You are on page 1of 6

CASE PROPERTY IN DISPUTE NITTY GRITTY ISSUE RULING/DOCTRINE

1. MENESES VS. Parcels of lots Whether the lands in YES, the land in question is Accretion.
CA located in Los question were Accretion In the case at bar, the land in dispute is
Banos, Laguna lands? accretion lands to which nature had GRADUALLY
deposited to the riparian owner.
All requisites of accretion had concurred in the
case. Requisites of accretion:
1. That the deposit be gradual and
imperceptible.
2. That it resulted from the effects of the
current of the water.
3. That the land where accretion takes place is
adjacent to the bank of a river.

As to the question of it being foreshore land, it is


not a foreshore land because the inundation of a
portion of the land is not due to the flux and reflux
of the tides. Hence, it cannot be considered a
foreshore land.
Therefore, the land sough to be registered not
being part of the bed or basin of the Laguna de Bay,
nor a foreshore land as claimed by the Director of
Lands, is NOT A PUBLIC LAND, and is therefore
capable of REGISTRATION BY A PRIVATE
PROPERTY provided that the CLAIMANT has a
REGISTERABLE TITLE.

2. PACIFIC FARMS Six buildings in Whether the Carried Lumber YES, the Carried Lumber Company is entitled to
INC. VS. Bolinao, Pangasinan Company is entitled to a a materialmens lien.
ESGUERRA (levied in favour of materialmens lien to be paid In the case at bar, THE BUILDINGS ARE
Insular Farms) by Pacific Farms in view of CONSIDERED AS THE PRINCIPAL and the
the application by Analogy of LUMBER AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS as
the rules of accession under the ACCESSORY.
Article 447 of the NCC? Thus, Pacific Farms, as new owners of the
buildings must bear the obligation to pay for the
value of the materials. It is because the Lumber
Company has no desire to remove the materials,
and cannot remove them without necessarily
damaging the buildings, HAS THE RIGHT TO
RECOVER THE VALUE OF THE UNPAID
MATERIALS.
3. BERNARDO VS. A parcel of land Whether the landowner has YES, the landowner has preference in the order
BATACLAN acquired from preference over of payment.
Pastor Samonte the2wnership2t in the order In the case at bar, the rights and obligations of
of payment? the parties are governed by the rules of Article 448.
Thus, it is the landowners right to exercise the
option since HIS RIGHT IS OLDER and because by
the principle of accession, HE IS ENTITLED TO
OWNERSHIP OF THE ACCESSORY THING.

4. MENDOZA VS. Action for recovery Whether the defendant is YES, defendant is obliged to render an account
DE GUZMAN of a piece of land obliged to render an account of the fruits he received.
200 coconut trees of the fruits received by him The Civil Code in its original text used
until the improvements are indemnization which in this case is the AMOUNT
delivered? OF NECESSARY AND USEFUL EXPENDITURES
incurred by the defendant.
Among the NECESSARY EXPENDITURES are
those incurred for CULTIVATION, PRODUCTION
AND UPKEEP.
Plaintiff opted to acquire the improvements by
the defendants. In as much as the retentionist, who
is NOT A POSSESSOR IN GOOD FAITH, seeks to
be reimbursed for the necessary and useful
expenditures, it is ONLY JUST that he SHOULD
ACCOUNT TO THE OWNERS OF THE ESTATE
FOR ANY RENTS, FRUITS, OR CROPS HE HAS
GATHERED FROM IT.

5. SAN DIEGO VS. To recover a land Whether respondent can still NO, the respondent can no longer exercise his
MONTESA and damages from exercise the right of option? right of option.
San Diego In the case at bar, since the judgment has
Note: become final and executory, DELA CRUZES are
San Diego LIMITED TO THE JUDGMENT and THEREFORE
is in GOOD CAN NO LONGER INSIST on SELECTING
FAITH ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE or OPTION nor can he
be HEARD TO URGE THAT THE VALUE of the
indemnity is EXORBITANT (expensive).
Thus, the respondents should have asked for
modification of the judgment before its finality.

6. FILIPINAS A land owned by the Whether the contention of NO, Timbangs contention is not valid.
COLLEGES VS. TIMBANGS the Timbangs is valid? In the case at bar, it is true that the owner of
CA the land has the right to choose to reimburse the
School Buildings CONTENTION of builder of the value of the building or to compel the
built by BLAS TIMBANG: builder in good faith to pay the land.
Note: They Further, Article 546 of the NCC gives the
BLAS- automatically builder a COROLLARY RIGHT OF RETENTION
BUILDER- is owns the UNTIL REIMBURSED.
in GOOD improvements BUT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ARTICLE
FAITH upon failure that allows the LANDOWNER to AUTOMATICALLY
of the builder OWNS THE IMPROVEMENTS UPON FAILURE BY
to pay. THE BUILDER TO PAY.
This is DIRECT DEFIANCE of the right of the
BUILDER in GOOD FAITH TO BE REIMBURSED.

