Evora, Rexlyn Anne M.

Property (Monday, 1-5 PM)

JD 2-1
Assignment
1.a) What are the bundle of rights theory?
Although ownership can be described as a bundle of rights which the person owning has, it is as
well a bundle of responsibilities with its concomitant consequences. Thus, under the New Civil
Code, ownership is described in terms of what the person has, for it appears to be a relationship of
the person over a thing or a right. Hence, the New Civil Code provides that ownership may be
exercised over things or rights. In traditional Roman terms, ownership is a bundle of rights. These
rights which are traditional attributes or elements of ownership include:
1)
jus utendi which is the right to use and enjoy;
2)
jus fruende which is the right to enjoy the fruits;
3)
jus abutendi which is the right to consume the thing by its use;
4)
jus disponendi which is the right to alienate or dispose; and
5)
jus vindicandi which is the right of action of an owner to recover the property from the
holder or possessor.
Appropriately, ownership may be considered as the right of exclusive enjoyment and
control of a thing for the purpose of use and enjoyment of its value, subject to the restrictions
imposed by law or contract and such other inherent limitations arising from conflict with other
rights. Under the New Civil Code, the owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without
other limitations than those imposed by law (Fundamental Limitations of Ownership, 69 SCRA
448).
1.b) What is Stewardship Principle?
Stewardship Doctrine provides that private property is supposed to be held by the
individual only as a trustee for the people in general, who are its real owners. This doctrine is
consistent with the Regalian doctrine.
The principle of stewardship is lodged in Article 13, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution
which provides that the State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship,
whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural
resources, including lands of the public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture,
subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities
to their ancestral lands.

2. What are the different limitations of OWNERSHIP?

The right of ownership is not absolute. There are limitations which are imposed for the
benefit of humanity, and which are based on ceretain legal maxims, such as the following:
A)salus populi suprema lex, which means that the welfare of the people is the supreme law of
the land.
B) Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas,which means So use your own as not to injure
another's property
The owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such manner as to injure the rights of a third
person. (n) (Art. 431, New Civil Code)
Examples of limitations to ownership:
a) Those given by the State: police power, power of taxation, power of eminent domain.
b) Those given by laws: the legal easement of waters, the legal easement of the right of
way
c) Those given by the owner himself: when the owner leases his property to another,
said owner in the meantime cannot physically occupy the premises; when the owner
pledges his personal property, he has, in the meantime, to surrender the possession.
d) Those given by the person who gave the right to its present owner: the donor may
prohibit the donees from partitioning the property for a period not exceeding twenty
(20 years)

3. What, if any, are the differences between State of Necessity and Doctrine of Self-Help?
Distinguish between self-help and state of necessity principle.
DOCTRINE OF SELF-HELP
The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the
enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably
necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of
his property. (Article 429, New Civil Code) This is known as the doctrine of self-help (Salient
Aspects of Property, 91 SCRA 172). It is the right to counter, in certain cases, force with force
(Paras.2013. Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated).
Self-defense is treated of in Art. 11, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code, and includes not
only defense to a mans person but also that of his rights, including the right to property. Although
in a decision of May 7, 1913 of the Supreme Court of Spain, it was held that force could be used
only when physical harm threatens the owner or protector of the property, under Art. 429 of the
Civil Code, force may be used even without such threatened bodily danger provided that
defense, and not vengeance, is involved.

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. (Article
430, New Civil Code) In this regard, the Supreme Court ruled that every owner may enclose his
property by means of walls, dikes, fences, or any other device, but his right is limited by the
easement with which his estate is charged (Lunod vs. Meneses, 11 Phil. 128) (Salient Aspects of
Property, 91 SCRA 172).

Illustration:
I have a car; I see a thief about to get it. I can use force in driving the thief away, provided that the
means I resort to are reasonable. As a matter of fact, I can even chase him immediately and recover
the car from him by force. If, however, I lose sight of him, and I see him only two or three days
later, I will not be justified in taking the law into my own hands. I will have to resort to the courts
of justice.

