited from her husband was hers along. Both Ramos’s applications were granted and he obtained a loan from PNB with the Isabela land as REM. What is the reason for presuming good faith? Presumption of innocence. The articles on bad faith must be reconciled with the doctrine of indefeasibility of a Torrens title. CA. Republic v. a corresponding certificate/s of title was issued. at least. Ramos filed another application over this land. The land was later sold to Agcaoili and a certificate/s of title was issued in his name. Carreon’s children filed a complaint against Agcaoili to have the deed of sale declared as a mortgage and to recover ½ of the property – their action was predicated on Agcaoili’s bad faith. Ramos went to Isabela and found a piece of land covered by a Homestead application by Lopez but clearly abandoned by the latter. Ramos discovered that there were people occupying his Isabela land.
He is in bad faith because there is presumptive knowledge of the issuance of the certificate/s of title to Tuason. Because of her failure to pay interests when due. 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.people sent a petition to the SANR and alleged the nullity of Ramos’s second Homestead application. make some inquiry concerning the rights of those in possession. Article 528. There is presumptive knowledge of the existence of a Torrens Title. Rodriguez Ambrosia. Kasilag v. provided such ignorance is not gross and inexcusable. the REM is valid as between Ramos and PNB. brought an action for ejectment against Munar. One who purchases/accepts for REM real property which is in the actual possession of others should. the improvements on the property in dispute to Rodriguez. Receipt of a letter demanding vacation of the property. Munar instead chose to ignore the certificate/s of title and relied on his predecessor’s claim of ownership.M. in accepting the REM of the Isabela property was in bad faith. The heirs of Ambrosia seek to recover the property from Rodriguez.M. Munar claims possession in good faith and raises the defense that Tuason’s certificate/s of title. Receipt of judicial summons. Rodriguez is not a lawyer and is not expected to know the various intricacies of a contract of antichresis. However. was void due to fraud and that pursuant to a compromise agreement between Tuason and Deudor (Munar’s predecessor in interest). It is presumed that possession continues to be enjoyed in the same character in which it was acquired until the contrary is proved. the land was acquired by Ambrosia as a homestead and could not be subject to a real encumbrance. Tuason. What are the presumptions regarding possession? cmt Page 38 of 42 3/7/2004 . PNB cannot be considered as a good faith mortgagor as against such possessors. as a contract of antichresis is. whether PNB. Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law. In the absence of such an inquiry. 2. desiring to apply for patents on the same land. mortgaged. Examples of when bad faith begins: 1. the owner of a subdivision. J. at least. he also introduced signifact improvements. Article 529. Munar J. HELD: Munar is barred from assailing the title 20 years after its registration. Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law. He is entitled to indemnity. in a public document. which was issued more than 20 years before. provided such ignorance is not gross and inexcusable. 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. since Ramos’s title over the land is valid. ISSUE: Aside from the many Public Land Act issues. ISSUE: Whether Rodriguez was a possessor in good faith entitling him to indemnity for the improvements constructed. the mother of the plaintiffs herein. if the person does not investigate and he is later defeated. HELD: PNB was in bad faith. 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. However. Tuason v. can be the basis of good faith. HELD: Rodriguez is in good faith. Munar had a right to occupy the property.
