TITLE II OWNERSHIP

CHAPTER ONE: OWNERSHIP IN GENERAL

Art 427 Ownership may be exercise over things or rights
Ownership is the
Independent right of a person to the exclusive enjoyment and control of a thing
Including its disposition and recovery subject only to the restrictions or limitations established by
law and the rights of others
Beneficial Ownership
Ownership recognized by law and capable of being enforced in court
Right to enjoyment in one person, legal title is in another
Naked Ownership
Enjoyment of all the benefits and privileges of ownership
Ownership may be exercised over things or rights
1. Thing usually refers to corporeal property
2. Rights whether real or personal, res of rights may be corporeal or incorporeal
Art 428 The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without other limitations than
those established by law.
The owner has also a right of action against the holder and possessor of a thing in order to
recover it.
The seven jus-es
1. Possidendi

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Utendi
Fruendi
Accessionis
Abutendi
Disponendi
Vindicandi

Right to possess or jus possidendi

right to hold a thing or enjoy a right (Art 523)
may be exercised in ones own name or in that of another
1. Right to use not necessarily included
May be in the concept of an owner or a mere holder with the ownership pertaining to another
Right to possess does not always include the right to use
2. Judgment of ownership may not include possession
Person may be declared owner but he may not be entitled to possession which may be in the
hands of another such as a tenant
But! This doctrine may be invoked only where the actual possessor has some rights which must be
respected
3. Where claim to possession based on claim of ownership
Where the ownership of a property was decided in a judgment, the delivery of possession should
be considered included in the decision where the defeated partys claim to the possession is based
on his claim of ownership
4. Duty of vendor to deliver possession of thing sold
Contract of sale, vendor bound not only to transfer ownership, but also deliver
Considered delivered only when vendee has control and possession
Right to use and enjoy or jus utendi
necessarily includes the right to transform and the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment

and disposal thereof

he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened
unlawful physical invasion or usurpation (Art 429)
he may enclose or fence his property (Art 430)
limited because he cannot make use of such property in a manner to injure the rights of a third person
Right to receive the fruits and accessories or jus fruendi and accessionis
ownership gives the right by accession to everything which is produced thereby (see art 440)
Right to consume or jus abutendi
right of the owner to consume a thing by its use the use that extinguishes
Right to dispose or alienate or jus disponendi
either totally (sale or donation) or partially (pledge, mortgage, etc)
includes right not to dispose
duty of vendor to transfer ownership
o vendor must be the owner or authorized to sell thing
o sufficient that he be the owner at the time of the delivery of the thing sold
only the absolute owner can pledge or mortgage ones property
Right to recover possession and/or ownership or jus vindicandi
true owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of the property
he cannot take the law into his own hands
Actions available to recover possession and/or ownership
1. Recovery of personal property: Remedy of Replevin or manual delivery of personal property
Requisites (Rule 60, Rules of Court):

Applicant must show by his own affidavit or that of some other person who personally knows the
facts:
i. That the applicant is the owner of the property claimed, particularly describing it, OR is
entitled to the possession thereof
ii. That the property is wrongfully detained by the adverse party, alleging the cause of
detention thereof according to the best of his knowledge, information and belief
Applicant has burden of proving his ownership or right of possession over the property in
question
Both a principal remedy (regain possession) and a provisional remedy (allow the plaintiff to
retain the thing wrongfully detained by another pendente lite)
2. Recovery of real property:
Forcible entry and unlawful detainer (accion interdictal)
Forcible entry
Requisites:
i. Instituted by person deprived of possession
ii. Unlawful deprivation of the possession of any land or building, by force, intimidation,
threat, strategy or stealth
iii. Filed within 1 year from date of actual entry (but for cases of stealth and strategy, from
date of knowledge of actual knowledge)
iv. At the MTC where property is located
Unlawful detainer
Requisites:
i. Instituted by landlord, vendor, vendee or other person against who the possession of any
land or building is unlawfully withheld
ii. Unlawful possession after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession (by
virtue of contract, etc)
iii. Filed within 1 year from date of last demand to vacate

