You are on page 1of 12



DOMESTIC: ART. 183 of the Family Code

Who may adopt?
1. Any Filipino citizen with the following qualifications:
a. of legal age,
b. in possession of full civil capacity and legal rights,
c. of good moral character,
d. has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude,
e. emotionally and psychologically capable of caring for children,
f. at least 16 years older than the adopted
-this may be waived when the adopter is the biological parent of the
adoptee or spouse of the adoptee’s parent; and
g. in a position to support and care for his/her children in keeping w/ the means
of the family

2. Any resident alien possessing the same qualifications as above-stated for Filipinos,
provided the following conditions are met:
a. his/her country has diplomatic relations with the Philippines
b. he/she has been living in the Philippines for at least 3 years continuous prior filing
c. he/she has been certified

3. Guardian- to his ward after the termination of guardianship and clearance

4. A non-resident alien or a Filipino permanently residing abroad- under INTER-COUNTRY

a. at least 27 years of age and 16 years older than the adopted, unless when the
adopter is the biological parent of the adoptee or spouse of the adoptee’s parent

b. if married, must jointly file for adoption

c. has the capacity to act and assume all rights and responsibilities of parental
authority under his national laws and undergone counseling
d. has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude
e. eligible to adopt under his national law
f. in position to provide the proper care and support and to give necessary moral
g. must abide the rules and regulation of this Act
h. comes from a country with whom the Philippines has diplomatic relations
i. possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications

1. In legal and intestate succession, the adopter and the adoptee shall have reciprocal rights of
succession WITHOUT any distinction from legitimate filiation;
2. If the adoptee and his biological parents had left a will, the law on testamentary succession shall
a. The adopted is considered as COMPULSORY HEIR in the direct line of the adopter.
Thus, the omission of the adopted in the will of the adopter results in preterition.
b. It is opined that these successional ties between the adopted and his biological parent
under Art. 180-190 of the Family Code have impliedly repealed by RA. NO 8552.


ARTICLE 407. Acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons shall be
recorded in the civil register.

- These acts, events and judicial decrees produce legal consequences that touch upon the legal
capacity, status and nationality of a person. Their effects are expressly sanctioned by the laws. In contrast,
sex reassignment is not among those acts or events mentioned in Article 407. Neither is it recognized nor
even mentioned by any law, expressly or impliedly.
While petitioner may have succeeded in altering his body and appearance through the intervention of
modern surgery, no law authorizes the change of entry as to sex in the civil registry for that reason. Thus,
there is no legal basis for his petition for the correction or change of the entries in his birth certificate. ---
Rommel Jacinto DantesSilverio vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. 174689, October 19, 2007

EXCEPTION: In the case of a person, who was born “intersex” with “Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia”
(CAH) at birth, with neither categorically and consistently female nor categorically and consistently male
composition, and who later developed normally and naturally more pronounced male composition, a
petition to change sex from “female” to “male” and name from “Jennifer” to “Jeff” was granted. (Republic vs



The law requires the entry in the civil registry of judicial decrees that produce legal consequences
touching upon a person's legal capacity and status.
A judgment of divorce is a judicial decree, although a foreign one, affecting a person's legal
capacity and status that must be recorded. In fact, Act No. 3753 or the Law on Registry of Civil Status
specifically requires the registration of divorce decrees in the civil registry. But while the law requires the
entry of the divorce decree in the civil registry, the law and the submission of the decree by themselves
do not ipso facto authorize the decree's registration. The law should be read in relation with the
requirement of a judicial recognition of the foreign judgment before it can be given res judicata effect.----
Gerbert R. Corpuz vs. Daisylyn Tirol Sto. Tomas, et al., G.R. No. 186571, August 11, 2010

ARTICLE 412. No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected, without a judicial order.
- The correction or change of entry in the civil registry relative to clerical or typographical errors can
now be made through administrative proceedings and without the need for judicial order.

- The correction or change of such matters can now be made through administrative proceedings
and without the need for a judicial order. In effect, RA 9048 removed from the ambit of Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court the correction of such errors. Rule 108 now applies only to substantial changes and
corrections in entries in the civil register.

- The local civil registrar has primary, not exclusive, jurisdiction over such petitions for
correction of clerical errors and change of first name or nickname.



