You are on page 1of 39


I mentioned about how properties are classified;

June 18, 2016

------Continuation of difference between Movable and

Q: You know what foreclosure it?

A: Whenever you lose in a case and the decision had become
final and executor and your money is not sufficient to pay the
judgment, your properties can be seized. Then it will be sold at
public auction. There are formalities that are required by law. It
requires publication. When you read the newspaper, makakita
mo anang notice of extra judicial foreclosure sale. That is
required is the object of foreclosure is immovable. Ang
objective ana is not to shame the debtor. The purpose is
when the assess value of the property is more than 20
thousand *not sure* and if that will not be complied by the
morgagee, the whole proceedings will be void. But that is only
when the object is immovable.
But if it is movable, it is not required.
If you file a case and you want to recover possession
because you are the owner. If you mean venue , asa nimo i-file
and kaso. Kay dahgan man kaayg RTC diri. What if you filed
the case in Bogo and the property you contest is in Oslob?

Immovable the case should be filed on the place

where the property is situated. Adto jud kas Oslob!
Kung ang imong gi-recover naa sa Jolo, makakita jud
kag Abu Sayaff didto, Jolo jud na i-file.
Movable since that is a personal action, the
residence of the plaintiff or residence of the defendant
at the option of the plaintiff.
Wala kay choice sa immovable except if there is a
venue stipulation meaning before the case arises
you already have an agreement that whenever there
is a situation arises, you will file on the RTC of Bogo.
Example ani kana bitaw mu-sign ag readymade contract. Naa sa ubos If any complaint arises,
it should be filed on any appropriate court of Makati.
Kiha ka kintahay sa Globe kay giputlan kag kalit!
Putlan kag kuan ba *** nya diri kas Cebu ni-file,
motion to dismiss ka ana. Your Honor, wrong venue!
In the subscription contract ana man na any
complaint arising from this shall be filed in any
appropriate court of Makati.
Ana pod ka nga contract of adhesion! But
you know contract of adhesion is not necessarily void!
Mao na if you file a case, file it with the
appropriate court. When we say appropriate, it must
have jurisdiction. Asa man na? MTC or RTC?
Depende sa nature of the complaint.

EH 401 Property

Article 415


Page 1

As to nature movable and immovable;

In relation to the person it belongs private
dominion or private ownership.

What are immovable properties

Youll notice that the law does not define what immovable
property is. If you go by the literal meaning of immovable
property, it is something that is not supposed to move from one
place to another. But if you go further down the line, you find
there something that does not fit the description. So problems
in actual cases arise. Some questions like am I liable to real
property tax? And then before that question can be answered,
we must necessarily know what is the object of tax
assessment? Is it an immovable property? Where can you find
the law for that matter? The relevant law? Tan-awa ang 415?
Here you find that in paragraph 5 for example, machines
man. Pero and land, bisag asa na nga balaud, ang land,
immovable jud na sya. Kaning machinery ang problema kay
before a machinery can considered immovable, there are
So Article 415 enumerates what are to be considered as
immovable. Never mind the pigeon houses, animal houses.
Fish pond, breeding places of similar nature. Nya fishes pajud
including animals! This is my problem with property! (par 6)
Even the fertilizer, actually used in a piece of land. So
iglabay mo didto, immovable. Igkuha nimo balik, movable na!
Actually used in a piece of land man! So your hands has the
power. (par 7)
Trees also, it must be attached to the ground.
The problem is with quarries, they are very relevant
nowadays, while the matter thereof they form part of the bed.
(par 8)
Docks and structures (came out in the bar exam) which
thou floating are intended by law of nature to remain in the fix
place of river, lake --- *wa jud niya humana ang sentence* (par
And contracts for public works and services these are
actually intangible rights. They are immovable because the
object of the right is immovable. (par 10)
Lets talk about lands and buildings. Lets talk about
building as subject of a mortgage. By way of intro, there are 2
kinds of mortgages;

Real estate mortgage object is immovable;

Chattel mortgage object of which is movable.

Now the question here is that what happens if the object in

question is immovable but the contract is a chattel mortgage?
Is that a valid contract? Building for example? A house which
should be an object of real estate mortgage but what the party
did was it was made a subject of chattel mortgage. So per
document, dili sakto! Can that be given validity?
---RECITS--Atty: Parties executed a chattel mortgage and the subject
property is an immovable. Upon execution, a problem arises
since wrong object was the subject of the mortgage. If you
happen to be the judge and you are to present a resolution,
what is your opinion on that?

erroneous mortgage of the building can only be had if there is

no 3rd party.
In Leung Yee vs. Strong Machinery, there was a
third party who could not have been affected by the erroneous
treatment. But the he was in bad faith. He had actual
knowledge of the prior transaction that it was already chattel
mortgaged because actual notice is equivalent to registration.
Lessons from Leung Yee:

The chattel mortgage was registered and accepted

even if erroneous. So the question, when the RD
registered the chattel mortgage, did it somehow add
validity to the document? SC said, no. registration in
RD does not give one legal preference. IOW, even if it
is registered, it still is binding between the parties
only. Purpose of registration, generally, is to bind 3rd
parties. But in this case, even if it was registered, it
wont bind 3rd persons. Swerte lang ni kay BAD FAITH


But this case will not be an authority that a building

will be movable. If a law will validate an erroneous
chattel mortgage, the basis there is not [Art} 415 but
estoppel. Ani manggud mahitabo. I-chattel mortgage
nimo kay utangan ka pero kahibaw bitaw ka nga
erroneous ang contract kay di man ma-foreclose kay
invalid man. But because of estoppel, the chattel
mortgage will be given temporary validity. It can be a
source of legal right hence it can be foreclosed.

Answer: There is a need to determine the property. Since [in

this example] this is a real property, it should be a real prop
mortgage. In this example, since the contract is chattel, it is not
the right contract.
Atty: The foreclosure is invalid? How you read the case of
Leung Yee vs. Strong Machinery?
Answer: On that case, the contract of chattel mortgage will
bind the parties but it will not bind third parties.
Atty: IOW, in can be a source of legal right. Pwede maforeclose. What does binding between the parties mean? Do
you mean that whenever the thing of the chattel mortgage is
then again mortgage, the parties to the first mortgage are
bound by the chattel mortagage? Example, us aka building gichattel mortage. Then it was again mortgaged but this time, it
was the right document real estate mortgage. Now we have
a situation wherein there are 2 mortgagees. Nya mupalpak ug
bayad ni sa duha, what will happen? There will a conflict
between the mortgagees. Then the judge will decide who
among the two will be prioritized? Ang chattel na sayop pero
nauna or ang real estate na naulahi pero sakto?
Answer: The one that should be given priority is the second,
the correct one! Because that is the one which is regularly
Atty: But how can the principle that an erroneous mortgage is
binding between the parties applied?
Answer: The parties can have an action ONLY against
themselves. It means that the first mortgage is binding
between the parties, kung sila lang duha, walay blema! Pwede
ka pa makatag-iya mortgagee bisan sayop ang document
because it is binding between the parties as long as it does
not affect a third person who is innocent. So katong 2nd
mortgagee na wala kahibaw nan a-mortgage na diay ang
property, it will not bind him. The rule is that when an
erroneous chattel mortgage will bind the parties but will
not apply to an innocent 3 rd person. It means that the right
document must be the source of legal right.
In law the general principle is that first in time, prior
in right. Pero kay sayop man ang document dili siya ka-invoke
ana basta nay innocent 3rd party involved. The benefits of the

EH 401 Property

Page 2

Trees, plants and growing fruits while they are still

attached to the lands are considered immovable. IOW, if they
are not attached to the land it will not be immovable. Like the
branches of the trees are cut and used as firewood, pwede na
i-chattel kay movable naman. (par 2)
Everything attached to an immovable in a fix manner.
Meaning it cannot be separated therefrom without injury. (par3)
Statute, reliefs, paintings or other objects for use or
ornamentation, placed in the building by the owner. You
notice with regard to this movable things which were given
immovable character, ownership is relevant. Before ka makaconclude na immovable siya, tan-awa sa kung kinsa man ang
nag-introduce ani nga mga things. Is it the owner?
Question: Why is ownership important?
Answer: Because we go by the intention. Immovable by nature,
they cannot be separated. Immovable jud siya. Pero kaning
movable by nature but are considered movable is because
the law presumes that the owner intended to permanently
place them there. So if an owner place a painting inside his
house it is immovable because of the intention to permanently
place it there. But you cannot make a similar statement with
regard to a mere lessee.
Lessee deemed agent of the lessor

Ning-lease kog building. Nagdala kog paintings didto,

dili ka kaingon na naa koy intention to place it there
permanently. Unless there is a contract stipulation that
upon the expiration of the contact, this will become the
property of the lessor. Then you are deemed as the agent of
the lessor.
Machineries and equipment
Case: Punzalan vs. Lacsamanan
Facts: Punzalan is an owner of the land which he mortgaged
to the PNB. Due to his failure to pay his debt, the mortgage
was foreclosed and the land was sold in public auction and
PNB was the highest bidder. And then PNB became the owner.
After the foreclosure, Punzalan constructed a building on the
land. Then PNB sold the land including the building to
Lacasaman. So Punzalan a the case to nullify the deed of sale
between PNB and Lacsamana. But PNB move for the
dismissal of the case because it was filed in a wrong venue.
The land was situated in Tarlac but Punzalan filed it in Rizal
because he happened to be a resident of that place. He
contended that his claim is not to the land but to nullify the
sale. He was in effect saying that he was filing a personal
action because he was not the owner of the land so it is a
personal action. And when it is a personal action, the case
must be filed either in the place of the plaintiff or the defendant
at the choice of the plaintiff.
But PNB asked for the dismissal of the case on the
ground of wrong venue.
SC: PNB is correct. Although Punzalan is only claiming for the
annulment of the contract, the nature of the case, its purpose is
the retrieval of a real property which is a real action. And if it is
a real action, we go by the rule that the case should be filed on
where the property is situated. Because a building even if
you are not the owner of the land it is always an
immovable. Maski pa the building was subject of a chattel it
does not make it movable. And even if it stands in a land
which does not belong to you.

JUNE 20, 2016

QUESTION: What is the advantage of registration?
ANSWER: It is for third persons to know that you have a prior
right over this thing. Just like in Yeung Yee vs. Machinery, they
are protected because we have this principle in Law that
FIRST IN TIME, PRIOR IN RIGHT. Ang nakauna, mao jud na
ang tagaan ug pabor sa balaod ba.
Standards Oil Co. vs. Jaranillo: The property in question was
registered therein, but what did the Register of Deeds do?
Buot-buot ning Register of Deeds noh. Dili ko mu-register ana
kay that is a Chattel (Mortgage). It is a real property. Follow the
proper document. File a Real Estate Mortgage! Of course, the
Supreme Court discussed about the nature of the duties of the
Register of Deeds. The Supreme Court told the Register of
Deeds that your duty is ministerial. Ikaw, accept-accept lang
ka. Ayaw pag-exercise ug discretion.

EH 401 Property

Page 3

Niana sad ang Supreme Court na, kaning set-up na ingon-ani,

that a building is set-up as a Chattel, this is not unusual.
Parties may set what may otherwise be immovable as partly
movable. This is not something that is unusual. So, i-rehistro ra
na. For us, ang importante nato diri is the statement of the
Supreme Court saying, Parties to a contract may treat a
building as a Chattel and again, the rule is, its valid only
between the parties. Again, if there are innocent third
parties that may be affected by it, it will not be effective.
QUESTION: How about buildings on rented land? In other
words, it is a situation wherein the building is owned by
another person and the land is owned by another person.
Can we divest the building of its immovability character
just because the land on where it stands is owned by
another person?
ANSWER: In the case of Punzalan vs. Lacsamana, it is a
case wherein the owner of the building filed a Complaint of
Annulment of Sale because the sale included his building. He
filed it in his place of residence, thinking that it was a personal
action. The Court said, No! This is not a personal action. This
is a real action. If it is a real action or an action where the
objective is the recovery of a property, it should be filed where
the real property is located. It should be filed in Tarlac, not in
your place of residence. So, dismissed ang kaso.
However, in Tumalad vs. Vicensio, there is somewhat a
disturbing statement made by the Supreme Court. It goes
against the rule we mentioned earlier that a building is
always an immovable regardless of who or where it
QUESTION: If the owner of the building is not the owner of
the land from which it stands, how do we characterize the
building? It is an immovable or is it a movable?
ANSWER: Regardless of who is the owner of the land, the
building is always an immovable that is the teaching in the
case of Punzalan vs. Lacsamana. In Tumalad vs. Vicensio,
this involves a building that is registered as a Chattel
Mortgage, the Supreme Court, to make the Chattel Mortgage
valid, it added another legal justification it said there, the
subject house stood on a rented land, to where the defendant
has a temporary right as a lessee.
QUESTION: What is the implication of that statement?
ANSWER: In other words, if lessee ra ka, you have a
temporary right over the land, the building is not considered an
immovable; coz what you have is only a temporary right over
the land.
QUESTION: Do you agree with that? That if you have
temporary right over the land and you build there, that
would divest the building of its character as an
ANSWER: So, if mao nang estoryaha na, we should abandon
the Lacsamana case. This seems to be an obiter dictum.
Ang estorya ani is, nay building gihimong Chattel Mortgage
nya ana si JBL Reyes na, Valid na. Valid na especially in this
case na ang house is on a rented land, where the mortgagee
has a temporary right over the land. He seems to be
suggesting that if dili gani ikaw ang tag-iya sa yuta, ang
building can only be movable. But if you go farther, if dili lang
nimo putlon ang statement ni JBL Reyes dinhi, he has a
temporary right as a lessee, although, this cannot determine
alone the status of the property. JBL thinks of a situation that

this is not a decisive factor. Not because youre not the owner
of the land, the building is not an immovable.

siya mahimong agent nimo? In other words, to become an

extension of your own personality.

QUESTION: Can we cite Tumalad vs. Vicensio to justify

that the building is a movable because the owner of the
land is not the owner of the building? Can we cite this?

ANSWER: There is a stipulation in the contract, a kind of tenor

thereof that the lessee is a mere agent of the owner. If there is
a stipulation thereof that upon the expiration of the contract,
the lessor will become the owner of everything that was
brought in by the lessee, now these things will become


IMMOVABLE. They are immovable by corporation.




QUESTION: When will it become immovable at the

expiration or at the time that they are brought in?

There is no problem with trees and plants, the problem is with

growing fruits because the Chattel Mortgage itself (Act No.
1508), Sec. 7 thereof, includes among others valid objects for
Chattel Mortgage, growing crops. So, kung muingon tag
growing crops, attached pa siya to the land.

ANSWER: At the time they are brought in, but of course,

paabot saa ka, for your ownership; but at the time they are
brought in, they are immovable.

QUESTION: Pwede ba nga ang growing crops object to a

Chattel Mortgage?
ANSWER: YES, under Act No. 1508. If himuon nimo siyang
object to a Chattel Mortgage, it is not only valid between the
parties but also to third persons themselves for as long as you
register the Chattel Mortgage. So, dili nimo ma-apply ang kung
naay erroneous treatment, valid only between the parties. With
regards to growing crops, pwede!
EXAMPLE: SUGAR CANES kanang mga sugar cane
planters, kung mu-apply gani na silag Agricultural Loan, ang
ila ipang-loan ang kanang mga existing sugar cane crops.

In the case of Davao Saw Mill, they were already considered

as immovable, and by virtue of being immovable, they were
subject to Real Property Tax. So, basta naa sa Art. 415, they
are liable for Real Property Tax.
QUESTION: What case can you give me where the
machines are made liable to Real Property Tax because
the standards of Art. 415 say so?
ANSWER: Board of Assessment vs. Meralco
QUESTION: What was the issue there?


ANSWER: The steel towers were included to the Real

Property Tax. The Supreme Court ruled that it is not subject to
Real Property Tax and Supreme Court relied on the standards
of Article 415.

These are basically movable properties, movable things, but

they will become immovable.

QUESTION: Why did the Supreme Court rule that the steel
towers are not subject to Real Property Tax?

QUESTION: Whats the criterion here? What is the

requirement? What factors are to be considered for them
to become immovable? You go by what is mentioned
there, they are basically movable, like they can be moved
from one place to another. But what would make them

ANSWER: The Supreme Court said that the steel towers are
not immovable that are attached in a fixed manner. Why? In
answering that question, i-describe natong steel towers. Giattached ra siya, gi-bolt ra siya ba, so dili siya attached in a
fixed manner, based on Art. 415

ANSWER: Through only in a manner that reveals the intention.

It must be placed there by the owner.
QUESTION: Why is it a requirement that it must be placed
there by the owner before we can consider it an
ANSWER: Because it follows the intention. Niana ang balaod
nga kun naa kay ipamutang diha, dapat permanente n aka.
Unlike sa case sa lessee na kun magdala kag butang dira, dili
ka sure na permanentihon na kay wala may assurance na irenew ang contract; unlike kung owner ka, kung naa kay balay,
naa kay ipamutang didto, it follows na permanente na jud na.
Samar a jud na nga mag-asawa ka, intention jud na nimo na
permanentihon na jud ni. Permanentihon gyud kay gipakaslan
gud na. So, owner or agent of the owner.
QUESTION: Who may qualify as an agent of the owner?
ANSWER: This was explained in the case of Davao Saw Mill.
QUESTION: For example, owner ka. Naay paintings na gidala
ang imong lessee. Pwede ba siya na mahimong agent nimo
such that everything that he brought it can all be
considered immovable? Under what instance na pwede

EH 401 Property

Page 4

QUESTION: How about that case involving a bus, a bus

company? That was Mindanao Bus case, and there were
equipment, machines, subjected to Real Property Tax.
What was the reasoning of the City Assessor that she
sought to tax the equipment?
ANSWER: Ana ang City Assessor na, used in the industry
man ning mga equipment! Art. 415, placed by the owner, so
subject to Real Property Tax!
QUESTION: What were the equipment in question? Can
you describe briefly what they are?
ANSWER: Wielding machine, oiling machine, mga gamitonon
pang-repair sa mga bus ba, gi-tax!
QUESTION: What did the Supreme Court? Is it liable?
ANSWER: The Supreme Court they are not liable for Real
Property Tax. Although they are used for the industry intended
by the owner, those equipment are merely incidental. They are
not principal equipment for the operation of the business.
Kanang mga equipments, they are only deemed liable when
they are intended to meet the principal needs.

QUESTION: When can we say that an equipment is used to

address the principal needs of an industry?
ANSWER: When the industry or the business cannot prosper
without them, e.g. Gasoline stations kanang mga pumps.
There is also the case of Makati Leasing, for an example. It is
a case about a textile industry. The machine is drying machine.
Principal? Yes, kay machine man.
In Pastor Ago vs. CA, unsa man ni? Lumber Saw Mill. What
was the business? The business was saw mill. Saw mill
equipment, principal needs? Yes! In fact, in Pastor Ago, the
auction sale did not follow the formalities in the auction sale of
an immovable, na-invalidate ang auction sale.

June 21, 2016

When I say real property, later jurisprudence. To
determine whether the machine is liable to real property tax,
we shall nit primarily apply Article 415, because if we recall
415, describes very strict standards before you can consider a
machine as an immovable.
Last time we mention that before a machine can be
immovable, it must be placed by the owner, because if it
placed by a person who is just a mere tenant, the machine
cannot be considered as immovable. We the case of Davao
Aside from that, that machine must be intended to meet
the principal needs of the industry. So all these two must
conform before we can consider a machine as an immovable.
However, in the case of Caltex, the Supreme Court did not
anymore rely on Article 415 as a guide post the liability of real
property tax.
Do you agree, why cant we not apply Article 415. What is
in this case?
This is a business a gasoline station and the operator is sought
to be taxed? I understand that in this case that an act of the
assessor is assessing certain equipment.
What was the equipment that is sought to be taxed here?
- container, elevated tanks, gasoline tanks *tanks tanks tanks*
How will you describe them, are the related to the operation of
the gasoline service station?
- Yes, they primarily serve the needs of the gasoline station.
So if we go by the standard of 415, okay pa, diba? But 415
cannot apply here why, why did the Supreme Court did not
apply 415? Who placed them in there?
- The tenants.
What is the relationship of Caltex and the tenants?
- The Caltex is the lessee, the owner here is not mentioned but
they are sure are the lessor, they are the owner of the land.

EH 401 Property

Page 5

Caltex here is merely the one who loaned. When you say loan,
and pasabot ana pagamit. Caltex allow the use of these
equipment to these lesse or tenants,
However, since Caltex is the owner of these equipment, he is
the one who sought or taxed by the city assessor. Caltex
objected. What is the basis of the contention of Caltex why he
is not liable for tax? Did Caltex cite a law?
Caltex cited the Article 415. Dili ni siya real property,
dili ni siya immovable. It becomes immobilized only when they
are placed there by the owner. The one who placed them in
there are mere tenants, therefore if we go by the standard
under Article 415, it cannot qualify as an immovable property,
hence cannot be liable for real property tax.