How is possession acquired? (a) Material occupation or detention a. without prejudice to the consequences of negotiorum gestio in a proper case. What are the essential requirements for possession? (a) corpus – the thing physically detained. What is res nullius and can it be possessed? It is abandoned or ownerless property. (h) Exclusive possession of common property. (b) Through an authorized person.(a) Good faith is presumed. by his agent. (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. (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). (c) Non-interruption of possession. (a) Intent to possess (b) Capacity to possess (c) Object must be capable of possession. It can be acquired through occupation. execution of public instruments. (b) Continuity of character of possession. (f) Possession during intervening period. there is constructive possession of the entire parcel. which presupposes prior ownership in another. or by the fact that it is subject to the action of our will. or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right. Only things and rights which are susceptible of being appropriated may be the object of possession. How is possession acquired from the viewpoint of who possesses and what are the essential requisites for each? (a) Personal. (g) Possession of movable with real property. Possession may be acquired by the same person who is to enjoy it. Article 531. (e) Non-interruption of possession of property unjustly lost but legally recovered. by his legal representative. (b) animus – intent to possess (express/implied). Tradition longa manu (delivery by consent) (d) Constructive possession or proper acts and legal formalities – succession. It may be possessed but it cannot be acquired through prescription. Constitutom possesorium (possessed as owner. (b) Exercise of a right (c) Subjection to our will – by mere agreement or the delivery of keys a. the possession shall not be considered as acquired until the person in whose name the act of possession was executed has ratified the same. Can land adversely occupied by one be contstructively possessed by another? No. now possesses as owner) b. Possession is acquired by the material occupation of a thing or the exercise of a right. but in the last case. Article 532. court order) cmt Page 39 of 42 3/7/2004 . (d) Presumption of just title. or by any person without any power whatever. now juridical possession) Tradition brevi manu (juridical possession. Article 530. donation. unless a portion thereof is adversely possessed by another. If an entire parcel is possessed under claim of ownership.
but they need the assistance of their legal representatives in order to exercise the rights which from the possession arise in their favor. He who believes that he has an action or a right to deprive another of the holding of a thing. Problem: A. Force or Intimidation. Minors and incapacitated person may acquire the possession of things.H. The possession of hereditary property is deemed transmitted to the heir without interruption an from the moment of the death of the decedent. but the effects of possession in good faith shall not benefit him except upon the death of the decedent. do not affect possession. Article 535. 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. c. What are the modes through which possession may not be acquired? a. this was really A’s share upon the death of the father. Day 1: A sold his share to X. since there is no interruption. a parcel of land. succession. If the heir accepts – from the moment of death. his legal representatives must intervene. If the heir refuses or is incapacitated to inherit – he is deemed never to have possessed. Clandestine. Can good faith be tacked onto bad faith? J. This is because B is deemed never to have inherited. must invoke the aid of the competent court. and C inherited. the possession of the deceased is tacked to the possession of the heir. Reason for the rule? Practicality – candy example. One who validly renounces an inheritance is deemed never to have possessed the same. In no case may possession be acquired through force or intimidation as long as there is a possessor who objects thereto. Problem: Father dies on January 1. if it is not shown that he was aware of the flaws affecting it. in case the inheritance is accepted. Day 2: B repudiated his inheritance. Article 536.Article 533. Article 537. 1-30? The son is in actual possession in the concept of owner through the admininstrator. Article 534. Example: A minor may acquire the possession of a fountain pen donated to him. consequences of the wrongful possession of the decedent. in the meantime. Day 3: Partition is made. b. When does the heir acquire possession of the inherited property? 1. prescription. or donation. Acts merely tolerated. Who may institute an action for forcible entry against an intruder? Either the son or the administrator. and those executed clandestinely and without the knowledge of the possessor of a thing. Importance is for acquisitive prescription. but in a case of court action regarding ownership of the pen. One who succeeds by hereditary title shall not suffer the cmt Page 40 of 42 3/7/2004 . or by violence. yes. Tolerance – possession is with the consent of the owner and redounds to his benefit. What happens if the son enters the property before acceptance? The administrator may file a complaint for forcible entry against him. secret possession. B. son accepts on January 30. in equal parts. Who is in possession of the property from Jan. who possessed it in the concept of holder. How much does X get? X gets ½ of the property. no. if the holder should refuse to deliver the thing. 2. JPSP. an administrator manages and is in possession of the property.