Classification of Immovable Properties:

a) Immovable by nature --- e.g. land, trees, mines (pars. 1, 2 and 8)

b) Immovable by destination --- e.g. statutes, reliefs, painting, machinery (pars. 4 to 7 and 9)

c) Immovable by incorporation --- e.g. buildings, constructions (pars. 1 to 3)

d) Immovable by analogy --- e.g. usufruct, easement, (par. 10)

- Building --- to be considered real property, a building must be more or less permanent in

- Trees --- Trees are real properties if they are adhered to the soil.
While an uprooted tree is generally considered movable property when it constitutes the natural
product of the land, it does not lose its character as an immovable if it is still integral part of the

Problem solving:

1. To secure the payment of B of a loan, A, the owner of a lot, executed a chattel mortgage on the building he erected
thereon as well as on some newly bought machinery stored therein. Thereafter, a judgment was rendered against A in favor of C
who had the building and machinery levied upon to satisfy the judgment. Is the chattel mortgage binding on C? Explain.

Ans. Yes, the chattel mortgage is binding on C only with respect to the Machinery. The chattel mortgage is void with respect to
the building.

The machinery should be considered personal property because the problem did not state that it was installed for some industry or
work. On the other hand, the building is an immovable or real property by nature under Article 415 of the New Civil Code. Hence,
it cannot be the subject of a chattel mortgage. While it is true that the parties may be estopped if they treat a building as movable,
the same cannot bind 3rd persons like C. Hence, C can have the building attached free from the encumbrance.

2. Salvador, a timber concessionaire, built on his lot a warehouse where he processes and stores his timber for shipment.
Adjoining the warehouse is a furniture factory owned by Narramix of which Salvador is a majority stockholder. Narramix leased
space in the warehouse where it placed its furniture-making machinery.
Q1: How would you classify the furniture-making machinery as property under the Civil Code? Explain.

Ans. The furniture-making machinery should be considered movable property. The machinery cannot be considered real property
under Article 415(5) of the New Civil Code because it was not installed by the owner of the tenement; the lessee of the warehouse
is Narramix, a corporation with personality separate and distinct from its shareholders.

Q2: Suppose the lease contract between Salvador and Narramix stipulates that at the end of the lease the machinery shall become
the property of the lessor, will your answer be the same? Explain.

Ans. No, my answer will not be the same. The machinery will be considered real property under Article 415 because they can be
deemed to have been installed by the owner of the tenement. Since the stipulation of the parties provides for what is known as a
“confiscatory clause” whereby the lessor becomes the owner of the installed machinery, the lessee who installed it shall be
considered an agent in installing said machinery.

3. A was the owner of a beautiful painting with a frame which he bought from Florence, Italy. As his house was not yet
habitable, A gave the painting to his neighbor and friend B, who in turn attached the painting, in the meantime that A’s house was
being constructed, to the wall of his house. What kind of property is the painting while in the house of B?

Ans. The painting is a personal property. Article 415(4) of the Civil Code provides that statutes, reliefs, painting or other objects for
use or ornamentation, placed in buildings or land by the owner of the immovable in such a manner that it reveals the intention to
attach them permanently to the tenements are immovable property. In the given problem, it was not the owner who placed the
painting in the house. In addition, the problem indicates that the painting is in the house of B only temporarily because it was there
in the meantime that A’s house is being constructed.

4. As A was constructing a concrete building on his own lot, he also erected wooden scaffoldings on which plumbers and
carpenters must climb. What kind of property are the wooden scaffoldings and why?

Ans. The wooden scaffoldings are personal properties because they are not permanently attached to the building, and they can be
separated without breaking the material or deterioration of the building or the scaffoldings. Secondly, the scaffoldings are there
only temporarily while the works are being done.

MOVABLE PROPERTY: (Please read ART. 416)

ARTICLE 416. The following things are deemed to be personal property:

(1) Those movables susceptible of appropriation which are not included in the preceding article;
(2) Real property which by any special provision of law is considered as personalty; ---- e.g. growing crops under
the Chattel Mortgage Law
(3) Forces of nature which are brought under control by science; --- e.g. electricity and gas) and
(4) In general, all things which can be transported from place to place without impairment of the real property to
which they are fixed. (335a)


1) The Primary Test is called the TEST BY EXCLUSION which is contemplated under paragraph (1)
of Article 416 wherein it is provided that those movables susceptible of appropriation which are not
categorized as real property under Article 415 of the New Civil Code;

2) Another test is called the TEST BY DESCRIPTION under which a property is considered personal
property if, by its nature, it can be moved from place to place and can be removed from the real property
without impairment of the real property. However, this test is subordinate to the test by exclusion.
Problem solving:

A Corporation is a real estate business who assets are made up of 95 % real properties distributed all over the Philippines. B
holds 55% of the shareholding of A Corporation. Q1: What is the status of the shares of B, is it real/immovable property or
personal property?

Ans. The shares are personal property because they are intangible properties representing the Inchoate right of B in the property
holdings of A Corporation.