Did the Supreme Court agree with the contention of Caltex?

- No, the Supreme Court did not agree.
Is now saying that in cases involving real property tax, Article
415 is not the law should be applied?
- The Supreme Court say, it is okay in effect that is it placed by
the owner, for as long as it used primarily to serve the needs of
the industry.
So what was the legal basis cited by the Supreme Court here?
- The Assessment Law, it does not require the ownership as a
element for as long the equipment is used in relation for an
Of course Caltex here contended that *youknow* Supreme
Court, like in that case of Davao Sawmill that when the
equipment is placed be the owner, you we very categorical in
saying that if the equipment is placed by a mere tenant, they
are not immovable. So why on earth you are now saying in
they are immovable hence subject to real property tax?
So what was the simple disposition of the Supreme Court?
Davao Sawmill, the decision is clear enough, if the equipment
is placed by a mere tenant, those equipment will not become
immobilized, so dili siya ma consider as immovable property.
So caltex is invoking this previous decisiong saying, *Hey
Supreme Court mao ni ang sundi ninyo*
However the SC reversed the argument.
what was the simple disposition of the Supreme Court?
- Ingon ang SC na lain lain man ang issue, unlike the case of
Davao Sawmill kay execution man to. Kani real property
taxation mani, so in other words dili nato I apply ang 415, that
was in effect Sc was saying for real property tax? Do you agree
with that if the matter is is RPT, 415 does not apply or
irrelevant? Yes! So who will you describe now the case of
Mindanao Bus?

415 did not mention about the assessment law. Remember the
case of Meralco, about the steel powers? Remember that? The
Sc said not libale for real property tax because it is not
immovable, and in saying immovable, it converted on
immovable is described. It must be permanently placed. Kay
ingon ang SC, kung tan.awon ang steel powers, wla siya ging
permanently placed, so they apply Article 415.
==== Final answer : we cannot simply make a rule that make a
categorical proposition that in matter of real property taxation
that we now forget 415. We cannot also dis remembered the
Mindanao Bus and other cases, that matter of real property
taxation. Of course the latest is the case of Caltex.
Further, when dealing with real property tax liability, we have
Section 199 of the LCG of 1991, there is a definition of
machinery, equipment, mechanical..., instruments which may
or may not be attached permanently or temporarily. Real
property tax ni ha, to their real property. Loads, physical
facilities for production etc... Those not permanently attached
to the real property but is actually, directly and exclusively used
to meet the needs of the particular industry, business or
activity. So in could appear that this provision that ownership of
the person is no longer a relevant consideration for as long as
the machine are intended to meet the needs of the industry.
Of course some of you will be employed in the City Legal
office, youre a lawyer, so you will be defending the interest of
the government, of course you can simply rely in the LCG.
And if not, lawyering for the tax payer, so might find a need of
these cases. Board of Assessment Appeal... Depending on
which side are you defending. But you would see that Sc would
make categorical ruling
In the Mindanao bus is already abandon, that is not a very safe
argument. Remember in our Constitution set up, the doctrine of
SC can only be repealed by other doctrine provided that it is
expressly stated or by the Supreme Court enbanc.
Where the matter of real property taxation, it should be LGC
that will primarily apply which is a special law and not the
general law. Well, that is an argument. I/m not saying that is
the rule that should be settle. The only thing that we can gather
from this is that matters a real property taxation, this is not the
exclusive domain of Article 415.
In fact, Article 415 is somehow elevated in the ruling of Caltex,
but what I am sure though that is that the equipment not used
in the industry, I am very sure that it is not liable for real
property tax.
Pastor de Ago, this is an example of industry using sawmill
business, then there was a seized by the sheriff, sold at public
auction. If you recall, when you auction a property, there is a
procduere cited bh the rules of court, and you will strictly follow
the foreclosure proceeding otherwise it will be invalidated.

EH 401 Property

Page 6

So kung ikaw prospective buyer ka, mag duha duha ka ha,

siguraduha ba if na publish ba sa newspaper kay nag sayang
sayang kas imo effort

So there is rule that it has to be published in the newspaper

first, the notice of foreclosure to be published in the newspaper
of general circulation.
And dili na siya pakauwaw ka, so wla kay cause of action mo
file kay libel because that is a requirement before a forclosure.
Kay kung dili with our being published, that foreclose
proceeding will be void.
If its immovable property, there is no similar requirement.
In the case pastor de ago, machinery used in an industry, this
is an immovable property, but the foreclosure is not publishe
din the industry. So what happened? So SC invalid, viol
foreclosure, so the equipment are immovable property.
So what lesson have we learned so far
1. Erroneous treatment of things mentioned in 415, not
necessarily void, binding between the parties. If there
are innocent parties affected, then it will not be given
validity so the legal effect will extend to third person
who are innocent. Who is innocent, those who are in
good faith, those who have no previous knowledge.
2. In cases of proceeding like replevin like foreclose, Art
415 still finds primary application, we should strictly
follow the rule pertaining to immovable and the rule
on movable as the case maybe. take note of one of
the most contentious mentioned in 415 are machines,
there is nothing much about the lands, kay immovable
man gyud na. Kaning machines kay you know it can
be moved from on place to another, take note when it
can be rendered as immovable
3. In real property taxation, 415 may or may not be
applied, the latest jurisprudence is to the effect, when
the government needs money *wa koy labot ha* 415
is not primarily applicable, it should be the
assessment law or the local government code. When
you find an assessment, ayaw mo taranta, it is only
the law governing real property taxation and that can
be found in book 3 in lgc of 1991. There you will find
kung unsa ang pwede ma tax sa real property tax. So
there the LGC defined what a machinery is, and that
ownership in no longer a significant factor to say that
one is liable for real property tax.
4. Never mind the animal know examiner
might asked you about that, it might go like this real
estate mortgage, bangus..... Ako I do not ask question
QUESTIONS. Ikaw ng ga plano e perfect but ang
mga question nga di ka katubag.

5. Fertilizer, is you hands have the power to convert the

movable to immovable? Yes *MURA SIYAG JOKEEE*
6. Contract for public works, we have immovable by
analogy, these are written as immovable. But these
are rights, immovable means not only things or
properties but also rights as well. And right is
something that is intangible. What could be the
classification if the right is intangible? It would depend
that object of the exercise of the right. What are some
rights that are property? But do you agree that a right
is a property? You can even use the right that you
have as paying for utang, like the right to collect, you
can assign that. BAI NAA MAN GYUD KOY CASH
But there some right that are not transmissible, like
the right to live the with you husband or wife. The sa
public office kay kapoy mag mayor. You cannot assign
that. So depending on the object of the exercise of the
Demandable sums of the money = movable
What are right which are classified as immovable which is the
object is areal property?
- Real estate mortgage, you are the mortagagee, you can
assign you right over the mortage
- Right of redemption, (to take back the property) kanang
mga property na ma foreclose,
you still have 1
year, ayaw sa mo pakamatay, you can still to buy back the
within 1 year, but within 1 year..
*class: PAKAMATAY NA PAKAMATAY NA* aw wa naaaah
sige lang
paningkamot lang og raise
sa amount. (Very hopeful kay Atty <3)
Can you assign your right to redeem? Yes!
Okay, Lets move to MOVABLE PROPERTY!!!!!!

July 23, 2016

Movable Property
Movable Property are also enumerated in Article 416 but they
are not as specific as Immovable Property. Movable Property
or Personal Property, they are just mentioned in a general
manner. Aeticle 416 provides for four types of personal
property. Althpugh, these are not the only personal property
because if ypu go to 407, it also mentioned eights which are
deemed as Personal Property. Q: What are Personal Property?
A: Personal Property or Movable Property are those properties
susceptible of appropriation which are Not included in Artcile
415 or the preceeding Article. Right! because we define
immovable property to be only those expressly mentioned
under 415. if NOT mentioned then its Personal Property. But
NOT all that are not mentioned in Article 415 ofcourse are
personal property. There is an added essential element which

EH 401 Property

Page 7

qualifies as personal Property. What is that? A: it must be

suceptible of appropriation. Yup. Because the Stars, the sky
and the Sun are NOT mentioned in 415 but they are not
necessarily movable property just because they were not
mentioned and the reason being because they are not
susceptible of apprepriation, Q: Now, what again is tjis concept
of appropriation? A: It is caoable of being CONTROLLED, and
when you say control it can be owned or it can be possessed.
So it may be subject to the exercise of the Right of Ownership.
Q: What is that second rype of Personal Property? A: Real
Property which by Any Special Provision of Law is considered
as movable. So here we have a case where it may be
mentioned as a Real Property uder 415 but there is a special
provision or law that says or consider the same as Personal
Property. Example of it is "Growing Crops". Q: Then what is
that Special Law that you are referring? A: Under 415, growing
crops are considered immovable however under the
MORTGAGED LAW- it is recognized as special property but
only in cases of chattel. To clarify, it would not be correct to say
that growing fruits is movable property. It just movable property
for purposes only of chattel and foreclosure as regards the
appropriate procedure to follow in foreclosure. If you are goimg
to foreclose a growing fruits then you dont need to follow
anymire the procedures required in foreclosure of Real Estate
Mortgaged which I have daid requires Publication. Are you
familiar with sugarcane planting? in Negros there's a lot of it in
there. Nindot kae na daku kae ng hawan ba mghunahuna kas
imong future nigkahuman sa final exam nimo adto kas ilalom
kahoy hunahuna if padayon skwela hahhaa. Kana sila, they
are highly capital intensive business. So you should apply loan
for that, if approved with collateral. those collateral will be
those crops growing. So if you can't pay with the loan. the
procedure would be those under the Chattel Mortgaged Law.
Q: So, how about the third? A: Forces of Nature which are
brought under control by Science. Q: What force of Nature
which is Personal Property because it is already brought under
the control by science? A: Electricity, Gas, Water power, light,
oxygen, atomic energy, rays heat. Alright, so these are
example of forces of nature which are brought under the
control by science. If you steal an oxygen tank, will you be
liable for theft? ofcourse, is there criminal liability? yes there is
criminal liability. So, when you steal an electricity from a
hydropower imo na maingon nga dili msns inyphs because
thats a force of nature property, even natural resources already
brought under the control by science. Best example is the case
of UNITED STATES vs. CARLOS. what was the case all
about? UNITED STATES vs. CARLOS Ignacio Carlos is
accused of theft for electricity. and then he put up a defense, in
other words he was in effect saying he did not commit any
crime. He argued that it is not a personal property so he cannot
be liable for theft. He said that only those that can be subject
for theft are those tangible and (makita) things and electricity is
not one of those. He went to element of theft; that the object
taken must be deemed to be a personal property, so in other
words if tha object taken would not qualify as personal propety
then there is No crime. Supreme Court did not agree. Supreme
Court ruled that the true test to know whether an object taken
is a subject of theft is NOT whether it is incorporeal or
corporeal. The test is whether or not it is subject for
Appropriation. So if it is not stated in 415 and it is susceptible

for appropriation then it is personal property. even those which

you can not see but can be subjct cor appropriation, then that
can qualify as personal property which may be unlawfully take
as what happened in LAUREL vs. ABUGAR LAUREL vs.
ABUGAR We have a case where a person was accused by
PLDT of theft. He used the facilities of PLDT (wasn't explained
well because technical matter daw ana si Atty. basta gitap niya
ang facilities sa PLDT to his own benefit). The accused was
prosecuted for theft but he put up a defense. That phone call is
not susceptible of appropriation or not a personal property and
PLDT only provieds for the facilities or services of the
transmission of the calls.The Supreme Court did not agree,
they said that the is a personal property in this case which was
unlawfully taken. And that Personal Property is that was taken
there is "BUSINESS". So, that was taking if business.
Depriving someone of his profit. That is something intangible
but it is deemed as personal property. The Supreme Court
cited a law to support its ruling that Business in itself is
property and can be subject for a commercial transaction. in
other words the is a law that governs the sale of a business,
other that ofocurse the physical facilities used in the business.
LIke for example class, those intangible things in the business
like interests. That law is Act No 3952 (**can't hear** Sales
Law) . Q: So what other thing pa? A: Use of facilities. Yes these
things aren't mentioned in Article 415 but they are susceptible
for appropriation, so if they go by the test they will qualify as
personal property. Therefore, if an owner is unlawfully deprived
of his profit, that is theft. Q: One last question, there is
something wrong with the information right? A: Yes, in the
information it states in the allegations that what was the object
taken was phone call of international long distance (So, kuan
ha its not the international Long distance call ang gikawat, dili
ang tingog it is the "business") The information should be
amended to properly reflect what was the property stolen.
Information in the criminal procedure is the Charged sheet, if
you're an accused the first proceeding would be arraignment.
So basahan kag charges ana. mao na The Supreme Court
said, eamend sa ang information. Alright, so 417 also
mentioned about property. Obligations and Actions which have
for their object movables or demandable sums. So, these are
things which are intangible. Like for example, you have a
credit. Somebody has an utang to you, that is a right, thats an
asset, you have the right to collect and that right you have can
actually be assigned to another person. In ObliCon; rights may
also be transmitted. Example: excuting deed of assignment of
credit. But Not all rights may be transmitted but that is in the
area of transmisibility. If tha case involves recovery of your
account receivables, that is a personal action because the
object is a personal property. Shares of stock also in
agricultural, commercial and industrial communities. 418 is
also another way of classifying movable property. CONSUMABLE and NON-CONSUMABLE. They are selfexplanator. You have to know whether movable property are
consumable or nonconsumbale because as you go along your
study in civil law, there are some contracts where they are the
designated as such because either the object is a
nonconsumable or the object is consumable. Loan for example
or motu um, commudatum. Commudatum can only have a
nonconsumable as an object, In other words you do not eat
that. But just because it is not edible it is nonconsumable.

EH 401 Property

Page 8

Gasoline is consumable but we do not eat gasoline right?

consumable means it will lose its existence. So when you pay,
you only pay the value of the thing.

June 25, 2016

Movable Property
Movable property are enumerated in Article 416 but they are
not as specific as immovable property. Immovable property
includes very specific types of property including fertilizer and
In movable property/personal property, they are just mentioned
on a general manner. Article 416 provides for four types of
personal property although these are not the only personal
property because as we go to Article 407, it mentions about
rights which are deemed as personal property.
Atty.: What are Personal Property?
Student: Personal Property or Movable Property are those
movables susceptible of appropriation which are not included
in Article 415 and those
A: those movables susceptible of appropriation which are not
included in the preceding Article. Because we define
immovable property to be only those expressly mentioned
under Article 415. If not mentioned, then its personal property.
But not all that are not mentioned in Article 415 are personal
property. There is an added essential element which qualify as
personal property.
What is that? (We are still on paragraph 1) Aside from not
being mentioned as an immovable property?
S: 1) Susceptibility of appropriation . . .
A: The sun, the stars, the moon are not mentioned in Article
415 but they are not necessarily movable property just
because they are not mentioned. And the reason being that
they are not susceptible of appropriation.
What is this concept of appropriation?
S: It is susceptible of being controlled or . . .
A: And when you say control, it can be owned or it may be
possessed or it may be subject to the exercise of the rights of
ownership. But that is not all.
What is the second type of personal property?
S: 2) Real property which by any special provision or law is
considered as personal . . .
A: Article 416 says real property which by any special provision
of law is considered as personal property. In other words, the

law is in effect saying that it may be among those mentioned in

Article 415 but, because there is a special law that considers it
or that treats it as personal property, it is a personal property
under Article 416.
What example can you cite among those mentioned in Article
S: Growing crops, Sir.
A: Growing crops.
Not ship ha? Let us clarify that. Ship, it is not mentioned. It
cannot even qualify as those referred to in paragraph 9, Article
415, docks and structures which though floating. Its not a
dock, its not a structure, although it is floating and of course it
is not intended by their nature or object to remain at a fixed
place. Theres no ship that would remain at a fixed place.
Except that ship that was parked near the Cebu Yacht Club.
Nawa didto kay gikawat pud to, noh? It was to answer for
some customs liabilities. Basta mura sya ug restaurant. Naay
banda2 didto. Gidakup to sa Bureau of Customs kay naay mga
customs liabilities. Didto to near MEPZ. Gi-dock to sya. In the
meantime nga naay special proceeding, didto sa to sya ginegosyo, gi-abangan. Adto ka mag-inom2 didto, party2 ka didto.
S: For example Sir ganahan ka mag-lingaw2 sa imo yate Sir
nya manginvite ka nya pabayran nimong entrance, amot 2,
kailangan gyud diay na mangayu pa kog permit sa
A: Oo syempre. Business mana sya dong. Ang sari-sari store
gani mangayo man gani ug permit.
S: Bisag mo ingon lang ka nga para man ni (saba na ang

A: Recognized as personal property only for purposes of

chattel. Only in cases of foreclosure of that chattel. What are
other possible purposes?
So, it would not be correct to say that growing fruits is movable
property. Movable property for purposes only of chattel
mortgage and the foreclosure as regards the appropriate
procedure to follow in foreclosure.
If you have growing fruits . . . you will foreclose a growing fruit
then you do not need to follow the procedure required in
foreclosure of real estate mortgage which, as I have said,
requires publication.
Sa among lugar sa Negros Oriental, as far as your eyes can
see, naay tubohan (sugarcane). Nindot kaayo nang katubhan.
Makahuna-huna bitaw ka sa imo future. At the end sa final
exam, adto ka didto ilalom sa kahoy, padayun ko ug skwela or
di ko mo padayun?
Kanang ing-ana, thats a capital extensive business. So, mo
apply kag loan ana. Pwera lang kung daghan gyud kag cash
nya di ka ganahan mangutang. Mostly, ang mga businessmen
mangutang. Mo-apply na silag loan from the bank. Di mana iapprove ilang loan without collateral. So ang collateral ana are
the crops which are still growing. Kung di ka kabayad, ang
foreclosure procedure would be those required under the
Chattel Mortgage Law.
What is the third kind of personal property?
S: 3) Force of nature under the control of science. Like
electricity, gas . . .
A: Gas. If you steal an oxygen tank, youll be liable for theft. If
you still electricity, there is criminal liability. What other force of

A: Private, walay boat. It presupposes nga recurring ang imo

negosyo. Pero ug kamo-kamo ra, private show . . . unsay
tawag anang before marriage gani? Shower Party . . . Bridal
shower, di na mangayu ug permit ana. Di man recurring.
Anyway, di na mo qualify because di mana sya intended in a
fixed place. Gawas ug naa kay plano nga ipa-float nimog
usab. Katu kay plano pa man to, in fact gi-kawat to. Hangtud
karun wa gyud na-recover. It was a big ship.

S: Water power, Sir.

Mao nay pangutana diha. Sa kadaku sa butang, nganong

nawa nga wa mabantayi. Kadakung butang.

A: This is a criminal case.

But the point there is, it will not qualify those referred to in
Article 415.

A: The hydropower. So, electricity from the source of the kuan

mo ingon ka nga di mana inyuha because thats a force of
nature. Even natural resources already brought under the
control of science.
US vs. Carlos

S: Ignacio Carlos is accused of theft for having the intention to

gain with regard to the electricity . . .

Let us go back to Article 416 growing fruits.

A: theft for electricity. Then he put up a defense. He was in

effect saying that he did not commit any crime. Why did he
have that audacity to argue that there is no crime committed?

So, you said that it is a movable property because there is a

law that makes growing fruits as a movable property. What is
that special law that you are referring?

S: He argued that electricity is not a personal property of the


S: In Article 415 it is considered as immovable however under

the Chattel Mortgage Law, it is recognized as personal

EH 401 Property

Page 9

A: Why did he say that?