iv. at the MTC where property is located

For unlawful detainer, it is essential that the plaintiffs supposed acts of tolerance must have been
present right from the start of the possession which is later sought to be recovered (Valdez, jr v CA)
Only issue involved in both is mere physical or material possession (possession de facto), not
juridical or civil possession (possession de jure)
Plaintiff need only to allege and prove prior possession de facto and undue deprivation thereof
Its a quieting process
Summary in nature (to solve the problem quickly and to protect the rights of the possessor)
Difference between the two is the time when possession became unlawful forcible entry: time of
entry; unlawful detainer: possession at first was legal, then became illegal
If complaint fails to aver facts constitutive of forcible entry or unlawful detainer as when it does not
state how entry was effected or how and when the dispossession started, the remedy should either
be accion publiciana or an accion reinvindicatoria (Valdez, jr v CA)
o Must be apparent in the face of the complaint (Sarmiento v CA)
Jurisdictional facts what does a plaintiff have to allege?
o For unlawful detainer
i. Plaintiffs right over property (describing the property)
ii. Prior lawful possession
i. If by tolerance, acts of tolerance must have been present right from the start of the
possession
ii. If by lease, contractual agreement must be shown
iii. Became unlawful (by termination of lease contract or non-payment of rents)
iv. Extrajudicial demand to vacate
i. If by non-payment, demand letter to PAY RENTS and VACATE premises (bar question)
v. Within one year from last demand

Can the MTC rule on the issue of ownership in an ejectment case? Yes! But only provisionally.
The primal rule is that the principal issue must be that of possession, and that ownership is merely

ancillary, in which case the issue of ownership may be resolved but only for the purpose of
determining the issue of possession.
It must sufficiently appear from the allegations in the complaint that what the plaintiff really and
primarily seeks is the restoration of possession.
Inferior court cannot adjudicate on the nature of ownership where the relationship of lessor and
lessee has been sufficiently established in the ejectment case, unless it is sufficiently established
that there has been a subsequent change in or termination of the relationship between the parties.
The rule in forcible entry cases, but not in those for unlawful detainer, is that a party who can prove
prior possession can recover such possession even against the owner himself. He has the security
that entitles him to remain on the property until he is lawfully ejected by a person having a better
right through an accion publiciana or accion reinvindicatoria
Where the question of how has prior possession hinges on the question of who the real owner of
the disputed portion is, the inferior court may resolve the issue of ownership and make a
declaration as to the owner. But, it is merely provisional, and does not bar nor prejudice an action
between the same parties involving the title to the land. (Asis v Asis Vda de Guevarra, 2008)

Plenary action to recover possession (accion publiciana)

Requisites:
i. Must be within a period of ten years otherwise the real right of possession is lost
ii. One who claims to have a better right must prove not only his right but also the identity of the
property claimed
iii. Filed in the RTC where the property is located
Issue involved is possession de jure of realty independently of title (as compared to interdictal,
possession de facto)
Judgment rendered here is conclusive only on the question of possession, not that of ownership
Jurisdictional facts?
1. Right of plaintiff over property
2. Period to bring interdictal has expired

3. Dont know na.

Action to recover possession based on ownership (accion reivindicatoria)
Requisites:
i. Right of plaintiff over property
ii. Filed at the RTC where the property is located
Seeks recovery of possession based on ownership, with claim of title
Issue involved is ownership which ordinarily includes possession, although a person may be declared
owner but he may not be entitled to possession because the possessor has some rights which must
be respected
Action for reconveyance prescribes in 10 years from the point of the registration of the deed or the
date of issuance of the certificate of title (check book!); 4 years in cases of fraud counted therefrom
on date of issuance of the certificate of title over the property
o Action for reconveyance based on fraud and where plaintiff is in possession of the property
subject of the acts does not prescribe. (Leyson v Bontuyan)
o NB: Should not have passed to a third person.
All three actions are actions in personam.
Injunction as a remedy for recovery of possession
Injunction is a judicial process whereby a person is required to do or refrain from doing a particular
thing.
General rule: Court should not by means of a preliminary injunction transfer property in litigation from
the possession of one party to another.
In order that a preliminary injunction may be granted at any time after the commencement of the
action and before judgment:
Requisites:

i. there must exist a clear and positive right over the property in question which should be
judicially protected through the writ; and
ii. the acts against which the injunction is to be directed are violative of such right
What if there is someone actually possessing the property sought to recover?
o Person not ordinarily allowed to avail of remedy of preliminary preventive or mandatory
injunction but must bring the necessary action for the recovery of possession.
Injunctive relief will not be granted to take property out of the possession or control of one party and
place it in that of another whose title
o Has not been clearly established, or
o Who did not have such possession or control at the inception of the case
Proper function is to maintain the status quo
Injunction cannot be a substitute for other suits for recovery of possession, hence, its denial will not
bar the institution of the more appropriate remedy
Why? Well, a writ of injunction is an equitable relief; determination of title is a legal remedy thats
why

When can injunction be allowed?

In actions for forcible entry, the dispossessed plaintiff may file, within ten days from filing of the
complaint, a motion for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore him in possession.
o The court MAY grant In order to prevent the defendant from committing further acts of
dispossession during the pendency of the case
o Issue of ownership may not be put in issue
Ejectment cases where the appeal is taken, the lessor is given the same remedy granted above.
Where the actual possessor of the property who is admittedly the owner, seeks protection from
repeated or further intrusions into his property.
o Even if it turns out that he isnt the owner, he may still avail of the equitable remedy of injunction
to protect his possession.
When there is a clear finding of right of ownership and possession of a land in favor of the party who

claims the subject property in possession of another is the undisputed owner as where the property is
covered by a Torrens title pointing to the party as the owner. (Of course, check the issuance of the
title if it was in bad faith)
When urgency, expediency and necessity require immediate possession as where material and
irreparable injury will be done which cannot be compensated by damages.
Writ of possession as a remedy
Writ of possession is an order whereby a sheriff is commanded to place a person in possession of a
real or personal property, such as when a property is extrajudicially foreclosed.
Improper to eject another from possession, unless sought in connection with a:
1. Land registration proceeding
2. Foreclosure of mortgage, provided, that no third person has intervened (PNB v CA in this case,
a third person was occupying the lot subject to the writ. The SC held that the an ex-parte petition
for issuance of a possessory writ is not the judicial process referred to in Art 433);
3. Execution sales
Limitations on the right of ownership
Limited by
1. by the States power to tax, police power, and eminent domain
2. those imposed by law such as legal easement
3. those imposed by the owner himself, such as voluntary easement
4. those imposed by the grantor of the property on the grantee
5. those arising from conflicts of private rights which take place in accession continua
6. prohibition against the acquisition of private lands by aliens
Art 429 The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the
enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as ay be reasonably
necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of

his property.
Principle of self-help
Requisites:
i.
Person defending must be the owner or lawful possessor
ii.
Use of reasonable force
iii.
Only be exercised at the time of an actual or threatened dispossession (no delay)
iv.
Actual or threatened physical invasion or usurpation which is unlawful
Read with Art 19 of the Civil Code.
Art 430 Every owner may enclose or fence his land or tenements by means of walls, ditches, live
or dead hedges, or by any other means without detriment to servitudes constituted thereon.
Right to enclose or fence
Limited by existing servitudes imposed on the land or tenement
Art 431 The owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such manner as to injure the rights of a
third person.
Art 432 The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the interference of another with the same, if
the interference is necessary to avert an imminent danger and the threatened damage, compared
to the damage arising to the owner from the from the interference, is much greater. The owner
may demand from the person benefited indemnity for the damage to him.
State of necessity
General rule: a person cannot interfere with the right of ownership of another
Exception: State of necessity, but of course, civil indemnification can be asked for

Requisites:
i. interference is necessary to avert an imminent danger and the threatened damage to actor or a
third person (but the damage must be proportionate and reasonable)
ii. imminent danger or threatening damage must be much greater than the damage arising to the
owner of the property
Art 433 Actual possession under claim of ownership raises a disputable presumption of
ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of the property.
Applies to both immovable and movable property
Requisites to raise the disputable presumption of ownership:
i. Actual (physical or material) possession of the property
ii. Possession must be under claim of ownership
Judicial process contemplated
Means ejectment suit or reinvidicatory action
Ex-parte petition for issuance of a possessory writ is not a judicial process, as it is non-litigious (PNB
v CA)
Art 434 In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the
strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendants claim.
Requisites:
i. Person who claims that he has a better right to the property must satisfactorily prove both
ownership and identity
ii. Burden of proof lies on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of an issue
iii. Reliance on strength of evidence and not upon the weakness of the opposing party