STATE OF NECESSITY
Under the Revised Penal Code, the state of necessity is a justifying circumstance
which provides Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes
damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present;

First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;

Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
Illustration: To prevent fi re from spreading and thus burning valuable houses, firemen may
dynamite or destroy barong-barongs between the fi re and the shacks so as to stop the fi re. The
owners of the barong-barongs have no right to interfere. However, the owners of the buildings
saved will have to compensate the owners of the shacks destroyed [Paras,2008, Civil Code of the
Philippines Annotated, page 149].

4. What is the difference between Eminent Domain and Expropriation?

In general, eminent domain is defined as the inherent power of the nation or a sovereign
state to take, or to authorize the taking of, private property for a public use without the owners
consent, conditioned upon payment of just compensation. It is acknowledged as an inherent
political right, founded on a common necessity and interest of appropriating the property of
individual members of the community to the great necessities of the whole community (Barangay
Sindalan vs. CA, G.R. No. 150640, March 22, 2007).

The following are the basic limitations on the exercise of this power:
1) It must be for a public purpose;
2) There must be a necessity for its exercise, which should be genuine and public in
character; and
3) The owner of the private property must be paid just compensation.
But for local government units (province, city, municipality or barangay), the requirements are
more specific.
1) There must be an ordinance enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the local
chief executive, in behalf of the LGU, to pursue expropriation proceedings over a particular
private property.
2) It is exercised for public purpose, use or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the
landless.
3) There is payment of just compensation. www.pinoylegal.com
4) A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner but it was rejected.
5) It must be in accordance with RA 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992),
specifically:
a) Section 9: In the order of priority in the acquisition of land, privately-owned land ranks
last.
b) Section 10: As to the modes of land acquisition, expropriation should be used only when
other modes (joint venture agreement or negotiated purchase) have been exhausted.
However, if the private person does not voluntarily sell the property, the agency shall file
an action. The right of eminent domain shall be exercised thru an expropriation proceeding
defined in Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. The two pronged purpose of this proceeding is 1) the
determination of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain and the
propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts involved in the suit and 2) determine the just
compensation.
5. Is there a difference between Eminent Domain for public use and seizure by the
government of property in the interest of health, public safety and security?
Eminent domain is defined as the inherent power of the nation or a sovereign state to
take, or to authorize the taking of, private property for a public use without the owners consent,
conditioned upon payment of just compensation.
Section 9, Article III of the 1987 Constitution which reads No private property shall be taken for
public use without just compensation, gives us two limitations on the power of eminent domain:
(1) the purpose of taking must be for public use and (2) just compensation must be given to the
owner of the private property (Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines,
Inc. vs. Commission on Elections, 289 SCRA 337)

On the other hand, in the exercise of police power, there is a restriction of property interest
to promote public welfare or interest which involves no compensable taking. When the power of
eminent domain, however, is exercised, property interest is appropriated and applied to some
public purpose. The property is seized because it is intended for noxious purpose and,
consequently, is not compensable. Police power proceeds from the principle that every holder of
property, however absolute and unqualified may be his title, holds it under the implied liability
that his use of it shall not be injurious to the equal enjoyment of others having an equal right to the
enjoyment of their property, nor injurious to the rights of the community. Rights of property, like
all other social and conventional rights, are subject to reasonable limitations in their enjoyment as
shall prevent them from being injurious, and to such reasonable restraints and regulations
established by laws (Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines, Inc. vs.
Commission on Elections, 289 SCRA 337).
A State, in the exercise of police power, may abate nuisances, whether public or private,
whether per se or per accidens (Homeowners Association of El Deposito v. Lood, L-31864).
(a) public nuisance that which affects a community or a considerable number of persons.
(b) private nuisance that which is not public
(c) nuisance per se that which is a nuisance under all circumstances
(d) nuisance per accidens that which is a nuisance only under certain circumstances, like a
factory, situated in a residential district.
6. Are Articles 437 and 438 in conflict with each other or are they consistent with each other?
Why?
No, the two provisions are not in conflict with each other. The articles can stand
together and can be reconciled.
Article 437 of the New Civil Code provides that 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. (350 a)
On the other hand, Article 438 of the New Civil Code provides: Hidden treasure belongs to the
owner of the land, building, or other property on which it is found.
Nevertheless, when the discovery is made on the property of another, or of the State or any of its
subdivisions, and by chance, one-half thereof shall be allowed to the finder. If the finder is a
trespasser, he shall not be entitled to any share of the treasure.