Carlos is not stupid or insane, right? In fact, ni abot pa gani ni
ang kaso sa Supreme Court. It merited the extended resolution

of the Supreme Court. kining SC mo decide, dili na tanan sulat

extended resolution. Liman kag case dismissed usa ka
paragraph ra there being no suffient ground, etc. for patently
being without merit dismissed. Denied.
Di naka mo-reklamo nga Your Honor, under the Constitution,
when you rule, you must state the facts and the law of which it
is based. You are violating the Constitution.
Kung mo require ug extended resolution ang tanan, di ta
mahuman. So, the fact nga gi-extended resolution ni, malipay
naka ana kung ikaw ang abogado. Kita ang SC nga maayo ni
ang iya argumento ay, kinahanglan ni for the guidance of the
members of the bench and the bar and the future members of
the bench like you . . . future members of the bar I mean. Bar
ba, you know . . .
S: That electricity is tangible.
A: Tangible. So he has this myopic idea nga personal property
are only those that are tangible. Kana ra kunong makita. The
SC did not agree with that.
In his defense, he went through the elements of theft. What is
the pertinent element?
S: That the object taken must be a personal property.
A: In other words, if the object taken would not qualify as
personal property then theres no crime. He is in effect saying
nga walay crime diri because there is no personal property. SC
did not agree.
How did the SC rule that electricity is a personal property?
S: The SC said that the true test that the object of theft is not
whether it is corporeal or incorporeal.
A: The true test of whether the object or the thing is personal
property is not whether it is corporeal or not. What then is the
S: The test is that whether or not it is subject or capable of

Can you imagine ni recon ang PLDT? Kay ang SC initially ni

agree sa accused nga theres no personal property taken.
Ana ang PLDT nga Matay kung mao ning kalakiha ni, patay ta
ani. Di nato ni makiha ug theft ning mga kawatan. So, ni file
ug motion for recon. Mao na nga it is already a resolution.
Basta decision gani, wa pa nay recon. Nya resolution na gani
na ang title, that means theres a reconsideration.
Ka-realize ang SC nga naa na diay silay decision sa una nga
ni ingon nga bisan dili corporeal, personal property gihapon na
siya for as long as it is capable of being appropriated.
What is involved in the case of Laurel vs. Abrogar?
S: Laurel stole and used the international long-distance call
belonging to the PLDT. He was accused by the PLDT of theft.
A: Imbis nga naay mo tawag, ang iya, imbis nga mo register na
sa PLDT, naa syay apparatus iya gi-tap didto sa facilities sa
PLDT. Pero di na maka-kolekta ug eksakto ang PLDT kay iya
naman murag gi-divert.
(Share si Atty. G sa iya story while taking the bar exam nga syas iyang migo nga naay puy migo sa PLDT pagcontact ug long-distance)
(Back to the case) Maybe katung nagdivert is collecting. This
what happened. Kawat. The accused here was prosecuted for
theft. What was his defense?
S: That the phone call is not subject to appropriation and thus it
is not under RPC.
A: So, phone call is not a personal property. Did the SC agreed
that phone call is personal property?
S: In the 2006 case, the SC granted the motion to quash.
(Atty.: Kanang motion to quash is a procedural remedy.
Kanang mo ingon ka ba nga I did not have to go to trial
thats because klaro kaayo kaning kasoha wa man gyud ni
offense nga gi-charge so why do we have to subject myself
to trial when theres no offense.)

A: So, even if it is not corporeal, it is not included in Article 415,

it is susceptible of being appropriated, then that is personal
property. So, even those which you cannot see but which can
be subject of appropriation, then that can qualify as personal
property which may be unlawfully taken as what happened in
Laurel vs. Abrogar.

A: What was the basis in the concurrence of the SC in this


Surprisingly, this case was decided by the SC on January 13,

2009. The US vs. Carlos case was decided in 1911. 2009, it
has to be settled nga even if not corporeal, as long as it is
capable of being appropriated, thats personal property. But the
same argument was raised in Laurel vs. Abrogar. And mind
you, kaning case dated 2009, resolution na ni. Resolution on
the motion for reconsideration of PLDT who is the private

In the 2009 case, the SC reversed its decision, making the . . .

EH 401 Property

Page 10

S: That the PLDT should allege the R.A. 8482 should have
been the case that they should have filed and estafa (in the
2006 case) but it is not alleged in the . . .

A: Before that reversal, what was the argument of the

S: That the property is just a phone call thus it is not a personal
A: Phone call would not qualify as personal property.

S: And PLDT only provides for the facilities or services of the

transmission of long distance phone call.

S: The things stolen in the information were described as

international long-distance.

A: This time, SC did not agree. In effect, the SC is saying that

in this case, there is a personal property which was unlawfully
taken. So, Mr. Accused you cannot exculpate yourself from
criminal liability because you actually took a personal property.

A: So, dili ang international long-distance call but the business.

The information should be amended to properly reflect what
was the property stolen.

What, according to the SC, is the personal property which is

unlawfully taken by the accused?
S: According to the SC, the accused stole the facilities and
services. They used the facilities.
A: In using the facilities, you are guilty of theft because the
property taken there is business.
When you deprive someone of his profits of which he is entitled
to, you are depriving him of a personal property which is his
Business in itself, that something that is intangible. Business in
itself and the things used in the business, duha na ka klase
ang property.
For example, you are into restaurant business. That is
intangible, thats property. The tables, the chairs and the
kitchen facilities, those are also properties.
But for laymen, lisud i-agree nga personal property diay nang
business? Kay mo-ingon man ang akusado nga nganong imo
man ko ikiha ug theft nga wa man naku kawata nang imo
facilities sa imong business. Ang imo raman profit ako
gikuhaan gamay.
The SC here cited an old law to support its ruling that business
in itself is property and it can be a subject of a commercial
transaction. In other words, there another law that governs the
sale of a business other than the physical facilities used in the
(Business intangible. Example: Partner ka, imo ibaligya
imong interest sa partnership. You are selling a property
there. Naay lain mo puli nimo pero wala to gibaligya ang
mga facilities.)
So, what law is that?

Keeping with you constitutional right with you form and nature
of the accusation against you, mao nang ni ingon ang SC nga
usba sa na ang inyo information usa natu i-arraign si Laurel.
Just because sayup ang information, it doesnt follow nga
acquitted naka.

June 27, 2016

Property for the development of the national wealth are those
which would generate income for the State. Examples:
mineral lands, timber, lands where there are petroleum
deposits, etc.
With regard to political subdivisions, there are also properties
classified into public use and patrimonial property.
The State also may own property in its proprietary or private
capacity and with regard to these properties, they are
regarded as patrimonial properties.
There are principles and rules established by jurisprudence
regarding the use of properties of public dominion. These
are specially directed not only to private individuals but also
to those individuals who are manning the State, those whom
we elected, who run the reins of power.
The cases I assigned are the application of these principles.
Q: What were the principles that we discussed last time?
A: We discussed about properties of public domain. That these
properties cannot be sold. IOW public domain cannot be the
subject of a contract because these are outside the commerce
of men.
Q: Is that the principle directly involved in this case?
A: Yes. A Contract of Lease involving a portion of a public

S: The Code Sales Law (Act No. 3952).

A: So, business gikuha. What else?
S: The use of facilities is also property taken.
A: Giklaru sa SC nga kaning business diri and use of facilities,
they are not mentioned in Article 415 but they are susceptible
of appropriation. So, if you go by the test, they will qualify as
personal property. Therefore, if the owner is unlawfully
deprived of his profits, that is theft.
Another thing. Even if the SC say that yes there is stealing
here but there is something wrong with the information. Why?

EH 401 Property

(Atty. G.: Information in criminal procedure, this is the charge

sheet. So, akusado ka, ang una ana basahan ka sa charge.
Nya pangutan-on ka, sad-an ka or dili.)

Page 11

Q: Why is a Public Plaza considered a property of public

A: Because the plaza is constructed by the state which benefits
the public.
Q: Like what benefits?
A: Its a place for recreation. Dira ka mag date-date, mag relax.
Everyones allowed to use it.
Q: Who was the signatory of the Lease? Is there an
authorization given by the Sanggunian?
A: There is an authorization but it exceeded its powers
because it is a property of public dominion.

Atty. G.: It is in the LGC that the Mayor may enter into a
contract, provided that he has prior authority from the Local
Legislative Council. BUT that does NOT mean that just
because you have the power, property of public dominion can
be the subject of a contract. PUBLIC DOMINION CANNOT BE
Q: I remember that in this case. The SC lengthily discussed
that it was an ultra vires act on the part of the Municipality.
What do you mean by ultra vires?
A: Beyond ones legal power. You have the power but you act
beyond the power given to you. Lahi nas tao nga way power,
kay wala gihatagan ug power. Kili-kili power ra na.
Q: Why cant it be a subject of a contract?
A: Because these properties are for the public and if it is sold
or leased then the public will lose access to these.
Atty G.: This practically applies to all properties of public
dominion. Such as sidewalks. Nya nganung naa may
mamaligyas kilid? Kanang mga namaligyag prutas? That is
what is practiced but it is not in accordance with law. No one
can appropriate the sidewalk. No one can appropriate a portion
of a public road. Im sure vendors there are paying something
to City Hall. Kung mangutana kas mga vendors, pakit-un kag
risibu. The question is, does that validate your stay there? Of
course not, thats illegal. Illegal through and through. That cant
be legalized, thats in the Civil Code. Any act performed
contrary to mandatory law, cannot be legalized. Again, No
property of public dominion can be the subject of a contract.

Q: What should be done so a submerged land made into a

reclaimed land can be the subject matter of a contract? Is the
government required to do something to make this land A&D?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay, having said yes, what must it do through the
A: The President must declare or the more appropriate term
would be RECLASSIFY the area to an agricultural land which
is alienable and disposable.
Q: You said the government should reclassify, why? Is there
A: Yes, our Constitution says that only agricultural land can
only be disposed of and alienated therefore, the president has
to reclassify the property to agricultural land which is alienable
and disposable.
Q: Was that done in the case?
A: Yes, there was a reclassification.
Q: The principle involved here is that land of the public domain
cannot be the subject matter of a contract. Is there a contract
A: Yes, there was a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) Contract.
Q: What was in that contract that made Chavez go to the SC?
A: That PEA will transfer ownership to AMARI over the
reclaimed land.

Q: What is this case all about?

A: Quieting of title over a fishpond.

Q: Why is a private entity (AMARI) reclaiming land when the

government should be reclaiming this public domain?

Q: What is the nature of the business they are in?

A: Fishpond operators
Atty G.: Two parties are fighting over a fishpond which are not
theirs. Worse, they filed a case to quiet the title, as if they are
the owners of this creek.
Q: What did they do that caught the attention of the SC?
A: They entered into a Compromise Agreement which states
that Maneclang will be recognized as the owner.
Q: What did the SC say about this?
A: The SC said that the Compromise Agreement is null and
void because of the fact that the fishpond is a creek which is a
contributory of the Agno River. Because of this, it is considered
a property of a public dominion therefore it cannot be the
subject of any contract.
Atty Gs advice: Adopt the No-Fear attitude!
Q: What is the property of public dominion that is involved
A: Reclaimed land
Atty G: The contention here is that these lands were formerly
submerged lands and then they were reclaimed. There was a
contention that said that once these properties are reclaimed,
these properties can be the subject of a contract by the mere
fact of reclamation; that the act of reclaiming lands had the

EH 401 Property

effect of reclassifying these lands to alienable and disposable.

Is that correct? How did the SC rule on that?
A: No. Reclaimed property will still retain its classification as a
submerged land. It is not automatically converted to alienable
and disposable (A&D).

Page 12

Atty G.: Kay way kwarta ang gobyerno! This is why I talked to
you last meeting about the BOT Scheme. The BOT Scheme
gives private entities the power to directly undertake
reclamation projects. BUT this is business. It cant be nga
walay payment. So ang ibayad daw sa AMARI kay a portion of
the reclaimed land.
Q: BTW, who is Chavez? A little background to honor the
memory of the guy. He just died 3 years ago.
A: He is the former OSG. But at that time he filed this, he was
no longer the OSG. He was just taking public interest cases.
Q: When it is classified already as A&D, can it now be the
subject matter of a contract?
A: It could be BUT it is only limited to private entities and NOT
to corporations.
Q: Why? You said that it could be. But the only qualified
transferee will only be individuals and not AMARI because it is
a corporation. Why? Is there a prohibition? Where?
A: Yes, in the Constitution. The Constitution itself prohibits
transfers of lands of the public domain, even if it is A&D, to
corporations. The subject property in this case cannot be the
subject matter in the JVA because there is a Constitutional

June 28, 2016

Atty. G: So, the important thing there that you should

consideryou know that this case has a lot of issues
including issues of Constitutional Law. So far as Property
is concerned is, what is the effect when the submerged
land is reclaimed? Does that make the land alienable and
disposable, even without the formal declaration of the
President? It does not, okay? IT DOES NOT.
So, even if physically it has become a reclaimed land, but
if there is no declaration yet by the President that it is now
alienable and disposable agricultural land, then it can
never be alienated. Incidentally, it is only the President
who has the power to reclassify lands of the public domain
pursuant to the statutory authority given to him under
Republic Land Act (C.A. 141).
Now, when the land is already reclassified as land of the
public domain, is already alienable and disposable, can it
now be transferred and alienated? Based on this case?
Ans: Yes but only to private individuals. The reason being
that under our constitution, there is an express
constitutional prohibition on the transfer of these lands to
corporation. Only individuals may be qualified transferees.
Atty. G: Thats why in this case, the GVA there is a
contract which was invalidated. It allowed the transfer of
certain portions of the reclaimed lands to a corporate
entity which is not allowed under the constitution. That is
the first Chavez case.
What were the other cases that we did not discuss? The
other principle governing property of public dominion is
that property of public dominion can never be privately
owned. In other words, when we say it can never be
privately owned, a land for example which is property of
public dominion cannot be registered in the name of a
private individual. Now the case on this point is Ignacio v.
Director of Lands.
What is the story in this case? Tell us the story about this
(Student): In this case Atty., Ignacio filed for registration of
land. He amended his petition. He said that he had the
right of accretion.
Atty. G: So the subject matter of his amended application
was accretion. Do you know what an accretion is?
(Student): Accretion is when a land is the deposit in the
banks of rivers.

Atty. G: What was his basis in saying that he had owned

the land? Although, later on we see that he was in error in
thinking that he owned the land. Why? What was his basis.
(Student): He said Atty. That he had been in passion of the
land since time immemorial.
Atty. G: Is that the only basis? Did he cite a law that says
that he owned the accretion?
(Student): He invoked Art. 457 of the Civil Code.
Atty. G: Which substantially states that?
(Student): That the accretions ofto the owners of lands
adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion which
they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the
Atty. G: Alright! Mao ni iyang gibasehan nga accretion, to
the owners of the land along riverbanks. Ikaw for example,
you have a land along a river bank. Then there is an
accretion, you own that. Mao nay naa s aCIvil Code. The
Civil Code provides that by operation of law, you are the
owner. So, if you are the owner you have the right to file
for an application to register the land. Because that
belongs to you. That was his argument. Unfortunately the
application that he filed was opposed. By the Director of
Lands. Who is the Director of Lands? Is he a govt. official?
(Student): Yes.
Atty. G: Yes. Representing the State. Why did the DoL
(Student): Because the DoL said that the accretion is
public domain.
Atty. G: Its public domain. So who is correct here?
(Student): The DoL sir.
Atty. G: Why do you say that? How shall we address the
argument of Ignacio that the land belongs to him pursuant
to that article, pursuant to that provision of law that you
are citing?
(Student): SC said that the article invoked by Ignacio is
inapplicable because it states that the accretion are
deposits in the banks of rivers. While in the property it was
caused by the Manila Bay which is part of the sea.

Atty. G: Its actually additional land attached to your land.

When will this happen? Kanang water/river di mana pure.
Naa nay mga soil particles. Maghinay hinay na siya on its
way to the sea. Mao na siya additional churva. So thats

Atty. G: So? What rule can we therefore formulate from

this case?

So, he tried to apply to have the accretion be registered in

his name? Why? He must have a reason why.

Atty. G: What law can we apply in so far as accretion is

concerned? Can we formulate a rule here? That accretion
by the movement by the current of the sea is public
domain. Property of public dominion. If its property of
public dominion, can it be titled?

(Student): He claimed that he had owned the land.

EH 401 Property

Page 13

(Student): So the SC applied the law of waters and land.

(Student): No attorney.
Atty. G: No, it cannot. So, Ignacio here was in error. What
about that article? When will that apply?

So when the bank file a case, then one of the remedies to

assure that it can collect its credit will be? Can it attach
some properties owned by the municipality?
(Student): No it cannot attach attorney.

(Student): It only applies to banks of rivers attorney.

Atty. G: It only applies to accretion formed by the
movements of the current of the river. Kung river unta to,
pwede to ma title. But sea mani, so therefore this is
property of public dominion. Therefore this cannot be
privately titled. So property of public dominion cannot also
be privately owned.

Atty. G: Yes, it cannot attach. But when the municipality

had been a private individual pwede unta. Like what
properties cannot be attached?
(Student): Public plaza, court, vehicles.

Now what other principle governing property of public

dominion can we relate to the cases that I assigned?

Atty. G: Can you imagine if they can be attached? What

will happen? NO MORE PUBLIC SERVICE! Alright, for
example in Manila Int. v. CA. Have you read about the
case? Tell us something about the case.

(Student): Cannot be sold, cannot be leased, cannot be

titled under Torrens title.

(Student): Yes. Attorney. ( Wa kahinumdom sa kaso kay ga

basa ug Chavez case lol so nag Chavez case nalang)

Atty. G: How about something about attachment and


Atty. G: Alright Chavez case. This is a reaclamation project

undertaken by a private entity pursuant to a BOT law. And
the plan here is private entity will undertake the
reclamation. And then as a compensation for its
investment, it will be given a portion of the reclaimed land.
It was again questioned by Chavez. What was the
argument of Chavez?

(Student): It is not subject to attachment and execution.

Atty. G: Can you please tell us what attachment is?
(Student): It is when a land isexample is when I obtained
a loaned from the bank and the land will be attached as

(Student): Chavez said that the respondents cannot validly

reclaim foreshore land. He said that RII Builders were not
granted authority to reclaim the lands. And that NHA
doesnt have authority alienate the land.

Atty. G: When do you attach the land? It is when you apply

for the loan and the creditor will require you to out up a
collateral. This is the concept of attachment. Attachment
pani ha na concept. And if you cannot pay. What will your
creditor do?

Atty. G: Did he also argue that there is here a transfer of

land of the public domain in favor of private entity in which
transfer violates the constitution?

(Student): It will foreclose the land.

(Student): Yes attorney. He argued that the petitioner

cannot own the land because it is a corporation.

Atty. G: Actually, foreclose is not the same as attachment.

Attachment is when kolektahan ka nya di ka kabayad, or
nay ge file kaso nimo, nya ang kaso di mana ma resolve
dayun ig ka ugma so ang buhaton sa creditor e attach lang
usa na. Meaning e setaside sa siya. E secure na incase
mapildi kas kaso then he will run after the property which
is attached.
Now we will apply that to property of public dominion.
When we say property of public dominion cannot be
subject to attachment and execution. When will that
situation arise? When can we apply this principle? Give
me a situation.
(Student): When a municipality loan from a bank. For
example for projects.
Atty. G: So, if the municipality cannot pay, can the creditor
file a case against the municipality? Will it now go against
the non-suability of the state? So if the municipality will
default in the payment of the loan, can the creditor bank
file a case against the municipality? YES!

Atty. G: What happened?

(Student): He did not win.
Atty. G: The SC saying that the land here, unlike the first
Chavez case, is no longer part of the land of the public
domain. That was in effect the ruling of the court. How did
the SC explain that the reclaimed land is no longer part of
the land of the public domain?
(Student): From what I recall attorney, NHA was given
Atty. G: Okay, first of all. Step by step, in a reclaimed land
para ma alienable and disposable there must be an explicit
(Student): Yes. There was a law passed declaring the land.
Atty. G: Was there a law? Or they were just mere
administrative acts? They were just mere administrative
acts right?
(Student): Yes attorney.

EH 401 Property

Page 14

Atty. G: Then, there were acts like?

(Student): Executive Order 525 and patents from DENR to
Atty. G: Diba in the first Chavez case there was also a
patent given to the PEA?
(Student): Yes, but the difference here attorney is that the
patents given to the NHA specifically said that it can
alienate the land.
Atty. G: first of all the issuance of the patent here
constituted an act that converted the land into alienable
and disposable land of public domain. In this case the SC
deviated from the rule of the express declaration to be
alienable and disposable. Here pag issue palang daan ug
patent alienable and disposable na. if special patent ra
pwede na?

Atty. G:
Atty. G:
Atty. G:

June 30, 2016

Principle on public dominion is exempt from attachment
and execution.

(Student): Not yet attorney.