7. GRANA VS. Land situated in Whether a builder in good NO, a builder in good faith may not be required
TORRALBA Butuan City, Agusan faith may be required to pay to pay rentals.
del Norte rentals? In the case at bar, a builder in good faith may
Note: not be required to pay rentals since they have the
GRANA right to retain the land on which they have built in
AND GOOD FAITH until they are REIMBURSED with the
TORRALBA- EXPENSES they have incurred.
BUILDER-
GOODFAITH

8. PANLILIO VS. A riverbed Whether the old riverbed NO, the old riverbed is not ipso facto
MERCADO was ipso facto abandoned abandoned by the change of the course of the river.
by the change in the course In the case at bar, in case of public stream, the
of the river? bed is of public ownership until there is some
indication of an intention on the part of the
Note: government to agree in the change of the course.
Change of riverbed to apply: In the present case, after the river changed its
1. The change must be course, steps were taken under the direction of the
sudden in order that the government functionaries to bring back its old
old riverbed may be
identified. course.
2. The change of the course This certainly does not indicate abandonment
must be more or less on the part of the government. Hence, the old bed is
permanent and not still of public domain.
temporary overflooding of
anothers land.
3. The change of the
riverbed must be natural.
4. There must be definite
abandonment by the
government.
5. The river must continue to
exist. It must not
completely dry up or
disappear.

9. AGUSTIN VS. A land cut through Whether respondents NO, the land separated remained to be that of
IAC by the changed of ownership of the land Binuyag.
the course of the was4wnershipd by the In contemplation of Article 457 of the CC,
river sudden change in the accretion benefits the riparian owner when the
course of the river? following requisites are present:
1. That the deposit be gradual and
imperceptible.
2. That it resulted from the effects of the
current of the water.
3. That the land where accretion takes place is
adjacent to the bank of a river.

10. INTER- Standing crops on a Whether the standing crops NO, the standing crops are not part of it.
REGIONAL VS. parcel of land leased is treated as part of the While it is true that the CC provides that the
CA by IRDC from leased land if sold? ownership of property includes the right of
Caballero accession to everything attached thereto.
BUT, it is EQUALLY TRUE that the PLANTER IN
GOOD FAITH who plants on anothers land, the
landowner DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY
ACQUIRE OWNERSHIP OVER THE PLANTS.
Following the rules of accession, the landowner
must INDEMNIFY THE PLANTER IN GOOD FAITH
before he can appropriate the same.

11. FERRER VS. Claim of ownership Whether the land created No, land created through accretion cannot be
BAUTISTA by Ferrer over a through accretion be subjected to free patent.
parcel of land subjected to free patent In the case at bar, lands created through
located directly certificate? accretion cannot be subjected to free patent since
south of a land under Article 457 Ferrer is the lawful owner of the
owned by him accretion. He being the registered owner of the
alluvial property is deemed the owner of the
accretion.
Hence, the Director of Lands has no authority to
grant free patent over such land since it is part of
the public domain and has been passed to private
ownership. Any title issued or conveyed is null and
void.
12. HILARIO VS Property beside the Whether the property being The old Civil Code states that all riverbanks are
CITY OF MANILA river on the eastern extracted from is part of of public ownership including those formed when
side of the lenticular public domain? a river leaves its old bed and opens a new course
strip of the land through a private estate should be followed.
Hence, river banks are of public ownership
since all beds of rivers are of public ownership, the
banks, which form part thereof, are also of public
ownership, including those banks which are formed
when a river leaves its old bed and opens a new
course through a private estate.

River bed the natural bed or channel of a creek or


river is the ground covered by its waters during the
ordinary floods.

Elements of a river:
1. The running waters
2. The bed
3. The banks

13. PECSON VS. CA A commercial lot on Whether Article 448 is YES. In this case, whoever is the owner of the
Kamias Street, applicable in the case at land may appropriate whatever has been built after
Quezon City which a bar? paying indemnity.
4-door, 2-storey Further, the necessary and useful expenses
apartment stood which shall be refunded to the possessor in good
faith with right of retention. But it should be the
market value so as not to unjustly enrich either
parties.
Hence, the RTC erred in ordering Pecson to
pay rents since Nuguid has yet to pay indemnity. He
has right to retention of the building and income
thereof.

14. PLEASANTVILLE Improvements made Whether respondent Kee is YES, Mr. Kee is a builder in good faith.
VS. CA on LOT 9, Phase II, a builder in good faith? In the case at bar, at the time Kee made
Taculing Road, improvements on the lot, he believed that it was
Pleasantville Subd., Root of controversy: what he bought from PDC, as pointed out by
Bacolod City Zanaida Octaviana, agent Octaviana and described on the TCT of Kee.
of the CTTEI, committed Good faith consists in the belief of the builder
errors when it pointed the that the land he is building on is his and his
wrong property to Kee. ignorance of any defect or flaw in his title.
In this case, PDC failed to overcome the
presumption that Kee was a builder in bad faith.

15. JAVIER VS. CA A parcel of land Whether Javier, the NO, Javier is not the rightful owner of the land.
which has an petitioner, is the rightful In the case at bar, Javier failed to show sufficient
improvement a owner of the land? proof of ownership over the land in dispute. In order
HOUSE to maintain an action for recovery of ownership of
constructed by real property, the persons claiming to have a better
Caringgal in good right must prove not only his ownership but he must
faith also satisfactorily prove the identity thereof.
In this case, Javier failed to prove the precise
identity of the parcel of land.

16. BAES VS. CA LOT 1-A Whether Baes owns the NO, Baes does not own the land.
Lot 2958 parcel of land in dispute? In the case at bar, Baes does not own the land
33,902sqm since he has been fully compensated when he
Tripa de agreed to exchange the lot with the government.
Gallina(creek) He therefore cannot claim the dried up portion of
the creek (Tripa de Gallina) because if he acquires
ownership over it, it would become a case of double
compensation and unjust enrichment.