ARTICLE 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good faith,
(1)shall have the right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity
provided for in articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or planted to (2A) pay the price of the land, and (3)
the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land (2B)if its value
is considerably more than that of the building or trees. In such case, (3)he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of
the land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. (3A)The parties shall agree upon
the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof. (361a)

Rules to remember in applying Article 448:

1. This rule cannot apply if the Builder, planter or sower is also the owner of the land;
2. This rule cannot apply if the Building is a co-owner of the land, the rule on co-ownership will apply.
3. This rule cannot apply as well if the builder, planter or sower is a tenant, usufructuary or trustee who
recognizes that another person is the owner.

Exception to these rules:

a. In Del Campo vs. Abesia, Article 448 was applied to one whose house --- despite having been
built at the time he was still co-owner --- overlapped with the land of another;

b. In Sarmiento vs. Agana, the builders were found to be a builder in good faith despite their
reliance on the consent of another, whom they had mistakenly believed to be the owner of the land;

c. In Spouses Macasaet vs. Spouses Macasaet, Article 448 was applied notwithstanding the fact
that the builders therein knew they were not the owners of the land. In said case, the parents who
owned the land allowed their son and his wife to build their residence and business thereon. As found by
the Court, their occupation was not by mere tolerance but upon invitation of and with the complete approval
of their parents, who desired that their children would occupy the premises. It arose from familial love and
a desire for family solidarity;

d. In Communities Cagayan, Inc. vs. Spouses Nanol, Article 448 was applied because subdivision
developer had given the buyer of a subdivision lot permits to commence and undertake the
construction of a building. The Court declared that the presumption of good faith was not rebutted.
Problem 3:

When X was still courting Y, he was the favorite of Y’s mother. He was even allowed to build a residential house on a lot in
paranaque when X and Y were about to get married. A house was then constructed at a cost of P40,000.00. X, later found out
that the land did not belong to his mother-in-law, but to Z, who sold it to S. S later sued X for ejectment, but he interposed the
defense that he would vacate only if his expenses in constructing the house was refunded. S did not want to buy the house, she
did not also want to sell the land. She merely wanted X to vacate. Is S correct? Why?

In the case of Sarmiento vs. Agana, G.R. No. 57288, April 30, 1984, the Honorable Supreme Court enunciated that:

We agree that Ernesto and wife were builders in good faith in view of the peculiar circumstances under which they had constructed
the residential house. As far as they knew, the land was owned by Ernesto's mother-in-law who, having stated they could build on
the property, could reasonably be expected to later on give them the land.

The provision for the exercise of petitioner Sarmiento of either the option to indemnify private respondents in the amount of
P40,000.00 or the option to allow private respondents to purchase the land at P25,000.00, in our opinion, was a correct decision.
"The owner of the building erected in good faith on a land owned by another, is entitled to retain possession of the land until he is
paid the value of his building under Article 453 (now Article 546). The owner of the land, upon the other hand, has the option, under
Article 361 (now Article 448), either to pay for the building or to sell his land to the owner of the building. But he cannot . . . refuse
both to pay for the building and to sell the land and compel the owner of the building to remove it from the land where it is erected.
He is entitled to such remotion only when, after having chosen to sell his land, the other party fails to pay for the same" (Ignacio vs.
Hilario, 76 Phil. 605, 608 [1946]).

Problem :

What are the right of the owner of the land in case there is a builder in bad faith?
1) He may appropriate the building without paying any indemnity to the building in bad faith in accordance with Article 449;
2) He may demand the demolition of the building plus demand reimbursement for the cost of restoring the land to its former
condition before the unlawful building;
3) He can compel the builder in bad faith to pay the price of the land;
4) In all cases, he can demand damages as provided under Article 451

BASIS OF DAMAGES. — The right of the owner of the land to recover damages from a builder in bad faith
is clearly provided for in Article 451 of the Civil Code. Although said Article 451 does not elaborate on the
basis for damages, the Court perceives that it should reasonably correspond with the value of the
properties lost or destroyed as a result of the occupation in bad faith, as well as the fruits (natural, industrial
or civil) from those properties that the owner of the land reasonably expected to obtain.

ARTICLE 453. If there was bad faith, not only on the part of the person who built, planted or
sowed on the land of another, but also on the part of the owner of such land, the rights of one and
the other shall be the same as though both had acted in good faith.

It is understood that there is bad faith on the part of the landowner whenever the act was done with
his knowledge and without opposition on his part. (364a)


A, in bad faith, constructed a house on B’s land without his objection. After its completion, B wanted to have the house demolished
together with damages, contending that A was in bad faith. Is B’s contention correct? Why?