If the things found be of interest to science or the arts, the State may acquire them at their just
price, which shall be divided in conformity with the rule stated. (351 a)

Taken substantially from Art. 351, Article 438 provides that hidden treasures belong to the
owner of the property where the same is found, except when the discovery is made by another and
by chance. He who by chance discovers hidden treasure in another's property (Art. 718) shall have
the right to one-half-of the treasure so found (Art. 438), and the other half belongs to the owner of
the land. The usufructuary is a stranger to treasures (Art. 566). If by chance he finds hidden
treasures on the estate subject, of the usufruct, is entitled to one-half of the treasure" discovered
and the owner of the estate is entitled to the other half.
In Article437, it is provided that the owner of a parcel of land is the owner of its surface
and of everything under it connotes the possession of everything naturally found in the surface and
under of the land subject to exceptions provided by law such as minerals which belong to public
domain.
Article 437 may be reconciled with Article 438 since hidden treasure is not naturally found
in the surface and under of the land. Also, the concept of hidden treasure in Article 438 is one
wherein, by way of exception, the owner shall be entitled only to one-half of the treasure"
discovered as the owner of the estate when a person who is not a trespasser found the same. This
provision is only consistent with the principles of equity and prevention from unjust enrichment.

7. What are the different actions to recover property and discuss briefly?
The actions to recover property is divided into two kinds, recovery of possession
personal property and recovery of real property.

Recovery of Possession of Personal Property

REPLEVIN
Replevin, broadly understood, is both a form of principal remedy and of provisional relief.
It may refer either to the action itself, i.e., to regain possession of personal chattels being
wrongfully detained from the plaintiff by another or to the provisional remedy that would allow
the plaintiff to retain the thing during the pendency of the action and hold it pendente lite. The
action is primarily possessory in nature and generally determines nothing more than the right of
possession (Paat vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 167).
A suit for replevin is founded solely on the claim that the defendant wrongfully withholds
the property sought to be recovered. It lies to recover possession of personal chattels that are

unlawfully detained. To detain is defined as to mean to hold or keep in custody, and it has
been held that there is tortious taking whenever there is an unlawful meddling with the property,
or an exercise or claim of dominion over it, without manual seizing of the property is sufficient
(Paat vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 167).
Delivery of personal property or replevin under Section 1, Rule 60 of the Rules of Court,
as a provisional remedy consists in the delivery, by order of the court, of a personal property by
the defendant to the plaintiff, who shall give a bond to assure the return thereof or the payment of
damages to the defendant if the plaintiffs action to recover possession of the property fails, in
order to protect the plaintiffs right of possession of said property, or prevent the defendant from
damaging, destroying or disposing of the same during the pendency of the suit (Calo, et al. vs.
Roldan, et al., 76 Phil. 445).
Nature of the writ of replevin
A writ of replevin is in the nature of a possessory action and the applicant who seeks
immediate possession of the property need not be the holder of the legal title to the same (Alim vs.
Court of Appeals, 200 SCRA 450 ).
In replevin suits, the applicant who seeks the immediate possession of the property need
not be the holder of the legal title to such property; it is enough that at the time of the application,
he is entitled to the possession thereof (Allied Leasing Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 197 SCRA 71).