Atty. G: Not yet. Because mu apply paman ang
constitutional prohibition. What must be done then so that
the consti prohibition could no longer apply?
(Student): The president should also proclaim the land
alienable and disposable. And the corporation should be
60% owned by Filipinos.
Atty. G: nya katu diayng AMARE? Di diay to 60-40? Unsay
giingon anhe? Dapat e convert sa siya from alienable and
disposable of public domain o patrimonial property. unsa
gane nang patrimonial?
(Student): Property owned by the state in its private
Atty. G: Alright, ug inana gane? Goodbye consti
prohibition. Because prohibition is only until the land is of
public domain. What acts here in this case were deemed
by the SC as acts which if collectively taken had the effect
of converting these lands into patrimonial? Because here
the SC said that the transfer was okay because there was
no more consti prohibition. In effect the SC was saying
that the land prior to its transfer to R Builder had become
patrimonial. So my questions is what are the acts which
SC considered to be acts that had the effect of converting
the land into patrimonial.
(Student): Presidential Proclamations classifying the land
as alienable and disposable.
Atty. G: Pero alienable and disposable raman tu. Una
mana make it A and D then make it patrimonia sa. Now the
question are the acts that made the SC say that the lands
have now become patrimonial? This is the difference
between PEA and NHA.
The SC made an effort to differentiate this case from the
first Chavez case. How did the SC characterize here? Who
is NHA as contradistinguished from PEA? NHA was
characterized here as an end user. So when a land of the
public domain alienable and disposable is transferred to

EH 401 Property

an end user. Meaning? Katung mao juy mugamit jud in

pursuance of its mandate. And PEA kay temporary
custodial raman tu. The mere act of transferring to NHA
already converted the land to patrimonial. And once it is
already in the hands of NHA and NHA pwede na niya
ibaligya, pwede na for compensation to contractor. Read
again this case ha,

Page 15

When it will arise? Example there is a case file in the

government and the government had monetary liability, so if
you happen to be the winning party against the case of the
government of course you want to execute the judgment in
your favor. But the problem is when you deal with the
government, it is not easy to get the money of the government
because no appropriation no disbursement.
The cases assigned involve the enforcing liability against
another government agency, the case of Manila International

student recites facts of the case.

Sir: what is the basis of the city of Paranaque thru city
assessor in subjecting assessment airport lands and
o Local government code is the basis
of city assessor.
o Respondent contention; SEC 193
of LGC w/c expressly withdrew the
Of course the Supreme Court did
not agree, still MIAA still exempt
from real estate tax liability.
Why property of MIAA cannot be attach , cannot be
auction to answer real tax liability from the city of

SC rule that MIAA and buildings are exempt from real

estate tax imposed by the LOCAL GOVT. In the first place,
MIAA is not a GOCC, it is an instrumentality of the government.
MIAA is a government instrumentality vested with corporate
powers to perform efficiently its governmental functions. MIAA
is like any other government instrumentality, the only difference
is that MIAA is vested with corporate powers. MIAA is not a
stock corporation because it has no capital stock divided into
shares. MIAA has no stockholders or voting shares.

Is it is non-stock, what is the status of MIAA?

Government instrumentalities.
What is the legal implication if instrumentalities of the
government? It is exempt from tax.

What is the reason why the property cannot be

auction? Being a government instrumentalities this
property is owned by the state. Therefore, go to the
principle that state properties cannot subject to
attachment and execution.

We are not saving here that the government entities can

never be tax, right? Yes. It can be taxed. Like what
happen In the case of Philippine Fisheries Development

Q: do you agree the view that its not at all

correct that if you are the government entity you
are absolutely exempt from tax? You can
assessed a real property tax, right? YES.
Under what circumstances? When the real
property is leased to a taxable person.
Can not the entity justified / argue to support its
claim that, well precisely the point why it whats
leased because it was no longer public use and
the income of which is to be use for public
o NO. The law provides that when a
real property is leased to a taxable
person, real property now is liable
to real estate tax.
What happen in the Philippine Fisheries
development Authority?
o The city of Iloilo assessed the
Philippine Fisheries for real estate tax.
On the other hand the Philippine
fisheries contend that they are exempt
from real estate tax because they are
government instrumentality.
o There was a land and the building it
was leased to a private entities/taxable
person. Now the city of Iloilo want it
What its reason of the city of Iloilo why they
want to tax?
Basis LGU. When a real property own
by the government lease to a taxable
person that real property is now subject
to real estate tax.
o Only those which are not leased are
tax exempt.
o So the Philippine Fisheries has tax
How shall this tax liability be enforce? Can be
this tax liability enforce against leasing lands
which actually leased to taxable person?
o Asked
congress to appropriate an
o If private person file in the COA.
o Or file a case of mandamus to compel
the enactment of the appropriation
ordinance on the basis of the final
executory money judgment in your
o Never attached the property. (ayaw
lage ka attached sa tawo! hahaha)

In the case of Garcia, what is the principle in this case?

As property of Public Dominion, the subject Property is outside
the commerce of man. It cannot alienated.

EH 401 Property

Page 16

Then why they sale the property?

o Respondent contention ni diri. One of
which the purpose of the land is
ceased, it is no longer for public use.
Nay joke diri si sir. There are only 2 law school in the
Philippines, UP and the others.. bow!

What will happen when a public land is no use?

o Converted to patrimonial property
o Patrimonial property are owned by the
state hence can be alienated
(leased/sold) to private person.

What is the saying of the Supreme Court when it

said that the land is no longer devoted for public
use? Can it automatically convert from public
dominion to patrimonial just because it is no
longer actually devoted for public use?
o There must be an explicit act in a form
of formal declaration on the part of the
government or congress declaring that
the land is no longer use. That the land
is no longer use for public use.
Explicit and positive act class ha! Dili ng implicit kutob
ramo MU ba!. Bati kay na MU ramo. Abi nimog uyab
mo MU ra diay. Ay ka sad. hahahhahaha
o It doesnt mean that the property was
abandoned it converted to patrimonial
Nagdiscuss si sir about sa bright boys sa UPchuchu.
Klaro daw ang purpose is sale
Mind you people nato sila ! Hahaha BUT there is
dissenting opinion by Justice Feliciano ingun si Justice Fel
(close me ha. Haha ) kaning mga acts collectively, klaro na
kaayo unsay intention! Unsay tuyo ug tumong. After several
years the saying of Justice Fel was justified in the case of
Chavez. Oh diba connect connect lang ang mga kaso. This is
the beauty of the law. In Chavez case, diba reclaim land, ingun
ang supreme court , pwde ramn diay na implicit acts.
Moral lesson just because the public purpose of land is
abandoned, it is still the property of public dominion then
cannot made be object of a contract.

July 2, 2016
In river bank, even if you are the owner of the land bordered by
the river bank, there is an easement for public use around 30
meters if you are in the rural areas. So when you say
easement, pasabot ana no constructions shall be made within
those demarcated area. Of course you know that is often
violated, thats why everytime when theres a new
administration or everytime theres problem like this will come
up some official will be in an effort to somehow mitigate their
liability for lack of political will, moingon dayon sila we will you
know ask the settlers to vacate because thats property subject
to easement for public use. When you say easement you still
own the property, only that your property is subject to a legal
easement you should not construct, you cannot make any
constructions there. Off course those settlers they do not own
that property. This happens also in foreshore (kanang mga
accretion sa mga foreshore) gi-occupayan ug illegal settlers,
when we talk about foreshore or accretion to a foreshore area
when are talking about sea water, remember the case of

Ignacio that cannot be privately owned. Although if you are the

littoral, the owner of the land that borders upon a foreshore you
are the littoral owner you are given the preferential right to
apply for a foreshore lease. Even in cases you are given a
foreshore lease, still naa gihapon nay mga legal impediments.
Apparently kung ma officlal ta dile ta ganahan ana mo
implement ana kay you know these are potential voters. Unsay
mahimo nato ani? Sige nalang ta ug bagotbot.haha..

Because of the principle that no prescription shall run

against the Government. And thats what happened
in Land bank of the Philippines, if you have read the
case. Nay title, paghuman ug title gisubdivide pa gyud
ang title, paghuman ug subdivide usa sa mga owners
of the subidivided lot with a separate title gi mortgage
didto sa Land Bank. Daghan na kayo ug transactions
nga nainvolve aning yutaa. Finally, na Land bank na
unya naforeclose gihimo man tong collateral,
moassert na ug ownership ang Land bank, ni ingon
na ron ang Republic nga it cannot be titled because at
the time it was titled the classification was a forest
land. And true enough, forest land man so void ang
title. Sakit ba pero adto ka sa bukid kung ikaw
matungdan ani. Kana man gud magpatitle ta ug
property, mangutana mo sa inyong lolo or papa
giunsa pagpatitle or unsay processo. Grabe kayo na
ug giagian, kuti kayo. Survey, approve ang survey
daghan kayo ug agian para signature, dayon
publication. Kita we will not be encouraged to have
our land covered by the Torrens System kay kuti kayo
ang requirements. Can you imagine ni agi ka ana nga
processes unya ingnon lang ka 40 years after nga
invalid imo title kay amo gi plot usab imong yuta tua
man d i ni sa forest land. Take note that certificate of
title is not a mode of acquiring ownership, that only
confirms your ownership. There are only 7 modes of
acquiring ownership. So pangutanon ka giunsa nimo
pagkatag-iya? Ako ning gisunod, nay mode of
acquiring ownership through succession. Donation is
also a mode of acquiring acquisition. Kung gipalit,
tradition through delivery of public document transfers
ownership. Giunsa nimo pagkapallit sa yuta? Giimbento nako ni, way labot na. I mean, invention is
also a mode of acquiring ownership pero dile na
moapply sa yuta. Occupation, kanang makadakop ka
ug baboy gibuhi nimo or kadakop ka ug isda. Pero
ang parcel of land dile na makuha through
occupation, dile naman ta pareho sa unang panahon
nga magsuroy2x ka unya makakita ka ug yuta nga
walay tag-iya butangan nimo ug flag nga moingon ka
this lot is mine, dile na pued. Ownership of real
property cannot be acquired by prescription. Kaning
Land Bank luoy ni noh, gibayran gihapon ang loan
pero dile answerable ang yuta because it was a
property of public dominion.

One principle also regarding the use of public dominion or

should be the guiding principle who may utilize the property of
public dominion. Take note that whenever acquired the
property of public dominion through prescription.
Summary of the rulings of cases:

Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Republic of the

This is a case where there is a certificate of title
issued to a registrant. The problem was the land
covered by the certificate of title at the time the title
was issued was still classified as forest land. You will
ask, how can that be possible? Well, it could be
through negligence or deliberate act on the part those
who are in charge to certify. There was a certificate of
title, so mangutana guro ni what is the effect of the
issuance of the certificate of title over a land which
cannot be alienated? I have a case now although gi
dispute namo ang contention sa Republic, client ni
duol nako naa silay yuta ba and it was already titled
30 years ago. They have a land there in SRP, di
paman na SRP sauna, 30 years ago wala paman
SRP, so wala sila nagtagad ananag yuta considering
that it is a marshy land. You what a marshy land is?
Yuta nga masudlan ug sea water, walay mainteresado
ana unless you are into fishspond business. Anyway,
it consist of several hectares. Pagkadiha nay SRP so
lipay nang cliente naa guy title. Karon the Republic of
the Philippines suddenly appears and ask for the
reversion. E-revert ba, ibalik sa land of the public
domain ang yuta and the Republic through the office
of the Solicitor General contended that our title daw is
void because at the time it was issued 30 years ago
the classification was a mangrove land. You know
mangrove, specie na sya sa forest land which cannot
be titled. Off course we did not go along with that
contention because we were able to secure a copy of
the cadastral case that happened 30 years ago,
wherein there was a certification. Mao nay issue ron,
what was the status at the time the title was issued
30 years ago? Is it alienable and disposable? This is
an interesting topic in your land titles, because to
determine whether the land is alienable and
disposable, there must be a land classification map. It
must be certified by the Secretary of the DENR.
Medyo kuyawan ko aning dapita because I am still
trying to look for that certification from the DENR or if
theres a case you discuss in land titles on what are
the documentary requirements that must be
presented to show the status of the land as alienable
and disposable. Off course 30 years ago the
classification of the land, although that very simple
classification is now put into question by the Republic
is alienable and disposable. So, if we apply that to
what we are discussing today, God forbid for my client
dile ako ky wala man koy interest, they cannot prove
that the classification of the land then was alienable
and disposable, that land title would be cancelled.

EH 401 Property

Page 17


Heirs of Malabanan vs. Republic

Land of the public domain, 4 manang classification
ana diba (forest, mineral, national park ug agricultural
land). Of the 4 ang mahimong alienable and
disposable ky ang agricultural lang. Pasabot anang
alienable and disposable, nay balaod nga CA 141 nga
if ma establish nimo nga nag occupy ka anang yuta
nga giclassify as agricultural land since June 12,
1945, pued ka ma issuehan ug title, mao nay gitawag
ug judicial confirmation of imperfect title. Pero ang eprove nimo nga nagposses ug nagoccupy ka anang
yutaa since June 12, 1945. So mangutana mo ron
nga kung karon mo moapply dile namo moqualify ky
obviously wala gyud mo natawo ug June 12, 1945?
Pwede nimo ma prove through predecessor nga gi
occpupy na since June 12, 1945. Butang ta June 12,
1945 ni occupy naka unya before filing your petition
for judicial confirmation of imperfect title, ang
classification sa yuta ky alienable ang disposable na
siya then pued ka. Pero take note, ang lesson sa
Malabanan is this, nga kanang agricultural land nga

even if gi-classify na siya as alienable and disposable,

still land of the public domain gihapon na siya or
property of public dominion. Kita mo sa distinction
ana? Although nay peculiarity ani because ang strict
rule gud regarding property of public domain, dile
gyud na siya ma acquire by private person. So how
come nga property of public dominion gihapon ni nga
pued man subjected to private ownership by proving
occupation since June 12, 1945? Ang balaod man
mismo nag allow ana under CA 141, so exception na
siya ha. Take this as an exception to the rule nga a
property of public dominion cannot be privately
owned, exception is in the case of land of public
domain as agricultural land nga alienable and
disposable. But do not think that just because it is
alienable and disposable na siya patrimonial na sya. It
is still property of public dominion. Giexplain ni sa SC
that is why niingon ang SC aning kasoha nga kaning
yuta nga alienable ang disposable agricultural land
dile ka ka-acquire ownership ani kung ang imong
basis is prescription as a civil law concept, the only
way nga makatag-iya ka is to prove occupation since
June 12, 1945. Kanang giingon nga occupation since
June 12, 1945 is not prescription. Ang prescription
ang maximum is 30 years. Unsa may nahitabo sa
Malabanan, more than 30 years siya nag-occupy.
Unsa may ingon sa SC? Dile na ma-acquire bisag
more than 30 years ky he failed to prove possession
and occupation since June 12, 1945. Had it been
prescription, okay ra unta ang balaod ky 30 years
naman ni. Ang iya gyud untang basis ky occupation.
Two possibilities nga ma-owner ka, prescription under
the civil code for 30 years ug occupation since June
12, 1945. Kaning June 12, 1945, dile ni siya
prescription. Nganong dile prescription? Bisan pag
maka prove ka ug 40 years possession and
occupation, dile mana pued sa June 12, 1945 ky strict
man nga June 12, 1945 man gyud. Kay kung
prescription to siya irrelevant nang June 12, 1945
basta maka prove ka ug 30 years. So ani napud ka sa
prescription ky ma disqualify man ka sa June 12,
1945. Unsa may ingon sa SC? Dile pud sya ma
acquire by prescription kay kaning alienable and
disposable nga agricultural land bisan pag ma
transfer ni to a private person ang classification aning
yutaa property of public dominion ni siya. So mo apply
gihapon ang principle nga it cannot be acquired by
prescription. Pangutana karon, kanusa man di i ni
maacquire by prescription? Only when, aside from
being alienable and disposable, gideclare pa gyud
siya nga it is no longer intended for public use and
service. From that time, adto na modagan ang
prescription period. Kung prescription imong basihan,
duha ka declaration ang kinahanglang.
1. declaration that it is alienable and
2. declaration that is no longer needed for
public service
Nindot ning kasoha kay maskin tong author nga si
Prof. Rabuya, ang iya opinion ky when an agricultural
land or land of public domain is declared as alienable
and disposable, nahimo na kunong patrimonial ang
yuta. That is erroneous in the light of the Malabanan
ruling. In Malabanan klaro kayo ang SC nga just
because alienable and disposable siya it doesnt
mean that the property is patrimonial and it not being

EH 401 Property

Page 18

patrimonial, therefore, moapply gihapon tong principle

nga it cannot be acquired by prescription.

DENR vs. Mayor Yap

Mga yuta sa Boracay. Problema ani ky mgpatitulo sila
pero ang yuta ky unclassified land of public domain.
Unclassified meaning, ug kung tawo pa walay birth
certificate.haha So unsa maning yutaa ni? Naay
previous rule Philippine Bill of 1902 nga niingon nga
kung walay classification, agricultural. So pabor kayo
nila ky agricultural maka prove sila ug possession.
Unya kay naa may PD 705 balaod ni Marcos, nag
ingon man nga kung unclassified siya classification is
forest land. Ni ingon sila nga entitled sila ug certificate
of title pero dile man moapply ang acquisition of
public dominion through prescription. Ni-ingon napod
sila, what will happen to our investment? SC said ang
remedy ani is Congress. As long as wala py remedy
gi prescribe ang Congress wala tay mahimo ani, we
have to apply the law. Unsa my lesson dinhi? Unsaon
man pagka timber land nang boracay, kita ba d i ka
ug mga narra dinha? SC said, kaning mo ingon ta ug
timber land or forest, legal classification na siya it
doesnt mean it is reflective of what is actually seen


Exception to that rule that no prescription shall run
against the State.


Democrito Mendoza
Papakits ni. Kini naay certificate of title si Democrito
Mendoza. How on earth was he able to secure the
certificate of title over a land which is covered with
water? Suko ang mga fisherfolks didto. Unsa may
ingon ni Mendoza? His title was upheld by SC in
2007, pero ngano man nakapatitulo man siya nga
baybayon man? Have you heard about the Balili case
in Cebu? Naa man sad toy title. Peculiar ning
Mendoza ha, dile nimo ma apply. Theres something
to do with Marcos.

July 4, 2016
Atty G: Landbank is the general rule, exception is the estate of
What is the general rule?
-The government is not estoped by the action of its
Atty G: Estoppel presupposes that there is a mistake.
Because if there is no mistake, estoppel is not a relevant
For example: Republic vs. Democrito Mendoza
The land which is covered with water, (papakids sa liloan). The
validitiy of the title was questioned, the title given to Democrito
Mendoza. Because he had a certificate of title, the question
lagi, asa ka kita ug yuta gi tabanun tubig nya na issuehan ug
titolo? Its not alienable and disposable, but supreme court said
the title given to democrito Mendoza is Valid. Why valid? It
was explain in the decision. That is basically the case that
upheld the power of the president to reclassify lands of the

public domain. Fish pond na siya initially nuh, nya thru a

marginal note of President Marcos directed to DENR secretary
ipa release daw as alienable and disposable, pag release,
apply ang title. Valid ang title. Several years after gi question
ang validity of title. Unsa ingon sa supreme court? The
Supreme Court said we have to defer to the exercise of the
presidential prerogative, not even the court can interfere.
kinsa man maka question sa presidente? Then the Republic,
attempted to put in issue, estoppel. Ingon ang supreme court,
well estoppel is not even relevant here, because there is no
mistake, there is no irregularity here. The irregularity is only in
the imagination of those who are questioning the issuance of
the title. This is a first in the history of Philippine Jurisprudence
that a body of water may be issued a certificate of title. But if
youre going to read the certificate its not really the body of
water, its the land covered with water.
In fact this was the argument put forth by the provincial
government then, when the Balili issue controversy come up,
dba? Are you familiar with the Balili estate in Naga? The
provincial government purchased a land in Naga from the
Balili. ron sa titolo, mao ni ang yuta, pag adto didto, kay
tubig lagi ni, wa man lagi ni yuta lagi unsa man ni? ngano gi
titolahan, tubig man ni? Wa man yuta dinhi? so, usa sa mga
argumento, nya as early as 2007 in Silot Bay, Republic V.
Democrito Mendoza, nay certificate of title ang tubig. Pero
tan.awon nimo ang kaso sa Democrito Mendoza lain istorya

judicial precedent to say na, the estate of yujuico allows

estoppel against the govt. its not correct to say that, kani pud
SC usahay ma mislead pud ba ta. Na pwde ra diay ni, na mu
ingon ko okay ra diay ni estoppel against the govt.
Tan.awon nimo ang facts in the YUJUICO case and in the
LANDBANK case, puro pareho, naay mga innocent na na
apektuhan. Unsa man differentia nila? The difference was, ang
Yujuico case dili man jud siya part sa manila bay, mao bitaw tu
ang main reason sa decision di kay ang estoppel, ma mislead
man ta, wa man diay estoppel didto kay di man to siya part of
manila bay, therefore valid jud tu ang title even without that
estoppel thing. Pero ang main point jud ni, ngano gi upheld
ang title was it was not part of manila bay, ingon ang SC na
settled naman jud ni, sa ocular inspection na di jud ni part sa
manila bay, nya unsa man ang kontra? Ang kontra ani kay
table survey.
Question (Mark Abragan): google map sir? Can you use that
Atty: ahh, thats not acceptable. But that can be an aid.
Lets go to this case of yap. DENR vs Mayor Yap. But first
the Malabanan Case
Brigette: In this case, there is a property, and from what I
remember, predecessors in interest, spouses malabanan was
able to buy a property, predecessors in interest

Bla bla bla blab bla.