No, because there was mutual bad faith which resulted to both parties being treated under the laws as both in good faith. The
rights of the parties would then be governed by Article 448 of the New Civil Code.


ARTICLE 457. To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of riversbelong the
accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters. (366)

- This article cannot apply to land bounded by Seabank.

- This provision is not applicable to man-made Accretion, which is by law a public domain
Distinction between Alluvion and Avulsion:

1. The attachment is gradual and 1. The attachment is sudden and
imperceptible. abrupt process.
2. The source of the soil cannot be 2. The source of the portion of the land
identified. is identifiable and verifiable.
3. The new area belongs to the owner 3. Ownership of the portion attached is
of the property to which it is retained by the owner from whose
attached. property it was detached.
4. Sediments are attachment. 4. A known portion is detached and the
same is thereafter attached to
another parcel of land.

-If the river dries up without moving elsewhere. Thus, the riparian owner will not get the new bed,
the same is still public dominion. However, the Government has the option of returning the river to its
original course (Water Code).

- Art. 461 - Abandoned river beds

If the riparian owner is entitled to compensation for the damage to or loss of his property due to
natural causes, there is all the more reason to compensate him when the change in the course of the river
is effected through artificial means. The loss to the petitioners of the land covered by the canal was the
result of a deliberate act on the part of the government when it sought to improve the flow of the Tripa de
Gallina creek. It was therefore obligated to compensate the Baeses for their loss. --- Sps. Felix Baes and
Rafaela Baes vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108065, July 6, 1993
After a week of torrential rains, a portion of A’s plantation, with an area of one hectare and planted with 100 coconut trees,
was eroded, while to B’s farm, on the other bank of the same river, a tract of land, also one hectare in area, on which stood 50
coconut trees was added. An equal number of trees, their roots expose, were found lying on the ground in B’s property. Seven
months later, A, alleging that the one hectare lot and 100 coconut trees were his, demanded their return but B. who had previously
taken possession of them refused, claiming that the land was formed by alluvion and, therefore, belongs to him and that A has lost
his right to the coconut trees because he did not lay claim to them in due time. A thereupon sued B for the recovery of the land
and the coconuts. Will the action prosper? State the legal basis of your answer.

Ans.: The action will prosper with respect to the one hectare tract of land and all the coconut trees still planted on it even though
their roots are exposed because the provision of the NCC that is applicable is Article 459 that grants to the owner of the land who
property suffered from the avulsion is given 2 years within which to recover his known portion of property that was subjected to
avulsion. Furthermore, the theory of B that the property is an accretion to his property by way of alluvion is also not tenable
because the manner the property was eroded into the property of B was not gradual but it was sudden or abrupt. As for the
uprooted coconut trees, the same can no longer be recovered for the right of A to recover the same has already prescribed.


Doctrine of SELF-HELP

Art. 429. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from
the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably
necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of
his property.


1. there must be actual or threatened physical invasion or usurpation;

2. Reasonable force is exercised;
3. The force is exercised by the owner or lawful possessor;
4. There is no delay in the exercise.

This doctrine is not applicable if there is a violation under art. 19 of the New civil Code.
Art.19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act
with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and faith.

In one case, the petitioner failed to act with justice and give the respondent what is due to it when
the petitioner unceremoniously cut off the respondent’s water service connection. (MWSS vs Act Threater)

It is important to note that in applying this doctrine, it must be coupled with an attack by the one
getting the property on the person defending it. (PP vs. Narvaez)

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.



A. FORCIBLE ENTRY (detanction)- the defendant’s possession of the property is illegal ab
initio forcible entry; and

B. UNLAWFUL DETAINER (desahucio) – where the defendant’s possession was originally

lawful but ceased to be so by the expiration of his right to possess.

2. ACCION PUBLICIANA- a plenary action for recovery of the right to possess and which
should be brought in the proper Regional Trial Court when the dispossession has lasted for more than one


based on ownership and includes the jus utendi and the jus fruendi.
i. identity of the property; and
ii. Ownership.


As an incident of ownership therefore, there is nothing to prevent a landowner from donating his
naked title to the land. However, the new owner must respect the rights of the tenant.


Art. 438. GENERAL RULE: Hidden treasure belongs to the owner of the land, building, or
other property on which it is found.


1. Finder is NOT THE OWNER, the owner is entitled to only ½ and the finder is entitled to the other ½

a. Discovery was made on the property of another, or the state or any of its political subdivision;
b. The finding was made by chance (e.g. one who looks for hidden treasure on the property of
another w/ the latter’s permission.)
c. The finder is not a co-owner of the property where it is found; and
d. The finder is not a trespasser.

