ANDAMO VS IAC

Petitioner spouses owned a lot adjacent to the land of a religious corporation where it built waterpaths and artificial lake
that overwhelmed petitioners land and caused a young man dorwned, affected crops and plants fences, and endangered
their lives and of laborers during storms. Hence, criminal and civil case filed for destruction for inundiation under Art.
354 RPC

HELD: Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged
to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties,
is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this chapter.

Adjoining landowners have mutual and reciprocal duties which require that each must use his own land in a reasonable
manner so as not to infringe upon the rights and interests of others. Article 431 of the Civil Code provides that "the owner
of a thing cannot make use thereof in such a manner as to injure the rights of a third person."
Article 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the
civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same
act or omission of the defendant.

REPUBLIC VS CA, MORATO

Respondent obtained free patent and was issued an original certificate of title. Both specifically mandate that the land
shall not be encumbered within 5 years from issuance of the patent. The District Land Officer, acting upon reports that
Morato had encumbered the land and upon finding that the subject land is submerged in water during high tide and low
tide, filed a complaint for cancellation of the title and reversion of the parcel of land to the public domain. RTC dismissed
the complaint. CA affirmed.

HELD: The contracts of lease and mortgage executed by Morato constitute an encumbrance as contemplated by section
18 of the Public Land Act because such contracts impair the use of the property. When the sea moved towards the estate
and the tide invaded it, the invaded property became foreshore land and passed to the realm of the public domain. being
foreshore land should therefore be returned to the public domain.

DIRECTOR OF LANDS VS ABELLA

In a previous cadastral case, judgment was rendered adjudicating Lot No. 6034 to the spouses Perpetuo Silva and Juana
Divina-gracia, and ordering its registration in their names. Petitioner filed review because portion of such was declared
public land from a prior case: res juridicata” when respondents attempted to defraud claiming adverse possession.

HELD: the main support for the conclusion reached, reference was made to cases decided even before the 1935
Constitution to demonstrate that this Court had rigorously adhered to the principle of conserving forest resources, as a
corollary to which the alleged right to them of private individuals or entities was meticulously inquired into and more
often than not rejected. We do so again.

US VS TORIBIO
Respondent was charged for violating municipal regulation of no slaughtering of carabao of large cattle for food without
permit: to maintain agricultural work and purposes.
HELD: Valid exercise of police power.

KRIVENKO VS REGISTER OF DEEDS

Krivenko, an alien, bought a residential lot in December of 1941. The registration was interrupted by war. In 1945, he
sought to accomplish the registration but was denied by the register of deed on ground that, being an alien, he cannot
acquire land within the jurisdiction. Krivenko appealed to the Court. Whether or not the prohibitions of the rights to
acquire residential lot that was already of private ownership prior to the approval of this Constitutions is applicable at the
case at bar?

HELD: Aliens were granted the right to acquire private land merely by way of reciprocity. No. ―Public agricultural
lands‖ mentioned in Sec.1 Art. XIII of the 1935 Constitution, include residential, commercial and industrial lands, the
Court stated: Natural resources, with the exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated,‘ and with respect to
public agricultural lands, their alienation is limited to Filipino citizens. But this constitutional purpose conserving
agricultural resources in the hands of Filipino citizens may easily be defeated by the Filipino citizens themselves who may
alienate their agricultural lands in favor of aliens. Thus Section 5, Article XIII provides: Save in cases of hereditary
succession, no private agricultural lands will be transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations or associations
qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines.

CASTRO VS CIR
Petitioner’s property was forfeited to the government for non-payment of tax with interest(1m+) assailed that, where the
amount determined for tax and imposed is not paid, interest at the rate of one per centum a month from the date prescribed
for its payment until it is paid. Provided that the maximum amount shall in no case exceed the amount to a period of three
years. In this case, the present provision IR is contrary to a prior provision of taxes without limits of amount and period.

HELD: laws are presumed to operate only prospectively, and have no retroactive effect in the absence of clear provision
to the purpose.

CAISIP VS PEOPLE
Spouses cultivated a parcel of land. The overseer of the hacienda is petitioner Felix Casipi and the owner of the same is
Roxas y Cia. The latter filed against the spouses for forcible entry which orders them to vacate the premises within 20
days. The order was carried out. When Spouses refused, Casipi called officers and the parties fought. One of neighbors
caught sight of the event and asked the officers to release her. Gloria was later turned over to the police on duty for
interrogation. Hence criminal case for grave coercion was filed against appellants and officers.

HELD: The complainant didn’t usurp or invade said lot. They expelled the complainant from a property on which she
and her husband were in possession even before the action for forcible entry was filed against them. The right to enjoy,
possess, abuse, consume, the owners may exclude any person from enjoyment or disposal of such. For this, he may use
such force reasonably necessary to repel or prevent unlawful invasion or usurpation.

PEOPLE VS PLETCHA
Pletcha is a farmer who owns a land which he has been cultivating for 19years. A private corporation sought to take over
the land by fencing 4 hectares of his property. Such fencing was without authority or court order. Pletcha fought and
resisted the company. This forced the company to file a case for grave coercion against him. Pletcha invokes the protective
mantle of Article 429 of the Civil Code which gives him the right to use reasonable force to exclude any person threatening
his exclusive
ownership over the land.

HELD: The use of such necessary force to protect proprietary or possessory rights constitutes a justifying circumstance
under our penal laws

CUSTUDIO VS CA
Respondent Mabasa wanted to establish an easement of right of way going into their property against petitioners who built
an adobe wall in their properties which thereby restricted access to the Mabasa property. Petitioners claim that they built
the wall in order to protect their persons and their property from their intrusive neighbors. Court granted easement.
Unsatisfied, he asked CA to modify and add damages for loss of unrealized rentals of the property due to the abode wall
restricting access.

HELD: There can be damage without injury in those instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a
violation of a legal duty. These situations are often called damnum absque injuria. In this case, when the owner makes
use of property, the inconvenience arising from said use can be considered as a mere consequence of community life.