Lets go back to Landbank

Atty: just follow me ha. So he applied for a title right?

Atty: in landbank, it was an issuance of the title, then several
years later it was established that at the time the title was
issued, what is the status of the land?

B: Yes Sir

ALL: Forest Land

Atty: and the basis of application for title was that allegedly he
poses the property openly, uninterruptedly, notoriously etc etc.
since june 12, 1945. And

Atty: Forest land, so kung forest land, unsa man epekto?

B: Yes
ALL: Not alienable and Disposable
Atty: if not alienable, nya naa man title, whats the status of
the title?
Atty: void na siya, not even the several transactions involving
the title could validate what is void. It can never be validated.
Luoy ang landbank ani, pero ngano man luoy kay daghan man
sila kwarta. Mao ni nahitabo nuh. So there was an original title
issued then gi subdivide, then separate TCTs were issued.
Usa sa mga TCTs issued coming from this mother title was
mortagaged to landbank as a collateral to the loan. The loan
was not paid, landbank foreclose it, landbank now wants to
exercise ownership over the land. Here comes the republic ni
appear. Questioning the title. That the title is invalid because at
the time the mother title was issued, the land covered therein
was classified as forest. So what is the ruling with regards to
forest? Forest land can never be privately titled. What is the
effect if there is an issuance of the title? Estoppel cannot be
held against the government.
In fact in the case of Estate of Yujuico, if you read the case.
Ingon ang estate of yujuico diri, kung this is part of manila bay,
the decree can never attain finality. So dili jud ni siya mahimo

EH 401 Property

Page 19

Atty: the supreme court did not agree with that, in other words
they did not give due course to the application for registration
of the title. Can you explain why?
B: they were not able to prove it sufficiently that, using their tax
declarations, that they were not able to prove that their
predecessors in interest have possession since june 12, 1945,
because the earliest that they can prove is 1948.
Atty: by the way, was the land already declared as alienable
and disposable?
B: No, sir. I think sir, they filed for the registration, one your
after it was declared patrimonial(?)
Atty: one year after it was declared alienable and disposable.
Its not the same ha, alienable and disposable is not the same
as patrimonial ha.
Atty: Relax ha
Atty: so, at the time that they filed the application, the land was
already declared alienable and disposable, however their
application was not given due course, because they were not
able to prove that they possess and actually occupy the land
since june 12, 1945. BTW, how are you supposed to prove

possession and occupation of a certain land that you are

claiming or that you want to register? How are you going to
prove it?

Soon as they are made available for alienation or disposition.

Ha? Mao ni gi sulti, Rabuya, original copy of the book of
rabuya, not a photocopy, oh dba? Si Rabuya mismo na sayup.
Ngano man?

B: Tax Declarations,
Atty: Tax Declarations! Wa mo ka kita unsa ning insektoha
ning tax declarations, you google it. Bla blabla, mao na
ang proof of possession. Soo, unsa man problema sa tax
declaration na iyang gi present?
B: 1948
Atty: so wa siya ka comply sa possession since june 12,
1945, so mu fail. Pero how many years siya naga occupy ani?
By himself or predecessors in interest? Ni abot na ba 30?

So kung ang status of the land is still alienable and disposable

pa, naa pa at that level, what do you need to prove? So that
you can have the title over the land?

B: I think something, 40..

Atty: oh see, 40 years na, sobra na kaayo, unsa man
maximum? Prescription? 30 years. Sobra na, so ari na lang sa
prescription, kay 30 lang man kinahanglan,, 40 naman siya ga
occupy. Did you get my question?
B: prescription wont apply, before prescription will run, there
should be a manifest or express declaration that it wont be use
for public use.
Atty: okay, the SC was saying there must be a declaration that
it is no longer needed for public use and service. Why? Whats
the effect? If the executive dept will declare the land will be no
longer intended for public use or service? What is the effect of
that declaration? What would now be the classification of the
B: it becomes patrimonial.
Atty: so it becomes patrimonial. So if its patrimonial, can it be
acquired by prescription? YES! So I convert sa siya to
patrimonial para ma apply na ang prescription. Btw, when the
land is declared already alienable and disposable why is it that
it cannot be acquired by prescription. Because here 40 years
na gi occupy dba, it was already declared alienable and
disposable, dba? And yet the SC was telling Malabanan,
minsan pa na declare na Alienable and disposable still di
gihapon siya ma acquire thru prescription, WHY??
Atty: pero ni ingon gihapon ang SC, maskin pa na declare na
siya Alienable and disposable, dili gihapon siya ma acquire
thru prescription, the only way na maimuha na yuta is to prove
possession since june 12, 1945. Ngano man diay? Unsa man
diay ni? Is it not the land has become patrimonial?
B: no, still property of public dominion.
Atty: so public dominion, so okay, balik ta. Kay property of
public dominion siya, ngano man ma alienate and dispose of?
Property of public dominon man na siya, this does not upset
what our thinking about property of public dominion class nga,
kung property of public dominion ka dapat di siya ma acquire di
siya ma alienate, ngano man pwde lagi? Basta maka prove
lang ka june 12, 1945 possession. Are you following me class?
Sige lang follow lang, its okay di lang mo na sayop ani Its okay,
asta author sa libro na sayup (professor rabuya).
Atty (reads rabuya book): page 75. From the foregoing it
appears that agricultural public lands are classified as
patrimonial properties of the state as

EH 401 Property

Mao ni ang tubag, gi allow man sa Commonwealth act 141 (CA

141) and PD 1529, ako lagi gi ingon ninyo, kaning civil code for
all its majestic status in law school kay mao ni atong gi tuonan,
pareho sa sila ni rangko(rank) sa CA 141, PD 1529, puro ra
sila gi enact sa congress, so kung naa gani mga variation
between the civil code, that would effectively modified.okay ran
a siya, gi allow man na sa gobyerno, pero dili na siya ang
prescription thing ha, di na siya prescription ha, ngano man?
Tawa 40 years, kung 40 years, okay na!!! more than 30 years
na, so di na siya prescription.

Page 20

Answer: June 12 1945, actual possession and occupation.

Okay, so mao ra na imong ipresentar na alienable and
disposable, ayaw ingon ug prescription, ngano man? Unsa
man ruling sa Malabanan. prescription has never started to
run because for prescription to run what is needed. So ato pa
duha! Duha ang kinahanglan. 1.) alienable and disposable
siya, 2.) and not intended for public use and purpose. Only on
the date of the latter declaration the prescription for 30 years
will run. So unsa man nahitabo sa Malabanan? Wala! Walay
declaration. Unsa man ingon sa SC the law may be harsh but it
is the law. (dura lex sed lex)
Atty: silang mayor yap et al. mga tag iya ni sa yuta sa
boracay, since time immemorial. In fact one of the stipulation
there naa pa daw mga lubi diha, kanang mga lubi dugay kaayo
na mutubo, the fact na daghan na kaayo lubi diha, dugay na
jud gi occupy, pero unsa ingon sa SC, problema ni Mayor Yap,
kanang imong yuta is unclassified land of the public domain,
wala siyay identify, di siya forest, di siya agricultural, di natural
park, di sad siya mineral so wa siyay identity. Unsa man ruling
sa court? Ingon ang supreme court, unclassified ang yuta, of
course nag try ug contest sina Mayor Yap, nya in Philippine bill
of 1902, ang default classification basta unclassified is
agricultural, okay so if agricultural then it is alienable and
disposable, pero ingon ang SC, karaan man ang Philippine Bill
of 1902, ang bagong balaot PD 1705 revised forestry code,
naay provision diha na unclassified land are forest land, then it
cannot be acquired by prescription. Forest man, cannot be
acquired no matter how many years you have been there.
In fact, SC said, dont worry mayor yap, di mo ma dali dali eject
diha, why? Just because you are not the owner, doesnt mean
you dont any right of possession. What can you do? Ingon ang
supreme court, forest land therefore it cannot be titled, it
cannot be alienated, so di jud na siya bisan mu ingon ka june
12 1944. So thats the ruling in DENR vs. Mayor yap. So what
will happen to your investment mayor yap? The remedy should
be address to congress.

July 5, 2016

With regard to properties of provinces, cities and

municipalities, which are for public use, the same principles
that we discussed still apply. Principles like beyond the
commerce of man, not subject to attachment and execution,
cannot be acquired by prescription. All of those principles still
apply with regard to properties of LGUs, which are for public
However, theres a little problem with regard to the provision of
the civil code, because if you notice, you read the provision
itself, unlike in the case of the property of the State where
there are 3 kinds which would fall under property of public
dominion. In the case of property of provinces, cities and
municipalities, there are only 2 kinds of property. We have
property for public use and all the others are circumscribed
under patrimonial property. Ofcourse you know what is the
implication with the properties describe as patrimonial property.
If it is a patrimonial property, so the principles that I mentioned
cant be applied to it. So now the problem is how shall we
regard property for public service?
Art. 424 (2) says, all the others. Meaning, if you cannot qualify
as property for public use then, patrimonial property, under
Article 424. Although it says there that subject to special laws,
meaning, if there is a special law that says otherwise, then
perhaps a property for public service may not exactly fall under
the category of patrimonial property.

Student: (enumeration of the things that were attached in this

case, pursuant to the writ issued)
Atty: Okay so Police Car, Trucks for street sprinkling, Police
Station. Now let us recall to mind how did we described the
property for public use. Supposed to be property which can be
used by the public indiscriminately, right? Ofcourse if that is
how we describe a property for public use, these thing that you
mentioned will not fit in. So these cannot be property for public
use, strictly speaking.
Student: They are for public service
Atty: So they are for public service, because only authorized
personnel are allowed to use patrol cars and sprinklers. So
Article 424 says nga kung dili siya for public service, it will
qualify as patrimonial property. If its patrimonial property, then
it can be subject to attachment. But how did the Supreme
Court justify that the properties cannot be subject to the writ of
attachment? Thus equating them, placing them on the same
footing as a property for public service. Did the Supreme Court
explain something about that?
Student: Yes sir. According to the Supreme Court, (inaudible)

So Viuda De Tan Toco vs Municipal City of Iloilo is the case

in point. In this case, the Supreme Court however did not
directly addressed the issue about Article 424.

Atty: So these are not patrimonial properties, right? In effect,

the Supreme Court was saying that these are not patrimonial.
Did the Supreme Court say something about, even if its not for
public use, as long as its devoted to further the interest of the
public, to serve the public, then it is still property for public use.
Did the Supreme Court say something about that?

(Recites Part)

Student: (Inaudible)

Viuda De Tan Toco vs Municipal City of Iloilo:

Atty: Alright. So even if its for public service, as long as gigamit

siya to benefit the public, then it is the same as property for
public use, and therefore, the principles that govern public
dominion should likewise apply to them. That the ruling in
Viuda De Tan Toco. Ofcourse your reasoning if this will be
asked in the bar exam or in our exam should not be its
absurd. Because absurd is not a legal reason or its contrary
to logic, because logic is also not a legal reason. How do you
know that your logic is that impeccable that the Supreme Court
will agree to it.

Student: (Discusses the facts of the case and the ruling of the
Supreme Court.)
Atty: In other words, the land was acquired for a public
purpose. Ofcourse there is no quibbling or controversy that the
landowner here should be compensated. Was he forced to file
a case?
Student: (Inaudible, di maklaro kay hinay.)
Atty: In that case, was there a favorable judgment?
Student: (Inaudible)
Atty: So when you say attached, this would presuppose that
there is a judgment in their favor. Now then, the problem is,
there was a writ of attachment issued. The things that were to
be attached pursuant to the writ were? What were these

But ofcourse there was a Supreme Court case, where the

Supreme Court directly meet head on this seemingly conflicting
provision or this somewhat source of discomfort so to speak.
Gimeet jud headon kay naa man gud Article 424 nga nagingon kung public service siya, impliedly patrimonial. Was there
a decision where the Supreme Court had the occasion to rule
on what is really meant by Article 424 when it says all the
others, meaning those falling outside property for public use,
that they are patrimonial? In the Province of Zamboanga

Student: These were properties of the Municipality for public

Atty: For public use? Can you please describe them to us what
these properties are?

(Atty calls on another student to discuss this Province of

Zamboanga case.)
Province of Zamboanga Del Norte vs City of Zamboanga:

EH 401 Property

Page 21

Atty: So ang essence ani nga case, the Province of

Zamboanga, portions of which were segregated and made as
the City of Zamboanga. It was pursuant to a law, creating the
City of Zamboanga. And then, were there properties
transferred from the Province of Zamboanga to the City of
Student: Yes sir. All buildings, properties and assets, belonging
to the former province of Zamboanga City, are hereby
transferred free of charge.
Atty: So free of charge. There were 50 properties right? Out of
the 50, how many were those which can be categorize as
property for public use?
Student: (Inaudible)
Atty: 2 lots. Duha ra gyud ang properties for public use. The
others are properties for public service. So in other words, ang
48 properties, mu-fit siya sa classification as property for public
service. So the Province of course, filed a case, questioning
the law creating the City of Zamboanga, specifically that
provision which allowed or decreed the transfer of properties
free of charge. Why was it questioning the said provision?
Student: According to the Province sir, they were deprived of
the use of the public properties.
Atty: Okay when the Province contends that it is deprived of its
property without due process of law, in effect what is the
Province saying here about these properties?
Student: (inaudible)
Atty: In effect, is it contending that these are patrimonial
Student: Yes sir.
Atty: What was its basis in saying that these are patrimonial
properties? They must have cited a legal basis. Ingon man ang
province nga they are deprived of our property without just
compensation. So in effect, that is the contention of the
province, ingon sila nga these are patrimonial properties. So
what was the basis of the province in saying nga these are
patrimonial properties class?
Class: Article 424
Atty: Article 424. Mao ni. Na-misled ang Province of
Zamboanga Del Norte. Article 424, basta dili for public use,
patrimonial. So Patrimonial, dapat bayaran mi. Dili pwede nga
transfer ra, free of charge. So that is the issue. Are they really
patrimonial properties? What did the Supreme Court say about
Article 424?
Student: They upheld that the properties in question were
Atty: So Public property. So how did the Supreme Court
address the argument of the province that Article 424 treats
them as patrimonial?

EH 401 Property

Page 22

Student: (inaudible)
Atty: Okay so without prejudice. Naay exception. Dili na nah
absolute rule nga ug dili property for public use, patrimonial.
Because Article 424 (2) is very clear, without prejudice to the
provisions of special laws. So what is the special law here?
The Supeme Court said that this controversy should be
decided not in the light of the Civil Code, but is more under the
domain of law on Municipal Corporations. Because if we will
resolve this under the light of the Civil Code, what will be the
Student: (Inaudible)
Atty: So the Province of Zamboangas contention would be
correct, strictly speaking. The Law on Municipal Corporations
ofcourse does not allow it. The principle governing Municipal
Corporations would seem to imply that again, just like in the
Vda. De Tan Toco case, basta gigamit to benefit the public,
regardless of whether indiscriminate or only authorized
personnel are allowed to use it, then they are exempt from
attachment. And in the case of the Province of Zamboanga,
no proprietary or private interest may be asserted by the LGU.
Okay the case of Espiritu vs Municipal Council of
Pozorubbio. This is substantially similar to the case of
Municipality of Cavite vs Rojas, which involves the public
plaza. But there are still more issues discussed in the
Province of Zamboanga Del Norte vs City of Zamboanga,
especially the power of the State over properties coming from it
and which it transfers to the LGU. Unsa may extent sa
authority of the State over these properties nga ila nang gitransfer to the LGU when the LGU is created? But first of all,
we have to know how is a LGU created?

It is created by Law, by a legislative act.

(Nagdiscuss here si Atty. nga ang mga contribution sa mga

Congressman kay ang pag-himu ra ug balaod creating LGUs,
renaming a school, renaming a street :D )
(Maypa lagi daw mag-General nlng kay mahimu ug Drug
Lord :D )
(Chika dayun here about kinsa tong mga Government Officials
who are also Drug Lords, nga gi-disclose ni Pres. Duterte)
(Chika pa sad si Atty. about how real Drug Lords cannot be
identified, especially here in the Philippines. Basin gani daw
Archbishop ang isa sa mga Drug Lord :D )
(And If you think its over, wala pa. Naa pay Chika si Atty. about
the Book on Altar of Secrets. One of the incidents in this book
daw involves a former student of Atty., who was an altar boy
and who eventually became a lawyer, but who was allegedly a
victim of sexual harassment by a Priest while he was still an
altar boy. Mas interesting pa daw. Available daw ang book sa
Amazon, subscribe namo kay alkansi daw kung e-airdrop ni
Atty. HAHA)

(But wait, theres more guys. Chika pa si Atty. about a friend of

his nga Priest and really devoted sa iyang calling. In fact naassign daw ni iyang friend at one time in the Amazon.)
Okay so from another issue, theres a discussion here in the
cases of Province of Zamboanga Del Norte vs City
Zamboanga, in Salas vs Jarencio and Manila Lodge 761 vs
CA, about the power of the State when it transfers properties
to a LGU when the LGU is created. Okay you already know
that it is created by Law. So what do you normally see in the
law that creates a LGU by a Province. Aside from names,
enumerating what its powers are, there will also be transfer of
certain properties belonging to the land of the public domain to
be cite of the municipal hall, public plaza, market, etc. And
pursuant to the law, these LGUs now become the registered
owners of these properties.
You notice nga normally, kani atong mga lungsod naa gyud
nang City hall, then near that naay public plaza, then near the
public plaza, theres the public market, and then, and church.
Pursuant to the law creating the LGU, the State transfers
ownership of these properties to it. When the State transfer
ownership of these properties to a specific LGU, does it cease
to have control over these properties?

When you read the case of Salas vs Jarencio and

also, Province of Zamboanga vs City of
Zamboanga, you will learn that it does not cease to
have any control. That is precisely the point of the
Supreme Court when it says Province of
Zamboanga, you cannot complain when the State
thru the Legislature, enacts a law creating the City of
Zamboanga and taking some properties from the
Province of Zamboanga. Why? Because with regard
to these properties transferred, we still have control
over them. And since we have control, we can
transfer it to another LGU or even to another
agency of the National Government.

Salas vs Jarencio:
I think this is the case involving the City of Manila changing its
mind. Naay land nga gi-occupy by informal settlers, so the City
of Manila would want to legalize it. Actually the land there,
came from the State. So wa naman gigamit, so they were
thinking of selling this properties to those occupants. But first,
the City of Manila asked permission from the National
Government, by way of asking the National Government to
cause the enactment of a law that would convert thisproperties
into patrimonial. Dili man nimu ma-transfer kung dili patrimonial
diba? And pursuant to that request, a law was passed and then
the law did not attached it to the City of Manila as the one who
would administer the transfer. Rather, it was attached to the
Land Tenure Administration, which is another national
agency. So when the land, is sought to be transferred to the
Land Tenure Administration, the City of Manila now contends
that it should been transferred to it. The City of Manila is now
questioning the law, gi-question nila ang constitutionality.