Recovery of Possession of Real Property

There are three kinds of actions for the recovery of possession of real property, namely: (1)
the summary action for forcible entry and detainer, which seeks the recovery of physical
possession only and is brought within one year in the justice of the peace court; (2) accion
publiciana, which is for the recovery of the right to possess and is a plenary action in an ordinary
civil proceeding in a Court of First Instance; and (3) accion de reivindicacion, which seeks the
recovery of ownership (which of course includes the jus untendi and the jus fruende) and also
brought in the Court of First Instance (Reyes vs. Sta. Maria, 91 SCRA 164).
It has been said that "(T)he only issue in forcible entry and detainer cases is physical
possession of real property-possession de facto and not possession de jure. If plaintiff can prove a
prior possession in himself, he may recover such possession even from the owner himself.
Whatever may be the character of his prior possession, if he has in his favor priority of time, he
has the security that entitles him to stay on the property until he is lawfully ejected by a person
having better right by either accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria. (Reyes vs. Sta. Maria, 91
SCRA 164).

Action Interdictal

UNLAWFUL DETAINER
Unlawful detainer is an action to recover possession of real property from one who
illegally withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession
under any contract, express or implied. The possession of the defendant in unlawful detainer is
originally legal but became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess. In
an unlawful detainer case, the sole issue for resolution is physical or material possession of the
property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the parties. Where the issue
of ownership is raised by any of the parties, the courts may pass upon the same in order to
determine who has the right to possess the property. The adjudication is, however, merely
provisional and would not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to
the property (Silverio, Sr. vs. Marcelo, 696 SCRA 694).
FORCIBLE ENTRY
There is forcible entry or desahucio when one is deprived of physical possession of land or
building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealthin such cases, the possession
is illegal from the beginning and the basic inquiry centers on who has the prior possession de facto;
Any of the parties who can prove prior possession de facto may recover such possession (Co
Tiamco vs. Diaz, 75 Phil. 672).

Plenary Action
ACCION PUBLICIANA
The accion publiciana is intended for the recovery of the better right to possess, and is a
plenary action in an ordinary civil proceeding before a Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial
Court) and must be brought within a period of ten years, otherwise, the real right of possession is
lost. (See Art. 555, No. 4). The issue is not possession de facto but possession de jure. The 1948
Judiciary Act did not introduce any modification to the well-established principle that when
deprivation of possession has lasted more than one year, the action to recover falls within the
jurisdiction of the CFI (now RTC). (Firmeza v. David, 92 Phil. 733). Commonwealth Act 538
which provides for the automatic suspension of an action for ejectment against tenants occupying
lands which the government desires to acquire thru purchase or expropriation proceedings, applies
only to forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, and NOT to accion publiciana. (Miranda v.
Legaspi, et al., 92 Phil.290)[Paras,2008, Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, page 120].

There are two (2) kinds of accion publiciana:

1) That where the entry was not obtained thru FISTS (fraud, intimidation, stealth, threat, or
strategy). (This can be brought as soon as the dispossession takes place, without waiting
for the lapse of one year). (Gutierrez v. Rosario, 15 Phil. 116). Failure to state that
deprivation was caused by FISTS would make the action not one of forcible entry but
accion publiciana. (Gumiran v. Gumiran, 21 Phil.17). Thus, where the complaint not only
shows prior possession by the defendant but also fails to allege that the plaintiff was
deprived by FISTS, no case of forcible entry is made out, and the justice of the peace court
has NO jurisdiction over the case. (Valderrama Lumber Manufacturers Co. v. L.S.
Sarmiento, et al., L-18535, May 30, 1962).
2) That where the one (1)-year period for bringing forcible entry or unlawful detainer has
already expired. [Here the action may still be brought after the one-year period as accion
publiciana, in the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court); hence, if brought
before the CFI (now RTC) before the expiration of the one-year period, the action would
still be either forcible entry or unlawful detainer, and, therefore, the CFI (now RTC) would
not have jurisdiction.] If forcible entry or unlawful detainer has already been brought or
decided upon by the justice of the peace or municipal trial court, may the subject be again
threshed out in an accion publiciana brought after the expiration of the one-year period?
The Supreme Court, on this point, has answered in the negative, on the ground that this
would present a real case of res judicata. (Del Rosario v. Celosia, 26 Phil. 404).
An accion publiciana, which naturally is res judicata only insofar as one of the parties is held
to have the better right of possession, does not bar a subsequent action between the same parties
where one seeks to compel the other to execute a formal deed of sale over the same property to
enable him to obtain a transfer certifi cate of title in his name, and to quiet title over the same.
(Cabanero v. Tesoro, L-12802).