3. The things found be of INTEREST TO SCIENCE OR THE ARTS. The State may acquire it.

4. If in case of USUFRUCT.
Under article 566, it is provide that the usufructuary is considered as stranger, if there are
treasures found in the land by anyone OTHER THAN the usufructuary, hence, he has no claim to the
said hidden treasures.

However, if he happens to be the one who accidentally discovered the hidden treasure
on the real property held in usufruct, he is ENTITLED TO THE ½ of the hidden treasure.


ART. 694. A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or
anything else which:
1. Injures or endanger the health or safety of others; or
2. Annoys or offends the senses; or
3. Shock, defies or disregards decency or morality; or
4. Obstructs, or interferes with the free passage of any public, highway or street or any body
of water; or
5. Hinders or impairs the use of property.

NUISANCE PER SE- it is nuisance by itself in all circumstances. It can be summarily abated without the
Court’s interference.

e.g. When one person build a swimming pool in the sidewalk which make the passage of a
pedestrian difficult.

NUISANCE PER ACCIDENS- when a person builds something for the improvement or security of his
property, however, the result of such may encroaches or creates nuisance to the public. It shall be
summarily abated with judicial intervention.

e.g. when a person builds a fence for the security of his property, but the result of such encroaches
the side walk.

ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE DOCTRINE- means that one who maintains on his premises dangerous
instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract children in play, and who fails to exercise
ORDINARY CARE to prevent children from playing therewith, is LIABLE to a child of tender years who is
injured thereby even if the child is technically a trespasser in the premises.

(swimming pool or pond or reservoir of water is NOT considered an “Attractive Nuisance” because children
are early instructed against the danger lurking in bodies of water.)

ART. 613. An easement or servitude is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the
benefit of another immovable belonging to a different owner.
The immovable in favor of which the easement is established is called the dominant estate; that
which is subject thereto, the servient estate.

Easement can be continuous or discontinuous, or apparent or non-apparent.

If it is a CONTINUOUS and APPARENT EASEMENT, it can be acquired by TITLE and PRESCRIPTION of

10 years.
If it is a CONTINUOUS and NON-APPARENT EASEMENT, it can be acquired by TITLE.
If it is a DISCONTINUOUS and NON-APPARENT EASEMENT, it can be acquired by TITLE.
If it is a DISCONTINUOUS and APPARENT EASEMENT, it can be acquired by TITLE


1. merger
2. Non user for 10 years
3. Estates fall into condition that the easement cannot be used; but it can be revived
4. Expiration of term or the fulfillment of the condition
5. Renunciation
6. Redemption



1. the estate is surrounded by the other immovable and is without adequate outlet to a public highway;
2. After payment of the proper indemnity;
3. The isolation was not due to the proprietor’s own acts; and
4. The right of way claimed is at a point least prejudicial to the servient estate.


ART. 655, the owner of the servient estate may DEMAND THAT THE EASEMENT BE
EXTINGUISHED, returning what he may have received by way of INDEMNITY


ART. 484. There is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to
different persons.

ELEMENTS: In order that a co-owner’s possession may be deemed adverse to other co-owners.

1. the co-owner has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation of the co-ownership amounting to an
ouster of the cestui que trust or the other co-owners;

2. such positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the cestui qui trust or the other co-owners;
3. The evidence on the repudiation is clear and conclusive; and

4. his possession is open, continuous, exclusive and notorious.


As to benefits and charges, it shall be proportional to their respective interest, any stipulation to the
contrary is VOID. It is also PRESUME unless contrary is proved that co-owners in the co-ownership are
equal share in the PROPERTY or subject of the co-ownership.*


1. RIGHT TO USE; provided a. That he does so in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended;
b. that he does so in such a way as not to injure the interest of the co-ownership; c. that he does so in
such a way that he will not prevent the other co-owners from using it according to their rights.



A co-owner is not even necessary party to an action for ejectment, for complete relief can be
afforded even in his absence. This is for the reason that it is presumed to have been filed for the benefit
of all co-owners.

In cases of redemption, if the co-owner redeems the property during the redemption period, he is
exercising as a co-owner. However, if he redeems it after the redemption period, he is now considered as
an independent party.

A co-owner cannot give valid consent to another person, not a co-owner. The non-consenting co-
owner may along file a legal action applicable. Consent by one co-owner will not warrant dismissal of
forcible entry case filed by other co-owner. No co-owner can make alterations without consent of all co-

PLEASE READ 488,489,492,494,495,498,499 and 501.