EH 401 Property

Page 23

The City of Manila argued that it is unconstitutional because

they deprived of the property without due process of law. In
effect, when in-ana gani ang contention sa LGU, implicit from
that argument is that they are treating the property as
patrimonial. What did the Supreme Court say?
(Atty calls a student to discuss the ruling of the Supreme
Student: The Supreme Court said that the land belong to the
State and then it just simply granted usufructuary rights to the
City of Manila.
Atty: Okay so the City of Manila is granted usufructuary rights
only. So it cannot?
Student: It cannot dispose the property.
Atty: Okay in other words, it cannot object. So naay may
control ang State, the National Government can say wa kay
mahimu kung akung e-hatag ang property to another
government agency. So what rule can we formulate from
(Time na, continue next meeting)

July 7, 2016
The question how a province or a city is created and
we already know that it was created chapter or a law and the
law that creates it defines or [inaudible] certain portions of
lands and republic domain, which will now become the basis to
transfer ownership in favor of the province or the city.
Example of control is in the case of Zamboanga
wherein the state enacted a law and just decreed that the
property is from the province of Zamboanga and shall be
transferred free of charge to the city of Zamboanga.
In the case of Manila Lands 761, there was a law that the
decreed of the lands there, which was already in the name of
the city in Manila said to be transferred to the land in the
administration, kaning pagtransfer from one agency from
another is an example of control.
Government funds topic is very important and very
relevant, especially in the light of, and cases wherein
government, local government unit and [theres a contract] with
a private entity and along the way, some breech is committed
like failure to pay on time, like what happened on the case of
professional video v. TESDA , cases like government takes
private property for public use or a payment of
compensation thus compelling the private entity to file the case
against the government. The general rule of course is that the
government state that a [sue] without its consent is the basis
rule in the law that there are exemptions to these rule.
The exemptions are when the state waves its immunity, when
the state enters into a contract, when in cases of eminent
domain, ug when you say na dili nimo ma sue nimo ang state
ang imong property or public use without just compensation,

nya ig kiha nimo ingnon ka sa state na state cannot be sued

without its consent [inaudible]. The government should set an
example that it promotes justice and equity so if they would not
allow that then the government is a number one violator. In
cases like this, the government should be involved in the case.
Waiver only up to proceedings before executions.
Public dominion is beyond [inaudible] except if the properties
belongs to a truly government owned and controlled
corporation, so ato ning i-relate one case to the other, di ingon
na ato ning i-compartmentalize, this is lawyering.
Even if there are millions of deposits in the name of
the city of Cebu, for example, you have a money judgment on
the city of Cebu dili na pwede na siya lang muadto sa banko
unya iya nang i-seize like what one of the sheriff did, a claim
against the city of cebu, iyang gibuhat gipangserbihan niya ug
garnishment ang land bank, development back of the
Philippines, of course invalidated, because no public funds
[inaudible] computation.
In act first of in appropriation
You cannot attach government funds, dont issue an
order directing a garnishment of a government funds because
you will be courting an initiative case of gross ignorance of the
law. You might be dismissed of service. Unless there is a
specific appropriation in the case of Pasay city v. Government
[inaudible], there was already a compromise agreement and
the basis for that compromise agreement there was an
appropriation ordinance, dili man pud ta muingon na ang
gobyerno salbahis ning gobyerno nga dili jud mubayad sa
iyang obligasyon, mubayad man, dugay lang.
Example, ni engage ta, naa tay consultancy here of
one of our counselors here naa tay gamay compensation ana
or consultancy pero bayad ana binulan na siya, pero mahimo
nag every six months pero dili dali-dali. Also if you are the
mayor or the vice-mayor or your father is a mayor,you should
advise your father, opps ayaw ug pasagad pa ha, ayaw
pasagad ug disburse pa ha, ma technical [inaudible] ka ha
partition ngano man, before ka mu sign ug contract kailangan
nay certificate of appropriation, nay appropriation ordinance
na, dili na basta-basta and then kailangan ug certificate of
availability of funds. Kani tanan tan-awa mao man ni ang mga
supporting documents before the disbursement voucher can
be signed, otherwise, kaning mga documentoha wala ni, then
be prepared to face cases like relation of anti-grab,

About the former governor Garcia, according the

CICC, we are prejudging the guilt or innocent. Also the
Governor in Negros Oriental is dismissed in service, there is a
calamity fund given to Governor Degamo already set aside by
the department of budget and then [inaudible] and the political
opponents gi-withdraw balik sa DBM and budget na gihatag
na. We call it negative SARO, special allotment release order
but governor Degamo proceeded with the awarding of the
contract he was sued for eleven counts of malversation. Public

EH 401 Property

Page 24

funds and then in the administrative case, he was dismissed

from service. And then the worst part is, the ombudsman did
not apply the Aguinaldo. The abandonment of the Aguinaldo
doctrine; meaning, even if he was re-elected in the last
election, the ombudsman still insists that he is covered by the
new rule that re-election is not an (inaudible) administrative
liability. Naapil pa among clienteng duha kabook. Provincial
accountant and provincial treasurer. Good thing we were able
to secure a TRO to stop the ombudsman from implementing.
The ombudsman is very very powerful. Even if you are still
appealing the decision of the ombudsman, the decision is
immediately executory. And if in the event that you will be
exonerated, you will just be placed in preventive suspension.
What if you will die in the meantime? You cannot retire And
how many years will it take for a case to be resolved? For
example, one of my client, the provincial treasurer is about to
retire next year, he cannot collect his retirement. So you should
be very careful about this Ok pa to ilaha kay naa gani toy
budget So now we are questioning the validity of the
withdrawal ok? Thats our argument Funds are already
deposited; the DBM has no jurisdiction anymore to take back
the appropriation. Thats our argument, and I hope the
supreme court will sustain us For the meantime, away man
ni Ang katong na involve? Unsa man? My gani kay naka
restraining order ta, kay ug wa pa ty restraining order nga
nakuha di gyud na ka serve, unya pila man aka tuig nga ma
solve ang kaso? Thas why I am including this in the topic so
that you will be guided accordingly about the government fund.
In the Pasay City government, you see, different ni. Pwede
nang ma attach, because pwede nang ma gardnish, because
naa nay appropriation odinance. Now on an incidental point, it
is not about apporopriation, mao man ni ang kalagmitan nga
ma issue gud. In the appropriation ordinance, for example, ang
usual dha noh, have you heard about this lump sum
appropriation? For example muingon didto nga for various
infrastructure projects 50 million, reclamation projects 70
million, roads and bridges 100 million, remember that this is
an appropriation ordinance, so if that is an appropriation
ordinance, that is a legislative enactment. If you are the
mayor, it might be tempting in your part na mupirma nako ani,
pirma nako aning contrata without asking for an additional
authority because this appropriation ordinance should be deal
already as authority, because ug wala niy consent di na tani ni
mo hatag ug appropriation, db?
But in the case of quisumbing, mayor of mandaue
vs. Gwendolyn Garcia, former governor. Take note of this case
GR # 175527 Dec 8 2008, this is the rule: should the
appropriated ordinance already contained insufficient detail,
the project and cause of the capital outlay, no further
authorization is required, the appropriation ordinance already
being sufficient. For example, for repair and rehabilitation of
Mactan bridge 2, specific appropriation, db? Naa na sa
appropriation so mu site ka ug contract ana with a private
contractor, you dont need anymore another ordinance or
another solution authorizing you to sign the contract. Get it
class? Basta specific na ang pag abortion, specific na ang pag
name sa project with the appropriation ordinance. However, if
the project is described in generic terms, meaning like

infrastructure projects, inter municipal water works, drainage,

and sewerage, flood control, irrigation system projects, mga
ing ani ba na walay klaro wala gi specify ba the rule is there
is an obvious need for covering contract for ever specific
project. In other words, kung naa ty laing budget na kuhaon
diha, for a specific project, kinanglan ka ug separate resolution
or appropriation authorizing you to sign the contract. Get it?
So if infrastructure projects ra gani ang nakabutang didto,
diretso kag sign thinking that ordinance is already authority,
then you are wrong. That is disbursement without
appropriation. Of course remember the consequence, the
consequence is criminal cases for malversation, and
administrative cases for grave misconduct. Gamay raman
nang grave misconduct, the penalty is only dismissal from
service, mao ra na ang penalty sa grave misconduct, dismissal
from service, forfeiture of benefits, cancellation of your civil
service eligibility, and perpetual disqualification from public
service, kana ra gud, so if mu apply ka pagka barangay tanod,
dili ka pwede, disqualified ka. For example, gov. Degamo, if the
decision will be appealed na dismissed from service, gov.
Degamo can not even apply for barangay police, barangay
tanod, di gyud siya pwede ana. .. barangay councilor ok?
Unya of course, counts of malversation, unya diversion of
intended appropriation, that is also technical malversation.
And that is all for property in relation to the person to whom it
(question) Unsa my laing recourse sa mga big corporations na
dili mabyran ug walay appropriation.Unsa my laing mabuhat
kysa magtanga sir maghulat sa congress

yutaa ni can you sponsor an ordinance... kana muy pinaka

feasible you just have to trust the government kay basi busy
lang gyud kaay ba if there is already an appropriation
ordinance, mao na pwede ra nang trabahuon didto pwede
na nag disbursement. Kana bitaw example, supplier ka noh,
pagkaon kinatahay, supplier ug tubig in one of the functions
and activities of the city, unya dili ka mabayaran? Dili pwede
na mu file ka ug kaso unya naay date of attachment unya
muadto ka sa land bank or sa dbp, you cant do that. Unya ug
ikaw pud and abogado, ayaw pud pasagad ug file ug kaso na
ing ana kay you know that is not legally attainable. That will be
a reflection of your legal competence, ug ma mao na. Ganahan
diay ka? Naay panahon na makalusot cguro ka
(question) kanang bisag daghang gisecure (question not
clear, class laughing and discussing)kinsa my pinaka secure
nga trabaho? Government. Sigurado lagi ang gobyerno,
dugay lang gyud contractor for example barato man na..
preparahan gihapon kas gobyerno.. depende man na sa new
culture noh, I hope and mga goberno mu deal didto, sa my
GSO, dalion na like tagaan ba nilag cellphone, but I hope wala
na nang mga ing ana.
(talking about 8888)

We will include the part of ownership maybe until the
limitations and the right of ownership.
(talking about schedule Saturday, 10 am)

If you are the state, you can file directly with a claim to
the COA, file a claim. Pero that is only for claims against the
state. State ba or kanang mga government insturmentalities.
Like for example in my case, I have a client (pero wala ko
bayare ani pero sige nalang), sige nalang kay silingan man
blah blah blah (story about the client) Naa siyay yuta being
rented by the national irrigation administration, adto ipang
parking ang mga heavy equipment didto Wala siya bayare
kay mao lagi nang goberno lagi dugay ba ang nahitabo
was, napugos siya ug file a case for unlawful detainer, for
moral damages, that is already a ruling, that is already a
judgment in her favor. And then wa gihapon. O di akong gi
comply. So she was forced to file a claim sa COA. And that is
an example. File a claim in COA. The problem with COA is
dugay man pud gihapon kayo. Mao na karon we hope na with
this new administration, na muingon na to go away with too
much bureaucratic red tape, kanang mga ing ana nga cases
ba. Mapul an gyud nang tawo ana, you know, seeking judicial
recourse and then, you know kanang dugay kayo, delay, is
also denial justice denial. Like the Mandamus casedugay
sad kayo nang mandamus na corte man nang mandamus
ang pinaka speedy is to make network with the law makers.
Ikaw, you have a claim in the city of cebu, ug kaila nimo ang
konsehal, duolon nimo ang konsehal. Dili na illegal ha.. dili na
illegal. Wa ko gaingon na dili illegal and illegal pasabot nako
dili lang ni siya usual sanctions by the books. Doula didto
muhangyo kas konsehal nga naa kay claim aning yutaa ni.
Naa ban is imong jurisdiction ikaw by ga sponsor aning

EH 401 Property

Page 25

We will start ownership next meeting.

July 9, 2016
Atty: What comes to your mind when you talk about
Atty: It is a right, when you talk of ownership you cannot avoid
talking about rights. Rights about what? Rights over a thing, or
a right over a right. In other words your power to exercise of
your right.
Art. 428- The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a
thing, without other limitations than those established by
law. The owner has also a right of action against the
holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover it.
Atty: what are some specific rights under the right to enjoy?
Atty: The right to possess, right to use and right to the fruits.
Atty: you only enjoy the thing if you can use the thing, because
if you cannot use then you cannot enjoy it. You have a parcel
of land but you cannot enjoy it, it remains idle, then you are not
enjoying your right as an owner.
Atty: What else? Right to the fruits. But here being law student,
do not think like a layman, when you say fruits you are
referring only ownership to a tree which bears fruit, well, Im
not saying that is not correct. but in Property, there are several

types of fruits in the law of property. In fact they are classified

as to,
Natural Fruits- which are the spontaneous products of
the soil
Industrial Fruits- produce from land to the application
of labor
Civil Fruits- referring to rentals, dividends, shares.
Atty: Other than the right to enjoy you also have the right to
Atty: what specifics rights which may fall under the right to
dispose? THE RIGHT TO SELL, kung owner ka naa jud kay
right to sell. The right to LEASE. The right to dispose also
includes the right to DESTROY the thing. You dont like the
design of the house you want to destroy it you cannot be
stopped. Right to dispose also means the right to mortgage.
Atty: The right to vindicate, presupposes your right as owner or
the enjoyment of your right as an owner over a thing is being
disturbed by another person, so you have the right to institute
or commence all legal remedies to recover the thing that you
Btw, why? Kanang right to vindicate, ngano man ma issue ang
ownership there? First of all, when you file an action to recover,
first and foremost is you have to prove that you are the owner,
because we have such a term which is cause of action. Now,
whats the consequence if you cannot prove that you have a
cause of action? Then your complaint will be dismissed.
Because if you are not the owner, or your ownership is still a
contested issue, then your cause of action is premature. An
example of a premature cause action is, a case to recover
ownership filed by a son regarding to the property of the father
who is still alive, on the ground mu ingon siya na advance
inheritance man to, in law there is no such thing as advance

Atty: you go by the syllabus, you have the right of accession,

the right to everything that is added or that is incorporated to
the thing that you own. Like what? Simple lang ni imong (what
the you call the female pig) (basta female pig) naay mga
piglets. (bla bla bla about sa life sa butakal) (basta ang main
point) kinsa ang tag iya sa piglets ron? Ang presumption ana,
is kung I apply ang balaot ang tag iya is ang female, mao na
ang presumption, that is an example of the right of accession.
Next example like ownership of the alluvial deposits attached
to the land. Remember the case of Ignacio VS. Director of the
Ignacio Vs. Director of the lands
Atty: in the case of Ignacio, lahi man to, sea water man ang
responsible for the formation of the additional land, pero if its
river, the law says it belongs to the riparian owner, why?
Because its his right of accession, that is a right pertaining to
the owner of the land.
Atty: alright, What else? Kaning accession would also include
mga building on the land made by one who is not the owner on
the land of another person. For example, something is built on
your land by someday who thought the land belongs to him,
sayop lang ba siya, wa jud siya intention na mubuild siya nya
kabalo na siya na dili iyaha. Kay if thats the case, wala nay
issue ana, mawala jud iya right ana. Squatter for example,
musulod sa imung lot unya mag-build ug balay. (Chika daun si
Atty ani nga part) In-ana nga case nga kabalo siya nga the
land does not belong to him, wa siyay right ana.
Pero naa may instances nga nasayup ba. For example,
nasayup ang boundary sa lot. In cases like that, naay
problema. Di na nimu pwede mabasta-basta. Because the
owner has rights under Article 448. We will discuss Art. 448
because its a favorite and fertile ground of a bar question.
Pero unya na kay kahibaw ku nga wa mu gabasa ana.
Unya kaning owner sad ta, aside from that, naa sad kay mga
certain rights like the Doctrine of Self-help. Unsa maning Selfhelp guys? (Katawa daun ang tanan kay lahi ang gi-hunahuna
about Self-help. HAHA!)

Atty: If its personal property, it is Writ of Replevin. If its real
property, Forcible entry, Unlawful detainer.
Atty: Accion publiciana actually di gud ni siya sa owner, this is
to the possessor. Accion Reinvindicatoria is for ownership.
Atty: forcible entry and unlawful detainer may be filed either by,
the owner himself or the right possessor who may not be the
owner. Medyo technical ni gamay ha. We will discuss the
cases later.
RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP (ara ra daw sa ta sa right of
Atty: aside from the things we mentioned there are also several
the jus of ownership.
Jus Possidendi Right to possess
Jus Utendi- Right to use
Jus Fruendi Right to fruits
Jus Abutendi Right to consume
Jus Disponendi Right to dispose
Jus Vindicandi right to recover

EH 401 Property

Atty: mao ni siya mga fundamental rights pertaining to the

owner, but other than this naa pay other rights which only the
owner may enjoy. What are these rights?

Page 26

The right to repel aggression on your property.
It is an exception to the Doctrine that you have no
right to take the law into your own hands.
For example, kanang gi-snatchan kag necklace. Di
daun nimu gukdon kay youre not allowed to inflict
physical injury, kay youre not allowed to take the law
into your own hands. Now thats not the case.
Because of this doctrine of self-help, youre allowed to
repel aggression on your property.
Well I know in your Criminal law, you have the right to Selfdefense. (Requisite: Unlawful Aggression, Reasonable
Necessity, Lack of Sufficient Provocation). Kani siya(Doctrine
of Self-help), this is the counterpart in Civil Law. If you notice
nga, di raba nah nimu ma-invoke ang self-defense kung for
Naay ni-saka sa imung balay, unya wala man nay
threat sa imung person. Alangan magpakulata
sah ka. Kung walay unlawful aggression, di
pwede ang self-defense. So unsa man imung
right ana? Ni-a ning Doctrine of Self-help in

Property. Law. Pero kailanga, reasonable

necessity. Okay? So bantayi ning doctrine of selfhelp.
Ofcourse here in ownership we talk also about limitations, the
theory that in the law on Property, the right of ownership is
not absolute. What are the limitations?
Those imposed by the State
Those imposed by the Owner
Those imposed by Law
(Gi-relate dayun diri ni Atty. katong story niya nga nag-file siya
ug pleading sa CA(Manila), then while waiting kay wala pman
nag-open, ka-CRron siya. Nag-ask si Atty/ sa guard sa isa ka
neighboring Condominium kung pwede mugamit sa CR pwede
wala siya gi-allow kay base sa policy sa condo, only residents
ang pwede mu-gamit. Iya dayun gi-lecturan ang Guard. Wa na
dayun nag-CR si Atty. kay nanglood na siya. Nawala iyang kaCRron tungod sa adrenaline. HAHAHAHA.)
(Gi-lecturan ni Atty. ang guard nga sa Law on Property, there is
this principle of necessity, which allows a person to destroy
the thing owned by another person in cases of extreme
So we will discuss that later on, that is in relation to right to
ownership. There is a basic restriction on a persons right to
ownership. For example:
There is a guy who is about to die because he
accidentally ingested a poison. Then, there is a
drugstore who is about to close, which has the
antidote. So will the security guard just close it
because its already closing time, even if there is this
person who is dying? Do you see my point here class.
Another is to destroy ones house, in order to prevent
the spread of fire.

July 11, 2016

Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
For forcible entry and unlawful detainer class, you will still
discuss this in special civil actions and provisional remedies,
specially the technical aspect of it. For our purpose, we will just
discuss whats the nature of this remedies and when can you
avail of this remedy, under what circumstances, under what
situation could you be warranted in availing these remedies
referred to as forcible entry or unlawful detainer.
Now for personal property, if you want to recover position,
your remedy is right of replevin, so only one. It is in the case of
real property where there are several remedies available,
dipendi sa inyong pillion ana, right? But this forcible entry,
unlawful detainer, publiciana, these remedies, let me be clear
that it is not correct to say that only the owner may avail these
remedies, okay? Its not only the owner. Even if you are not the
owner but you are in rightful possession, you can avail of these
remedies. So, what is an example of an individual who is not
the owner but is in rightful possession, is a lessee. He can
avail of this remedy. Kung lessee ka, or if you are a
usufructuary, lets discuss later on what this usufructuary is. If
you are the lessee, you are not the owner, but you have a

EH 401 Property

Page 27

rightful possession. So, if thats the case, even if you are only
a lessee, you can file a case against the owner for forcible
entry. And the owner cannot put up the defense, assuming that
you have established that you have a rightful possession, the
owner cannot put up the defense that he is the owner.
But if its accion reinvindicatoria, that is where the ownership is
an issue, okay?
Question: What do you understand by forcible entry, as a
Answer: When there is entry by another person into a real
property; by force, intimidation, strategy, threat and stealth, and
the rightful possessor, who may not necessarily be the owner,
but usually the owner is deprived of possession. Okay?
Can you think of a very common example which may be
remedied of a forcible entry? Kanang pinaka common nga you
see everywhere if you bother observing whats happening
around you.
Ans: Those living in squatters areas Sir.
Atty G: You have a property, for example, SRP, naai ging bitag
didto d ba, so nanulod didto, nya iatul ug gabii sulod kai klaro
man kaayo kung hayag ang adlaw diba, so gabii gyud manulod
didto, put up ug mga tent didto; so the City of Cebu may file for
an action of forcible entry. Whats the ground there? Kung
senekretong sulod, Kananga gabii gyud mosulod para di
Ans: Stealth Sir.
Atty G: Stealth! Alright! Stealth okay? Another case is that its
not only stealth, naa gyuy pinugsanay gyud nga pagsulod,
dalag bulldozer, d ba? Bulldozeron ba aron maka sulod, unsa
mana? Thanks entry by ___ FORCE!!!___., or dala ug guns..
hawa mo diri, Im giving you 72 hours to vacate on this
premises. Or if di gani mo. Kita nalang ta sa minteryo ani.
Alright, that is intimidation!! So all of these things, if you are
deprived of the possession, to any of these means mention,
forcible entry is the appropriate remedy, okay? How about
unlawful detainer?
Ans: Its when at first there was a valid and lawful possession
of the property, either by a contract or a mere tolerance, and
after the expiration of such (the contract), and the owner or
merely the possessor wants to use na the properties, then you
request the person na to vacate, and the person whose
occupying refuses so thats the start of the unlawful
Atty G.: Okay, so in that case, you understand that explanation
guys? That a very simple explanation but thats a correct
explanation. Alright?
Class: ahhhhh haba ng hair.
Atty G.: Kamu ba, cge mog padugag pusta dha dah. In a case,
naai ni renta, then expire na ang contract of lease, d ghapon
mo vacate, alright? Legal man ang possession from the very

beginning, as it is pursuant to a contract of lease, right? Na

expire naman, but take note hah, the mere expiration does not
make the possession illegal. Okay? So to make it illegal, you
must make a demand to vacate and give it a period. So if dili
ghapon, of course, binalaod estorya, mo file tag kaso, unlawful
detainer ang kaso, so dili forcible entry because in this case
possession is legal but became illegal, alright? So do you now
understand the nature of this remedy?

a house therein. And afterwards, Gabriel and Irreneo offered to

buy the property from Crisologo, and afterward there was no
verbal agreement in them, and then Gabriel continued to
posses the property, so Crisologo subsequently demanded that
they vacate the property, but they did not vacate because they
claim that they have the better right of possession with regard
to the subject land. So Crisologo filed a case for unlawful

Class: Yes.