ACCION REIVINDICATORIA
The accion reivindicatoria or reivindicatory action is defined as an action to recover
ownership over real property. The action must be brought in the Court of First Instance (now
Regional Trial Court) where the real estate is situated. (Roman Catholic Bishop of Cebu v.
Mangaron, Phil. 286). The fact that the value of the improvements on the land is less than the
jurisdictional amount does not deprive the Court of First Instance (now RTC) of its authority to
take cognizance of an accion reivindicatoria.(Carpena v. Manalo, et al., L-13143, Apr. 26, 1961).
Of course, if there are pending title proceedings over the public land involved (pending in the
Bureau of Lands), and the attention of the Court of First Instance (RTC) is called on this point, the
said court must dismiss the suit, NOT for lack of jurisdiction, but for lack of cause of action. If the
attention of the CFI (RTC) is not called on this matter, it can still proceed to hear the case. (Pineda
v. Court of First Instance of Davao, et al., L-12602, Apr. 25, 1961). It must be brought within 10
years or 30 years as the case may be (depending on whether the other party seeks to obtain
ownership by ordinary or extraordinary prescription).

Insofar as real property is concerned, ordinary prescription which requires, aside from other
requirements for prescription, good faith and just title runs for 10 years; extraordinary prescription,
which does not require good faith or just title, runs for 30 years.[Paras,2008, Civil Code of the
Philippines Annotated, page 124].
8.a. Distinguish bet Forcible Entry from Unlawful Detainer.
Quoting Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 3, p. 312, Section 1, Rule 70,
"defines in effect two entirely distinct causes of action: (1) forcible entry, in which defendant's
possession of the property is illegal from the beginning; and (2) detainer, wherein defendant's
possession was originally lawful but it became unlawful by the expiration of his right to possess.
In forcible entry, the only issue is who has prior possession de facto. In unlawful detainer, the issue
of rightful possession is the one decisive, for in such action, defendant is the one in actual
possession and the cause of action of plaintiff is the termination of defendant's right to continue
possession." (Vital Aspects and Jurisprudence on Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
Actions, 167 SCRA 783).
Nature of forcible entry and detainer actions
Forcible entry and unlawful detainer actions are summary proceedings designed to provide
an expeditious means of protecting actual possession which is presumed to be lawful, until the
contrary is proven from any disturbance implying a contrary presumption. Considerations
therefore, of public policy demand immediate disposal of a case at bar. This is the reason why
justice of the peace courts, now municipal courts, have been given jurisdiction to entertain such
action, said courts being more accessible and in a position to afford the promptest remedy thru
simple procedure. (Ganadin vs. Ramos, 99 SCRA 613).
8.b. Distinguish accion publiciana from action reinvindicatoria.
Accion publiciana is the plenary action for the recovery of the real right of possession,
which should be brought in the proper Regional Trial Court when the dispossession has lasted for
more than one year. On the other hand, accion reinvindicatoria or accion de reivindicacion, is an
action for the recovery of ownership which must be brought in the proper Regional Trial Court
(Encarnacion vs. Amigo, 502 SCRA 172).