 Party who desires to recover must fix the identity of the land claimed by describing the location, area
and boundaries thereof
o If a party fails to identify sufficiently and satisfactorily the land which he claims as his own, his
action must necessarily fail
o While the identity of the property must be established, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to
establish the precise location and extent of the lands claimed or occupied by the defendant
General rule: where there is a conflict between the area and boundaries of a land, the latter prevails.
o An area delimited by boundaries properly identifies a parcel of land
Exception: where the boundaries relied upon do not identify the land beyond doubt
o In such cases where there appears to be an overlapping of boundaries, the actual size of the
property gains importance.
Equiponderance of evidence? Rule for defendant.
Evidence to prove ownership
1. A Torrens title
2. Title from the Spanish government
3. Patent duly registered in the Registry of Property
4. Deed of sale
5. Operating a business for nine years in defendants own name, without protest of plaintiff
6. Occupation of a building for a long time without payment of rent
7. Letter in which defendant recognized the ownership of the property by the plaintiff (estoppel)
8. Open, continuous, exclusive, adverse and notorious actual possession and occupation of parcels of
land
Indicia of claim of ownership
1. Tax declarations and tax receipts only prima facie evidence of ownership or possession; but they
are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner

Conclusiveness of certificates of title

Indicates true and legal ownership of a private land and should be accorded great weight as against
tax declarations
o but is not conclusive if the land had already been previously registered
Art 435 No person shall be deprived of the property except by competent authority and for public
use and always upon payment of just compensation.
Should this requirement be not first complied with, the courts shall protect, and in a proper case,
restore the owner in his possession.
Power of eminent domain
Requisites:
i. Taking must be done by competent authority
ii. Must be for public use
iii. Owner paid just compensation
iv. Requirement of due process of law must be observed
Should the requirements be not first complied with, restore the property to his possession.
But can be lost by estoppel or acquiescence
Art 436 When any property is condemned or seized by competent authority in the interest of
health, safety or security, the owner thereof shall not be entitled to compensation, unless he can
show that such condemnation or seizure is unjustified.
Condemnation or seizure of property in exercise of police power
Relates to use and enjoyment not ownership of property
No taking of property involved

 Persons affected not entitled to financial compensation

Art 437 The owner of a parcel of land is the owner of its surface and of everything under it, and
he can construct thereon any works or make any plantations and excavations which he may
deem proper, without detriment to servitudes and subject to special laws and ordinances. He
cannot complain of the reasonable requirements of aerial navigation.
Surface rights of a landowner
Right of the owner of a parcel of land to construct any works or make any plantations and excavations
on his land is subject to: (SLERRt)
1. Special laws
2. Local ordinances
3. Existing servitudes or easements
4. Reasonable requirements of aerial navigation
5. Rights of third persons
Limitations imposed by special laws
Includes the regalian doctrine
Ownership of said land does not give him the right to extract or utilize the said minerals without the
permission of the State to which said minerals belong
o For the loss sustained by such owner, he is entitled to just compensation under mining laws or
expropriation proceedings
Art 438 Hidden treasure belongs to the owner of the land, building, or other property on which it
is found.
Nevertheless, when the discovery is made on the property of another, or of the state or any
of its sub-divisions, and by chance, one-half thereof shall be allowed to the finder. If the finder is
a trespasser, eh shall not be entitled to any share of the treasure.

If the things found be of interest to science or the arts, the State may acquire them at their
just price, which shall be divided in conformity with the rule stated.
Art 439 By treasure is understood, for legal purposes, any hidden and unknown deposit of
money, jewelry, or other precious objects, the lawful ownership of which does not appear.
Requisites:
i. Deposit of money, jewelry or other precious objects
ii. Hidden and unknown
iii. Lawful ownership of which does not appear