Atty G: Unlawful detainer or forcible entry? Its a recovery of

possession right? So we are not clear whether its unlawful
detainer or forcible entry. So anyway, in claiming that Crisologo
has the right to own and possession, right? In claiming that,
whats his basis?

Atty G: Mr. xxx, this remedy are described as summary

remedies, what do you understand by summary remedy.
Ans: Summary means does not require trial.
Atty G: So if d mo require ug trial, is this advantageous to the
litigant? Yes, dba? Nganu man? Trial abugado na mai
malingaw anang trial db? Cgeg hearing appearance fee dayon.
Pero para sa mga litegante, mas maayo gyud ang speedy,
okay? So kung muingon gani tang summary gani pasabot ana,
these cases can be decided on the basis of affidavits and
position paper, okay? Anyway, naa gyuy special rule/procedure
governing forcible entry and unlawful detainer. Regardless of
amount ni hah. So ay mo pag tuo nga just because multi billion
ning property involve, basta unlawful detainer or forcible entry,
summary gyud ni cya. Okay? So ang normal man gud sa kaso
is present ug witness, direct, present ang pikas, direct na sad.
Pero sa forcible entry and unlawful detainer, wala nani, okay?
Affidavits lang. after submission of affidavits and position
paper, decision dayon. Okay? Mao nang gitawag nga summary
actions to recover position.
Also in forcible entry and unlawful detainer, they are described
to be cases wherein ownership is not the primary issue there,
okay? But the issue there is who has priority of possession. So
what to you understand by that? Based on your reading on the
case of Gabriel vs Crisologo. Unsa may epekto kung atong e
issue ang ownership? Kung mo determine ang korte, ma force
ang korte to determine the ownership, will it delay the
resolution of the case? Yes! It will delay! Mag istorya tag kinsai
tag iya. Sugod ta sa deed of sale, titulo, giunsa na nimu
pagkuha nang tituloha na. kinawat bana nimu or unsa.
Makadelatar na sa kaso! Thats why ingon ang balaod nga for
ownership, Ill take a backseat for the mean time. Unsa mai e
determine? Possession! Priority of Possession!! Kinsa man
ang nag occupy? Right? So ikaw moi ni occupy, dona kai claim
of ownership, versus another nga wala ga occupy naa ghapoi
claim of ownership. Ang modaog kato gyung naai actual
possession. Dba? Pero ingon pud ang balaod nga, but, dili ni
cya final. Naa moi cases nga ma force ang court to
provisionally determine the issue of possession. Whats the
purpose? The purpose is to determine who has the better right
of possession. And the best case to explain this is the case of
Gabriel vs. Crisologo.

Ans: His TCT.

Atty G: Transfer Certificate of Title, so here we have a state
nga nag salig ning una nga I have a rightful possession
because I have a certificate of title. Is this correct Mr. xxx, to
say that if this is your argument, you are in effect relying on
ownership as the basis of your possession?
Ans: Yes.
Atty G: Right! Okay? Kung muingon ka nga ang imung right of
possession is because of the certificate of title, muingon ka
nga in effect, its because kai ikaw ang tag-iya. Duna kai rightful
possession kai tag-iya ka. Right? Of course the current
occupant there, current possessor does not believe in his title.
So he put up several defenses like, the title is illegal, which
according to the court, we will not deal with that, we will not
give credence for the mean time because, that is a collateral
attack on ones title. So to make the long story short, according
to the Supreme Court, who has the rightful possession of this
Ans: As the Supreme Court ruled, Crisologo has the rightful
possession because she is in possession of the title.
Atty G. Okay, so this is the case of a summary action to
recover but the SC here was forced to rule on the issue of
ownership to determine who has the priority of possession. So
therefore, in cases where ang current occupant cannot put up
a valid legal reason why he is in possession, ownership should
be provisionally determine, to determine who has rightful
possession. You understand that class? Kasabot mo anang
dapita? Pero ingon ta provisional, why? What is the
implication? Its only for the time being. In other words, kung
muingon ni run ang Korte diri nga ang rightful possessor diri
kai duna cyai certificate of title, si Crisologo, of course, in effect
niingon ang Korte diha nga tag iya gyud si Crisologo. Pero kai
provisional man, kai dha man sa ejectment suit na gi rule sa
Court, the Court in effect is saying nga kung gusto gyud ka nga
lalison pani, ikaw nga napildi, file an appropriate action in
court, which is of accion reinvicatoria. Okay class?

Gabriel vs. Crisologo

The issue here is the property of Crisologo which she claims to
possess 2 parcels of land. Crisologo alleged that Gabriel
forced their way in the property by use of force and constructed

EH 401 Property

Page 28

Okay class, lets go to this another type of summary procedure

which is unlawful detainer. Okay Mr. xxx when you say
contract, what do you mean by that? Possession pursuant to a

contract? Shall we limit ourselves only in cases where there is

express contract or implied contract may be included?

Quijano that the possession of Atty. Amante is a case of

tolerated possession?

Ans: Implied may be also included.

Ans: No. the SC did not agree. Although there was a sale, the
sale did not transfer ownership to Atty. Amante. The sale only
transferred a right, and thus made, Atty. Amante as a co-owner.
As a co-owner, he has the right to participate in the judicial
partition however Atty Amante failed to.

Atty G: So what is an example of a possession due to an

implied contract?
How about allowing somebody to
momentarily occupy the land that you own. Would you qualify
that as an implied contract?
Ans: Yes, there is tolerance.
Atty. G: It qualify, because for possession when there is
tolerance, it carries with it the obligation on the part of the
possessor to vacate when the owner would need the premises,
hah? On the basic rule of possessor by tolerance, muingon na
gani na ang owner nga pahawa diha kai ako nang gamiton,
ayaw nag paugat dha, kai possessor by tolerance man ka.
Mura kag Cabinet secretary ba muingon gani ang Presidente
nga I lost my trust in you, pahawa gyud. Kung muingon pud
gani ang owner nga pahawa na dha doh, ayawg ingon didto
nga di ko muhawa, dako na kaayo kog nagasto diri. Hah. Kai
you cannot be considered as builder in good faith there.
Alright? But for tolerance, to be a valid ground, you have to
alleged of course tolerance alright, but in the cases that I
assigned, the SC there mentioned something about tolerance.
What is needed for tolerance to be successfully invoked as a
ground to ask somebody to vacate? What is the requirement?
Mere allegation of tolerance because that is a conclusion of
law dha of tolerance. You know in pleadings, d ko mugama ug
conclusion dha. It should be allegation of facts ba, kung unsai
Kung muingon kag tolerance, I explain why do you say thats
possession by tolerance. Like what happened in Fe Quijano vs
Amante, what happened there?
Ans: Quijano siblings inherited a land from their mother. Before
there was extrajudicial partition, the brother of Fe Quijano,
Eliseo sold his share of 600 sqm to Atty Amante. During the
sale, there was no partition yet.
Atty G: Okay, you know class, if you buy something which is
still under a co-ownership, and you happened to be the buyer,
you cannot claim a specific part, okay? Im not saying that the
sale is invalid. The sale is valid but you cannot claim a specific
part because what is being sold in you is only a share in
interest, which is still at the moment is imaginary, subject to the
results of the partition. Got it? So mao nai nahitabo sa mga
Quijano. And then what happened?
Ans: There was a partition, and the property lot which was sold
to Amante was given as the share of Fe Quijano.
Atty G.: Dali ra kaayo ni sabton no, ang gi occupy ni Amante
kai kining specific part, so pag partition karun, sus kai ang
iyang gi occupy, ang bahin man diay pertaining to ni Fe
Quijano. So kisi kisi run si Fe Quijano, ingon cya nga ui Atty.
Amante, hawa diha kai ako manang share imung gi occupy. D
muhawa si Amante, compeling Ms. Quijano to file a case for
unlawful detainer, in the theory that there was a tolerance on
the part of Elesio. Did the SC agreed to the contention of Mrs.

EH 401 Property

Page 29

Atty G: So this is not a case of a tolerated possession, what did

I say, if you are a possessor by mere tolerant, unsa man ka?
Do you have a very strong right there? Wa kai katungod ana
dba? Pero si Atty. Amante, unsa mana cya, is he a bona fide
buyer?? Buyer cya so he cannot be considered as a possessor
by tolerance. Palit gud ni cya. In fact ang sulti sa SC diri, kung
buyer ka pertaining to share of a co-owner, you will step in the
shoes of the said co-owner. So how can he be tolerated
possessor? Kanang tolerated possessor man gud ka, wa kai
independent right. So he cannot be possessor by tolerance.
To make to long story short, the case is dismiss due to
improper action. But were not saying that Fe Quijano has no
cause of action. She has a cause of action, but a wrong action.
What should have been filed here is partition ni. Partition and
Case or Manantan.
Thats also the problem there right. This is unlawful detainer
Ans: Yes, the case is of unlawful detainer. So Manantan, the
owner of the land made a relocation survey. And he found out
that the defendant is occupying a portion of his land.
Atty G: There was a relocation survey, gi relocate ang
boundary sa iyang property. So pag relocate karun kai nag
occupy man sa iyang yuta. Ni file cyag kaso for unlawful
detainer. Nasipyat na sad. Ni ingon ang SC nga this is not a
proper case for unlawful detainer because this could not be
considered as a possession pursuant to a contract whether
express or implied. Alright? Why?.
Ans: Its not implied because there was no tolerance. Its not
express also because there was no prior agreement between
Atty G.: Yes, in fact. Kaning defendant diri, dha na ni before he
came into picture. So here, learn the lesson hah. In case of
Manantan and Quijano, unsai nahitabo? Sayop ang gi file! Ang
mga kasong gihatag ninyo, sayop. Dba? Para makabalo mo
kung unsai correct. There are actually lots of cases involving
forcible entry and unlawful detainer. In Quijano, this is a very
good case as to what constitutes tolerance hah.
There are some things that you have to remember in relation to
forcible entry and unlawful detainer before we will leave this:

Forcible entry, it is a jurisdictional requirement to

allege force or intimidation or stealth etc. No
allegation to that effect, the court has no jurisdiction.



By the way, by way of advise, kanang mag allege ka

ani, ayaw ninyog ratsadaha hah.. kai mag conflict ra
ba na. Muingon kang entry by force, unya muingon
pud kang entry by stealth? Mag conflict ra ba na.
Kung maabtan mog huwis nga strikto muingon cyang
counsel, let me clarify, how was the entry made, is it
by stealth or by force? Alang alang mang muingon ka
nga it does not matter your honor, thats what the law
says! It matters guys!!! It matters!! Why? Because
take note hah. 1 year period, unsa man imuhang
reckoning period? It will depend on the ground. For
intimidation, 1 year when the intimidation stops.
Stealth, kung gi sinekrito diay na pagsulod dha bago
lang ka naka diskobre, ingon dayon ka sa defendant
nga dugay rako diri, lima nako ka tuig diri. Anaon diay
ka? Unya e dismiss ang kaso? So 1 year from
discovery. Alright?
On the other hand, if its unlawful detainer, there must
be an allegation of demand to vacate. Okay. Kaning
demand to vacate hah. Magama gani mog demand
letter guys, muingon gani kag pay the rentals or
vacate, that is not a sufficient demand to vacate. It
should be pay accrued rentals and vacate. Kai kung
muingon kang pay rentals or vacate, kung mubayad
ug rentals ato, so wa kai cause of action. Dismiss
imung kaso. But amidst all these discussion, why
nganu man nga mupili man gyud tag forcible entry or
unlawful detainer?
Its because kai summary lagi. Mas dali man. So
manigkamot gyud ta nga as much as possible ato
gyud ihaom nga forcible entry or unlawful detainer.
Taronga lang imung complaint. Forcible entry lagi,
decisionan, pag daog ka sa MTC, dili pana e execute.
Pag appeal ana, nya daog ka sa RTC, pwede nana e
execute, in the mean time. Pwede na. Bahala nato
ang defendant kung mo appeal pa. Alright? Mao na
nag maningkamot gyud ta nga ari gyud sa forcible
entry or unlawful detainer kai kung adto ka sa
publiciana or reinvindicatoria, abtan kag siyam siyam
Another aspect of accion interdictal noh (unlawful
detainer and forcible entry) is the jurisdiction noh, so
where shall you file it? MTC, the lowest level court.
Take note again that just because multi billion na nga
property, pwede nakang muadto sa RTC, okay? Ayy
gyud nag kalimti na. Those are the things that you,
the lawyer should really remember. Okay. Next
meeting we will discuss about the nature of publiciana
and reinvindicatoria.

July 12, 2016

Q: Who can file an Accion Publician case?

Can a person who is not the owner of the real property will be
vested with the cause of action to file an Accion Publiciana
A: yes. As we describe Accion Publician to be a possession not
based on ownership.
If you are not the owner and you filed an accion publiciana
case, what possible ground can you site in support of your
claim that you are the rightful possession?
A: you cannot invoke ownership as the foundation of your
claim that you are the rightful possession. If you have a
contract of lease, you can claim that you have a rightful
possession over the thing. If you are not the owner and you
have the *** of the rightful possession and there is a contract of
lease you can protect your possessory right thru an Acccion
Publician case.
I mentioned earlier that these remedies are forcible entry,
unlawful detainer and publiciana case these remedies are not
exclusively available to an owner even the possessor who is
not the owner but he is the rightful possessor can likewise file a
case. The owner exception is Accion reindividicatoria the basis
of your possessory right is ownership.
In Accion Puclicina of course it describe as possessory action it
is not based on ownership, but you can also likewise file an
accion publiciana if you are already time barred in filing of
forcible entry case or unlawful detainer case.
Q: when you say time bared, what do you mean by that? When
are you constrained in filing a forcible entry or unlawful
detainer case?
A: After a lapse of one year or when the entry of the defendant
is not thru force or intimidation, so can also file an accion
publiciana case. But if you are the owner the better option is
Accion Reinvidicatoria.
Q: So how would you describe a Reindividicatoria case?
A: can be filed by the plaintiff even if the plaintiff is not actually
disposed. Normally, when you are a plaintiff in a forcible entry
case, it presupposes that you were disposed, as well as in
unlawful detainer but not in this case. Right of ownership
Q: where can you file?
A: you have to qualify. Depending on the assess value of the

B. Accion Publiciana

Q: where can you find the assess value of the property?

Action for the right to possess and is a plenary action

in civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession
of realty independent of the title or ownership of the title.

A: in the tax declaration. That is why when you file an accion

publician and accion reindividicatoria case before the RTC you
have to alleged the assess value of the property for
Jurisdictional purposes. But I understand that there are cases

The issue here is deemed possession.

EH 401 Property

Page 30

state that the jurisdiction is before the trial court RA 7691

Expanded Act Jurisdiction Law.
Q: going back, how would you describe Reindivindicatoria? Is
this also action to recover possession?
A: the Action here is to recover ownership. To recover an
ownership is an issues here.
Q: If action to recover an ownership is an issue in Accion
Reindividicatoria and you are the counsel of the plaintiff, what
evidence shall you present in order for you to be entitled to the
possession of the thing?
A: Certificate of Title. That will originate from Original certificate
of title.
Judgment adjudicating the land to you, 30 days after becomes
final and executory. Within 15 days the court will order the
Land Authority to issue you a decree of registration. The basis
of that decree of registration and OCT will be issued. Then, the
OCT will be transferred to the local register of deeds. Local
register of deeds will log that on registration book then they will
issue a certificate of title and that will be your proof of
ownership. But of course you know that there are also lands
that are may be owned by individuals and juridical person that
which however doesnt have certificate of title.
Q: if you dont have certificate of title does it mean that there
will be no acceptable proof of ownership?
A: tax declaration. You can find that in City Assessor. This is
not an evidence of ownership but primarily proof that you are
paying real state tax and it is coupled with actual possession
you can establish a prima facie evidence of ownership. But
take note, tax declaration plus actual possession.
Q: what is the theory here? Why the law allows this to be
presented and considered as acceptable proof of ownership?
A: it is because no person at the right state of mind who will
pay the real state taxes of the other. In other words it is proof of
adverse possession.
Q: if you dont have tax declaration or tax CTC, what other
possible proof of ownership? If you buy a property what will
you present?
A: deed of sale.
If you inherit a property, what will you present?
A: you are also an only heir you will also execute a certificate
of adjudication
If our possess this you have proof of ownership. Once you
already establish that you have proofs of ownership that you
are the owner then you will be entitled to possession. CTC, tax
declaration, deed of sale, deed of donation these are the
relevant evidences to be presented in Accion Reindividicatoria.
They are not used in Accion Publiciana.

EH 401 Property

Page 31

Q: how about in forcible entry? Are this things relevant to be

presented? Considering that we described that unlawful
detainer and forcible entry to be summary action where
ownership is not an issue?
A: Gabriel Vs Crisologo when it is necessary to determine what
priority of possession. Naa may cases na puro sila nag claim
na they are entitled to possession, ang isa na claimant (has no
proof dili actual occupant) ingon lang sya na ako ni. Then ikaw
man ang na outside the kulambo. The only way to defeat the
case is to present a CTC or title. Once you have established
that you have a title and you will be entitle to possession. That
is the lesson in the cases.
Q: On the other point in Accion Reindividicatoria can this be
filed by someone who is in possession if so under what
A: Yes.

Respondent filed a complaint for

Reinvindicatoria before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Quezon City against the
Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC)

Heirs of Santos alleged therein that,

during his lifetime, Enrique Santos was the
owner of a 936-square-meter parcel of land
located in Tandang Sora, Quezon City
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
No. 57272.He had been in possession of the
owners duplicate of said title and had been
in continuous, open, adverse and peaceful
possession of the property. He died on
February 9, 1970 and was survived by his
wife, Alicia Santos, and other plaintiffs, who
were their children. Thereafter, plaintiffs took
peaceful and adverse possession of the
property, and of the owners duplicate of said

Sometime in February 1996, heirs of santos learned

that iglesia ni cristo was claiming ownership over the property.
They alleged that Enrique Santos, during his lifetime, and his
heirs, after his death, never encumbered or disposed the
property. In 1996, Santos had the property fenced but Iglesia ni
Cristo deprived them of the final use and enjoyment of their
property. Thus, Santos filed for the quieting the title of plaintiffs
over and/or recover possession of their said property in the
name of deceased Enrique Santos.

Petitioner argues that the action (either Quieting of

Title or Accion Reinvindicatoria) had prescribed, the same
having been filed only on October 24, 2001 beyond the
statutory ten-year period therefor

Trial court and CA later ruled in favor of Private
Respondents. CA stated that as to the issue of prescription,
the appellate court held that the prescriptive period should be
reckoned from 1996, when petitioner claimed ownership and
barred respondents from fencing the property.

Hence this petition.


Whether or not respondent judge gravely erred and

abused her discretion when she held that the action for
quieting of title and/or accion reinvindicatoria (civil case no. Q01-45415) has not yet prescribed
Petitioners argument:

That the action of respondents, whether it be one for

quieting of title or an accion reinvindicatoria, had prescribed
when the complaint was filed on October 24, 2001. Petitioner
asserts that this is because when respondents filed their
complaint, they were not in actual or physical possession of
the property, as it (petitioner) has been in actual possession
of the property since 1984 when TCT No. 321744 was issued
to it by the Register of Deeds


As gleaned from the averments of the complaint, the

action of respondents was one for quieting of title under Rule
64 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Article 476 of the New
Civil Code. The latter provision reads:
Art. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or
any interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record,
claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid
or effective but is, in truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective,
voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said
title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to
quiet the title.

an accion reinvindicatoria is a remedy seeking the recovery of

ownership and includes jus possidendi, jus utendi, and jus
fruendi as well. It is an action whereby a party claims
ownership over a parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full
possession.41 Thus, the owner of real property in actual and
material possession thereof may file an accion
reinvindicatoria against another seeking ownership over a
parcel of land including jus vindicandi, or the right to exclude
defendants from the possession thereof.