(b) possession in different concepts or degrees – both owner and tenant are possessors as a fact at the same time. even if ousted.What does it mean that the “acts…do not affect possession?” (a) The intruder does not acquire any right to possession. Entitled to the benefits of prescription. (d) If all conditions are equal. The exceptions are: cmt (b) immovable property a. is still the possessor and is: a. property may be physically possessed by more than one but not legally possessed. the one longer in possession. Does this mean that property can be possessed by only one? No. (b) The legal possessor. b. Possession as a fact cannot be recognized at the same time in two different personalities except in the case of co-possession. and made copra. Mercado was issued a certificate/s of title. the one who presents a title. first who registered his right in good faith in the registry of property if there was no registration. the thing shall be placed in judicial deposit pending determination by the court. the thing shall be placed in judicial deposit appending determination of its possession or ownership through proper proceedings. one in the concept of owner and the other in the concept of holder. You wake up in the morning and there is squatter in your yard – clandestine. Entitled as possessor for all purposes favorable to his possession. Carpio Giger sold the property to Mercado by virtue of a deed of sale with right to repurchase. the present possessor shall be preferred. if the dates of the possession are the same. 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. Execution of the deed of sale in a public document is equivalent to delivery of possession of the property. harvested coconuts. Compare to rule on double sale. if there are two possessors. preference to he who first possessed in good faith (c) The intruder cannot acquire the property by prescription. they are co-owners. structures. c. He did not put up any signs. preference of ownership (not possession) is determined: (a) movable property a. Should a question arise regarding the fact of possession. the person who first possessed in good faith if there was no possession. and if all these conditions are equal. (c) If the dates of possession are the same. Entitled to the fruits. What are the rules in case of double sale or double donation? In this case. (a) co-possessors – there is no conflict of interest. the one longer in possession. Caretaker on your land with understanding that he will leave when you need the land – tolerance. or anything to indicate actual possession. the person who presents to oldest title. Mercado visited the property periodically. What are the rules or criteria to be used in case of conflict or dispute regarding possession? (a) The present possessor shall be preferred. the one who presents a title. Wong v. Article 538. (b) If both are present. Page 41 of 42 3/7/2004 . c. provided it was acquired in good faith b.
is better than Bishop’s. or stealth. from the time of service of summons. Bishop raised the defense that the land was part of the public domain and could not have been registered. Catchuela filed an action for cancellation of title and reconveyance of property Francisco raised the defense that Cathcuela has no cause of action. the execution of a sale through a public instrument is equivalent to the delivery of the thing. Despite his initial elation. Salang’s title to the land is based on an OCT which was issued 82 years ago. Obiters: The SC also said that entry into the property by force. HELD: Yes.” Also. private respondent herein. HELD: Salang has a better right. ISSUE: Whether Mercado had possession of the property. de Catchuela v. It is now incontrovertible and conclusive against the whole world. An 82 year old title is incontrovertible and conclusive against the whole world. as a cause of action in forcible entry covers all of the ways by which one can wrongfully enter a property. It seems that. ISSUE: Whether Catchuela has a cause of action in the case for cancellation of title and reconveyance of property. HELD: Catchuela has no cause of action. ISSUE: Whether Salang claim on the land. Mercado later filed a complaint for forcible entry against Wong. Article 531 of the Civil Code provides that “possession is acquired by the material occupation of a thing or the exercise of a right. unless there is a stipulation to the contrary. in relation to Article 531. Wong went to the land and saw that it was unoccupied. It was necessary to determine ownership in order to resolve the case for recovery of possession. CA Salang filed an action for recovery of possession against Bishop. based on a certificate/s of title. he then bought it from Giger and was issued a certificate/s of title. invoking their rights as registered owners of the land. Mercado was pleased. Mercado had possession. Vda. Applying the aforementioned doctrines. She never acquired a right over the lot in question. A few months after the sale to Wong. The act of entering the property and excluding the rightful possessor therefrom implies the exertion of force. Wong must remove himself from the property. she is a mere squatter with the tolerance of Francisco. Catchuela had been occupying said property for several years when Francisco filed an action for ejectment. the execution of the deed of sale in a public document (it was notarized) was equivalent to delivery of possession of the property. Bishop v. Mercado learned that the former’s laborers built a hut were occupying the land. cmt Page 42 of 42 3/7/2004 .Several years after the sale. He then sold the property to Francisco. Since prior possession of Mercado was proved. She has no right to seek its reconveyance or continue in its possession. even the gathering of coconuts (enjoyment of a right to the fruits) constitutes possession. CA Diaz applied for the lot in question with the PHHC. Giger. or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right. in this case. 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. strategy. intimidation. the rightful owner. the application was granted and title was issued. or by the fact that it is subject to the action of our will. Wong must pay rent from the time he learned of a defect in his title.