Since respondents were in actual or physical

possession of the property when hey filed their complaint
against petitioner on October 24, 2001, the prescriptive period
for the reinvindicatory action had not even commenced to run,
even if petitioner was able to secure TCT No. 321744 over the
property in 1984.

Thus, petition is denied. CAs decision is affirmed

Q: One parcel of land with two certificate of title. Is that

The santos could not like what happened. The same parcel of
land discovered with two certificate of title one owned by
Iglesia and they were compelled to file an action quieting of
title case. This is action which one can file whenever there is
a document which appear to be valid to its face but actually
invalid and we doubt of the validity of your title.
Q: Now in this cases nag cast ba ug doubt sa validty of the
A: yes of course. The certificate of tile should be a remedy of
quieting a title, but the problem is in the complaint in quieting
of title also incorporated an alternative cause of action known
at Accion Reindividicatoria. This was taken advantage of by
Igleia ni Cristo.
Q: what is the arguent of the Iglesia ni Cristo here?
A: Iglesia contend that the case filed by the Santos has
already prescribed.

An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being

cast upon title to real property or any interest therein.

Q: what is the basis of Iglesia I Cristo on its contention that

the case has already prescribed? This was filed when?

A cloud is said to be a semblance of a title, either

legal or equitable, or a cloud of an interest in land appearing
in some legal form but which is, in fact, unfounded, or which it
would be inequitable to enforce.38 An action for quieting of
title is imprescriptible until the claimant is ousted of his

A: 2001.

Petitioners claim that it had been in actual or

material possession of the property since 1984 when TCT No.
321744 was issued in its favor is belied by the allegations in
the complaint that respondents had been in actual and
material possession of the property since 1961 up to the time
they filed their complaint on October 24, 2001.

Admittedly, respondents interposed the alternative

reinvindicatory action against petitioner. It bears stressing that

EH 401 Property

Page 32

Q: when was the title of Iglesia was issued?

A: 1984. They are just given 10 years from the time direct of
action approved in Iglesia na 1984 pa ni, that they were
deprived from possession way back in 1984 when the title in
their favor was issued. In other words, Iglesia was saying
implicit from the cause of action for Accion Reinvdividicatoria
implied from that is the established fact according that the
Santos are already deprived of the possession.
So ang argument sa Iglesia ni Cristo was klaro kaayo na in
1984 there were not already in possession the tile in our favor
was issued in 1984. And when they say na klaro na they were
not in possession kung sila pa unta ang possession they

should not filed an accion reindividicatoria. You will you file

such cases when you are in possession? The fact that you
filed accion reindivicatoria means you are not in possession.
So why will you file one when you are in possession? What is
the ruling if the SC here?

in possession you have to file an action within 10 years from

the issuance of the title.

A: When you are in possession it is imprescriptible.

A: yes. When you are in possession you have a rightful right

to file an accion reindividicatoria for quieting a title will never

Q: what is the ruling of SC on this particular issue put by

Iglesia ni Cristo that Accion Reindividicatoria can only be filed
by the someone who is actually deprived of possession? Is
really required that you are deprived of possession before you
can file an accion reindividicatoria?
A: Not necessarily deprived. It is not correct that only those
who are deprived of possession can file an accion

Student Q: Is INC would have been correct if the heirs in the

case were not in possession?

Limitation on the right of ownership

Property rights are not absolute
Limitations on right of ownership:

Q: under what circumstance can you file A Reindividicatoria

even you were not deprived of actual possession? This is
based on ownership? If you are an owner you have several
rights? Possession is only one of them. In this case what are
the other rights pertaining to the owner which are allegedly
violated by INC?
A: they were deprived to right to exclude. (Fence the
property). The SC was in effect saying here that in any of the
attributes of ownership is violated, Accion reindividictoria is
appropriate remedy notwithstanding the fact that you are in
actual possession because possession is only one of the
attributes of ownership. It would not be proper for your
opponent to file a motion to dismiss because you have no
cause of action. You can tell him that in case of INC does not
matter for as long as any of the attributes of ownership is
violated by the defendant you have cause of action for accion
The other remedies there like injunction, writ of possession.
Injunction this is a maybe main action or provisional remedy
usually this is incorporated in the complaint forcible entry for
example, you normally resort to injunction there is an
urgency restored in possession in the meantime that there is
no final resolution yet of the cases. Injunction is actually
remedy available in all types of action, civil action. Even you
are dismissed from service when youre a government official
you can file. Injunction is a remedy availed before the final
resolution of the case, status qou.
Predicament ka, unsa imong buhaton, magpaabot ka sa
Resolution sa kaso so for the meantime outside ka sa imong
property, so you may file an action for injunction. That is a
preservative remedy. You must establish a clear legal right.
This are also remedies to recover possession, writ of
possession. If you are the owner you are entitled to a writ of
possession. If you are also a buyer of a foreclosed property
and the right of redemption already expired you are entitled to
a writ of possession.
If somebody issued a title and you were not in possession it
will reckoned form the time the title was issued? If you are not

EH 401 Property

Page 33



General limitations Pursuant to the exercise of the

Inherent Powers of the State
Police power
Eminent Domain
Specific limitation imposed by law
Leagal easements
During a period of acute public want
Lands acquired under the free patent or
homestead cannot be subject to encumbrance
or alienation within 5 years from the issuance of
the patent
Imposed by the grantor
Imposed by the owner
Constitutional Prohibition

Q: imposed by law, what do you mean by

There is the law limiting the enjoyment over
the property.
Q: give me an example of a law that limits a
your right over the property
Q: what is the Police Power
A: It is the power of the state for the general
Q: when the state exercise Police Power is it
requisite that there must be law granting it
the right to exercise police power?
A: No. because it is inherent power of the
state. You dont need a specific law to submit
to the discretion official concern.
Q: with its limitation imposed by the law,
would it correct to say that there must be a
specific law provision of law says that this is
the limitation on your right of ownership?
A: Yes. To exercise police power, it does not
need a specific provision of law. But in

S: Because I have read it in cases that the

city justified their enactment of ordinances
because according to them it was given to
them by the LGC and the charter that
created the city.

limitation imposed by there must be a

specific provision of law.
Q: what example can you site a law that
restricts someones ownership?
A: Easement or right of way.
Q: When you are the owner of the property in lower elevation.
The property of lower elevation is flooded can you obstruct
the free flow of the water coming from state of higher
A: No. because you have the obligation to allow that
easement of drainage.
Valisno vs Adriano

Atty: So, of course it is not worded as police

power in the LGC, right?
S: Yes
Atty: You can find that under the heading

Limitation imposed by law.

What the owner did was he levelled the canal. The property of
this person who levelled the canal and the property is in the
interior portion. There is Pampanga River and there is a canal
traversing this land and the owner need water to his crops.
The water from Pampanga River has to pass the canal
traversing the land. What he did was he levelled the canal, no
longer have access to Pampanga River. He was stopped by
the court telling him that this owner have easement to
Held: Water rights, such as the right to use a drainage ditch
for irrigation purposes, which are appurtenant to a parcel of
land, pass with the conveyance of the land, although not
specifically mentioned in the conveyance. The purchasers
easement of necessity in a water ditch running across the
grantors land cannot be defeated even if the water is
supplied by a third person.
As an easement of waters in favor of Valisno has been
established, he is entitled to enjoy it free from obstruction,
disturbance or wrongful interference, such as the Felipes act
of levelling the irrigation canal to deprive him of the use of
water from the Pampanga River.
Limitation imposed by the law, there is specific provision that,
that is your obligation.

July 14, 2016

Atty: Where can you find the police power
exercise by the city of cebu for example?

Atty: Now, Police Power (PP) does not have to

be specified, it is generally worded, essential
to the promotion of the general welfare. This
are the valid areas of governance where PP
may be exercised. Protection of improved
public morals, social justice, peace and
order, and preserve the comfort and
convenience of the inhabitants. So, it does
not have to be specifically stated. Unlike in
limitation specified by law, it has to be
specified in the provision of the law.
Lets go to the limitation imposed by law:
Atty: What are the examples?
S: The right of way
Atty: Why? But by the way, what is your
understanding of right of way?
S: It is... If a person has this property, the
person should allocate a certain part of his or
her property for the use of the community.
Atty: What do you mean by that, Allocate?

Student: This is delegated by the Congress

through the Local Government Code or the

S: As what I remember in one case, it

becomes some kind of donation of the part
of the private owner because the State is
imposing them to allocate a certain part.

Atty: Its in the LGC. Why did you say its the
LGC? Do you know a specific provision?

Atty: You may be referring to the case of

Woodridge v ARB Construction?

EH 401 Property

Page 34

S: Yes
Atty: Is it a case of easement/right of way?
S: Yes as far as I can remember.
Atty: Do you remember on that case that the
SC court said that there is no valid donation
there. Precisely because the Local
Government Unit have not yet accepted the
donation. And for a donation to be valid,
there must be an acceptance by the donee.
So, what that person who is asking an access
can momentarily enjoy is only that of an
easement of right of way. Easement of right
of way there, presupposes there that is no
transfer of ownership yet.

Atty: So, In easement of right of way, you do

not donate or you do not transfer ownership.
You are just giving access. This happens only
when you are the owner of the property and
your neighbors who are owners of the
interior lots do not have adequate access to
public highways, except through your
property - There is a built in limitation
imposed by law that when they need an
access, you are bound to grant them an
access whether you like it or not because
that is the command of the law. Same with
that case of Valisno v Adriano. Have you read
that case/portion about the easement of
flowing water through a canal? Its the same
principle. (If you have read that case, anyone
who has read that case? No one? Okay, read
that case after we are done with our subject
in property so that you will be prepared for
the next semester.)
Atty: Daghan pa na, mao ni gipangtawag ug

qualify to be a grantor of the property? Who

is this person referred to as the grantor?
S: It can be a DONOR - The donor can impose
to a donee that there are conditions that the
donee must follow.
Atty: What possible limitation can you think
of, being imposed by the donor?
S: As far as i can remember, in one case,
there was this private person donating this
certain land to a school, as long as this
school will allocate a certain part of that land
for a certain purpose like constructing it for a
medical building.
Atty: Central Philippine University v. Lopez,
S: Yes
Atty: Thats an example class. Donor
donates, but donee cannot use it except for
the benefit of the school. In that case, you
must establish Ramon Lopez School of
Medicine. Thats an example. Limitation, you
are the owner but subject to exercise of
ownership, it is subject to that condition.

Atty: Aside from the donor, another who may

qualify is a testator. A person who makes a
last will and testament. He is not a dead
person, he is still alive of course. The
disposition that he makes in his last will and
testament shall only take effect when he
dies. In his last will and testament, he will
impose a condition. Example: you are given
a parcel of land by the testator and it says
there that you shall not sell this, you shall
not allow the use of this for this purpose.

Atty: So what are other limitations?

Atty: What is another example of the


S: Limitations imposed by the grantor,

limitations imp..... (Cut by Atty)

S: Limitation imposed by the owner.

Atty: Okay, limitations imposed by the

grantor. When you say grantor, who may
EH 401 Property

Page 35

Atty: Limitation by the owner himself. Like?

S: I think in leasehold.

Atty: Why do you say that in leasehold there

is a limitation?
S: Sometimes, the owner limits the use.

Atty: City Govt tried to justify that measure

alleging that it is an exercise of police power.
Why do you think they are attempting to
justify the use of police power?

Atty: Sometimes? So it is not all the time? By

the way, what are you restricting yourself
when you lease your property?

S: Because they contended that it was

upholding the general welfare or the
common good.

S: right to use and possession of the


Atty: Nganu police power and dli Eminent


Atty: You said, sometimes, are you therefore

saying that there are times that you are not
restricting yourself to use? Or can we say
that, in lease contract, it is ALWAYS/All the
time the case that when you lease, then you
are depriving yourself of the right to use
momentarily at least at the existence of the
contract of lease. Also the right to the
enjoyment of the fruits of your property
although there is another kind of fruit that
you are enjoying and that is the form of
rentals. Example: I will lease an agricultural
land, I will plant sugarcane there. The owner
has no business collecting the proceeds of
the harvest in the meantime that there is a
contract of lease. But I can ask from the
owner the payment of rentals, which is by
the way, another form of fruit. SO those are
some of the limitations of ones ownership.

S: Because they dont want to pay just


Let us now discuss the cases here:

Most of them actually involve improper
exercise of some powers of government. Let
us just run through them.
City Govt of Quezon v Ericta

S: It should exercise the power of Eminent

Domain, but since they do not want to pay
just compensation, they wanted to justify it
through the police power.
Atty: What should have been done here is
eminent domain, but it should be
accompanied by the payment of just
compensation. The means is not reasonable.
City of Manila v Laguio
Atty: What is the ordinance here?
S: prohibiting the establishment of motels,
lodge, inns, in the area of Malate.

Atty: What is the power used here?

S: Police Power
Atty: In the form of what?
S: In enacting an ordinance wherein they
prohibited the owners of private cemetery
wherein they have to allocate 6% of their
property for public burial.
EH 401 Property

Atty: Remember, in police power, wala kay

bayaran ani. They wanted to shift the burden
of governance of private cemetery owners.
Kay daghan man pobre diri, kuhaan nato nag
6% inyong area sa inyong cemetery. Ahw,
walay gasto ang city govt. BUT the SC of
course, invalidated this. This is an improper
exercise of Police Power. So what is this
power? Of course, the objective is laudable
but this cannot be pursued through the
exercise of police power.

Page 36

Atty: Thats the old Manila. (Daghan man

mga court diha. Other than the Supreme
Court, Court of Appeals, naa sad Victoria
Court, and maybe naa sad siguroy Prince
Atty: So, there is an ordinance prohibiting the
use of motels. Whats the purpose here?

S: they wanted to eradicate the social ills of

prostitution, fornication, sexual disease, etc.
Atty: Objective per se ends, are those valid
areas where PP will be exercised?
S: Yes. Actually, the SC commended the
purpose. However, the means used by the
City of Manila is unreasonable because PP
power is supposed to regulate, not prohibit.
Atty: Also, the means does not fully address
the objective. You prevent immorality but
fornication happens in CR, so we will ban the
CR? (it can even happens sometimes in the
premises of the church). So we will ban the
Church? Also the vehicle, shall we ban
heavily tinted vehicles also because there is
a danger that fornication may happen? So,
this measure adopted by Mayor Lim was
invalidated for being unconstitutional. There
is also another case, wa pa gyud ni tagam
ang Manila ani, also the City of Manila that
arose, more or less with similar facts,
another ordinance was passed prohibiting
the offering of short time rates. Kanang 3hrs
lang ba. Kanang mu ingon ba, Sir, hapit na
inyong time, mu extend paka sir? Mubalos
nalang ka, mu ingon ba, Di na day, lowbat
Atty: SC said, invalide na nga ordinance.
Atty: Mura bag ilang gi demonize ba, nga
basta mu sud kag 3hrs, wala na kay lain
Office of the SOLGen v Ayala Land
Atty: The Republic was attempting to...
S: Respondents here wanted to impose
parking fees to their property however the
senate committee said it was violative of the
National Building Code.
Atty: So, it should grant Free Parking. What
was the basis here?
S: Because of the National Building Code.

EH 401 Property

Page 37

Atty: So this was another attempted PP

exercise here pursuant to the National
Building Code. Whats the contention?
S: That the National building code requires
parking space.
Atty: Does the National Building Code require
regulation of the area of parking?
S: Yes. But it would actually prohibit the
respondents here of their rights.
Atty: The Supreme Court was actually saying
that this is an invalid encroachment of the
property rights of the owners of malls. What
the NBC states is that if you have a building,
you are legally obliged to provide a parking
space. Is that true?
S: Yes.
Atty: Does the NBC further provides that
parking spaces shall be free of charge?
S: No.
Atty: It does not.
Atty: If it is free, that is discretion. It is not by
way of legal compulsion. The reasoning here
of the Solgen is very ---- stating that there is
a police power objective here is to prevent
traffic then that how can that prevent traffic,
solgen states that if they provide free
parking, they will no longer park outside.
Grabeha na man pud anang argumentoha.
City of Ozamis Case: It should be related with
the case of Solgen v Ayala Land. This was
cited by the SC that if we even upheld the
right of govt to collect parking fees, why
should we prohibit private entities collecting
parking fees.
City of Lumapas? : Okay ra nang mangolecta
ka, basta regulation rana ha. Dili na revenue
raising measure.
MMDA v Trackworks Case: For you to
understand this case, you have to know the
BOT Law is. Certain government structure is

manned by private entities and is given a

period of time to recover investments. They
are allowed to operate it and collect fees. In
MMDA, this is MRT. Agreement in the BOT
Law is not only collecting, private entity was
also allowed to enter into contract with some
companies to advertise. MMDA did not like
that saying the it is nuisance, ang mga
billboard uban mga Bench body, Anne Curtis,
tan-aw man jud ka, ahw, nuisance gyud.
MMDA said, Remove all those advertising
SC said, you cannot do that because those
structures for the period of time are privately
owned. Besides, you should also take note in
this case is the power of MMDA - that it is
only a coordinating agency. Police power and
other powers can only be exercised by the
Local Government Unit concerned.

would depend on the nature of the title

of the expropriator. In other words, if the
title of the expropriator is absolute,
regardless of whether there is still a public
purpose or not, you cannot recover. But for
those nga dunay condition, they are allowed
to recover.
But in 2010, in MCIAA v. Lozada, SC made
a categorical rule that wala na ning
condition2x. Basta the public purpose is
abandoned, the former owner always have
the right to recover the property. Because
the built-in condition when the govt will
exercise the power of Eminent Domain, there
must be a continuing public purpose for the

Limitations imposed by Law:

Eminent Domain Cases:

We have 2 cases there.

Basic Requirements

Lunod v. Meneses

1. Public Taking
2. Payment of just compensation
Cases I assigned involves peculiar situation
where what happens when the public
purpose has been abandoned. Can you
recover the property that you own. This is
the IT Park. That was an airport before. There
are several properties that were affected.
Some of the property owners, maka ingon ta
nga naa silay foresight. They did not oppose
the taking. What some of them did, is that
they voluntarily agreed with a condition that
in case the airport is transferred, we will be
allowed to buy back the property. Eminent
Domain should be a lesson to us, Lisod ni
basta magpa ugat ka ani. Ang imo ra gyung
dag-anan is ang payment of just
compensation. The Taking, wala jud tay
mabuhat ana. When the airport was
transferred to Mactan, some of the owners
wanted to recover their properties. SC ruled
that the right to recover when the
public purpose would be abandoned
EH 401 Property

Page 38

Literally about lunod. The upper property

was flooded. The cause of the flooding there
is that the owner of the lower property
blocked the free flow of water. F you are the
owner of the lower estate, you are obliged to
allow the free flow of the water. Provided of
course, it is by the natural process. Thats
the catch there. Lisod sad kaayo kung ang
iyang hinugas adto sa property sa uban.
You cannot block it because there is a built-in
legal easement.
Valisno v Adriano
This involves a property owner who draws
water from the Pampanga river. But you
cannot directly draw water from the river,
you have to pass through a canal. So what
the intervening owner of this estate did was
he flattened the canal. The owner of the
interior lot was forced to file a case. He was
granted that easement because that is a
legal easement.

Legal Easement- is a compulsion

regardless if you agree or not. Right of way
for example, you dont like your neighbors.
Dli na issue kung ikaw ba ang naay
deperensya, or imong neighbor ba ang naay
deperensya. Basta your neighbors can
establish that they do not have an access to
the public highway except through your
property, bound gyud ka. Imong dag-anan
ana is to prove that the easement is
establishment to a point least prejudicial to
you. Dli man pud pwede nga yatakan nalang
imong katungod. The court can actually, in
doing easement cases, can do a balancing
act. For example, gamay na imong property,
unya himuon pa gihapon nga agi-anan?
Sobra na pud na.
(Story telling sa iyang case about sa nindot
kaayo nga balay worth 32M pero walay
access kay ang access nga siyay ga gasto
was blocked by the owner of the estate.

EH 401 Property

Page 39

Iyang agi-anan was to pass through the old

river bed nga lisud gyud kaayo.)
The last case here is the limitation imposed
by the grantor

Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v CA

A case of donation made to the Archbishop
of Manila. The problem here is that, the
donor imposed a condition that for a period
of 100 years is should not be sold. The RCA
in contravention sold the property, so when
the donors and the heirs knew about the
selling, they want to revoke the donation.

Issue: Is that condition valid?

Ruling: NO. Limitation on selling for 100
years constitutes due restriction on ones