CHAPTER 1: POSSESSION AND THE KINDS Art 524
THEREOF I. Possession in Another’s Name
Art. 523
I. Possession as a Fact/Right
a.) Fact- it exists
b.) Right- consequences arise from its
existence
II. Degrees of Possession: (RJuJustD)
1. Possession without a Right/title (in violation of
the rights of the true owner)
2. Possession with Juridical Title, but not in the
concept of owner
3. Possession with Just Title, but not from the
true owner
4. Possession with a Title of Dominium (Just Title)
from the owner
III. Requisites of Posession (HIT)
1. The Holding of the thing or right
2. Intent to Possess it (Animus Possidendi)
3. The possession must be with Just Title from
the owner
IV. Rule on Holding
GR: Possession, in the eyes of the law, does not
mean that man has to have his feet on every
square meter of the ground before it can be said
that he is in possession
Except: It is essential, in constructive possession,
that the property be not in the adverse
possession of another
Sps. Medina v Hon. Valdellon
Facts: A married couple sued for recovery of
possession of a parcel of land. The defendants
filed a motion to dismiss alleging that a land
registration case was pending between the
parties in another branch of the RTC
Issue: Should the recovery case be dismissed?
Ruling: No, because the issues in the two cases
are different. The first one deals with possession,
and the second with ownership. The decision in
one will not constitute res judicata for the other.
a. Voluntary- by virtue of an agreement
b. Necessary
c. Unauthorized- only when such possession has
been ratified by the principal
Art. 525
I. Concept of an Owner
One who, whether in good or bad faith, claims to
be, and acts, as if he is the owner. Hence,
considered as an owner in the opinion of others.
II. Examples: (BUTD)
a. Tenant
b. Usufructuary
c. Depositary
d. Bailee in commodatum
Art. 526
Rule: This provision only applies if a flaw exists. If
there is no flaw at all, the article should not apply
I. Possessor in Good Faith
He who is not aware that there exists in his title
or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates
it.
II. Possessor in Bad Faith
A buyer who fails to act with the diligence of a
prudent man cannot be a purchaser in good
faith.
Pura Carreon v Rufo Agcaoili
Facts: Agcaoili purchased from Carreon a parcel
of land, which was registered under Carreon’s
name. However, the land was actually owned by
Carreon in common with her children. Carreon
did not know this. There was an encumbrance
annotated in the Torrens Title, but the same had
already expired.
Issue: Is Agcaoili a purchaser in good faith?
Ruling: Yes. Fraud cannot be presumed; it must
be established by clear and convincing evidence.
Under the Mirror Doctrine, Agcaoili has the right
to rely on the title, and the only lien it contained
was no longer effective.
Kim Rachelle N. Tapungot
Property Notes 2019
Dean Manuel Cabrera
Benin v Tuason
Issue: if a buyer knows at the time of purchase
that the lot he is acquiring is in the possession of
another other than the seller, is he a buyer in bad
faith?
Ruling: He is not necessarily a buyer in bad faith.
A possessor is not necessarily the owner of the
property; he may only be possession a portion
thereof, or his possession may only be with the
knowledge and tolerance of the owner.
JM Tuason v Atanacio Munar
Facts: The transferee of Munar constructed a
building on a parcel of land owned by Tuason
which was covered by a Torrens title registered
under Tuason’s name. The transferee alleges
that such title was void and fraudulent, and
further claims that he is a possessor in good
faith.
Ruling: The transferee is a possessor in bad faith.
First, he is barred from assailing the validity of
the title because the same has already been
issued 20 years ago. Second, he cannot claim
good faith because he chose to ignore Tuason’s
title over the land and instead relied on Munar’s
claim of ownership.
Llanos v Simborio
Facts: A war evacuee entered into a land belong
to another. He refused to vacate on the ground
that he was merely a war evacuee. The
landowner permitted him to stay, and so he
introduced improvements on the land. The CA
declared both of them in bad faith, so the LO was
required to refund the evacuee for the
improvements. The LO did not appeal.
Issue: Was the CA correct? Can the evacuee be
ousted without reimbursement?
Ruling: The CA erred, because the LO did not act
in bad faith. But because the decision was not
appealed, the same has become final and
executory.
Kasilag v Rodriguez
Facts: Emiliano was the owner of a parcel of land
obtained through a homestead patent. Under
the law, such land cannot be mortgaged or
encumbered for 5 years. Nevertheless, Emiliana
turned over the possession of the land to X,
thought a contract of antichresis, to secure a
debt.
Issue: Is X a purchaser in good faith?
Ruling: Yes. Although, as a rule, gross and
inexcusable ignorance of the law may not be the
basis of good faith, slight ignorance may be
excusable. In this case, X is not expected to know
the various intricacies of a contract of
antichresis.
Art. 527
Art. 528
I. When Possession in Good Faith is Converted
to Possession in Bad Faith
a. From the moment facts exists showing the
possessor’s knowledge of the flaw
b. It does not matter whether the facts were
caused by him or another person
Felices v Iriola
Facts: A homestead patent was sold within 5
years from the issuance thereof. Under the law,
such sale is null and void. The seller offered to
redeem the land, but the buyer refused and
instead made improvements thereon. Said
construction continued even after the judicial
action to recover the land was filed.
Issue: Is the possessor/builder in bad faith?
Ruling: Yes. Although both parties were in
mutual guilt, and thus as a rule, the pari delicto
doctrine applies, the rights of both parties
cannot be regarded as both having acted in good
faith because the seller did not consent to the
construction of the improvements. Moreover,
the buyer continued to act in bad faith when he
constructed the improvements. Thus, he should
lose whatever he built/plant/sown without right
to indemnity.
Art. 529
I. Presumptions on Possession:
1. Good faith is always presumed.
2. Possession continues to be Enjoyed in the
same character in which it was acquired.
Kim Rachelle N. Tapungot
Property Notes 2019
Dean Manuel Cabrera
3. The possession of Hereditary property is
deemed transmitted to the heir without
interruption and from the moment of the death
of the decedent, in case the inheritance is
accepted. One who validly renounces an
inheritance is deemed never to have possessed
the same.
4. A possessor in the Concept of an owner is
presumed to have possession with just title and
he cannot be obliged to show or prove it.
5. One who Recovers possession unjustly lost
shall be presumed to have enjoyed it without
interruption.
6. It is presumed that the Present possessor who
was also the possessor at previous time, has
continued to be in possession during the
intervening time.
7. The possession of real property presumes that
of the Movables therein
8. Each Co-possessor shall be deemed to have
exclusively possessed the part which may be
allotted to him upon the division thereof, for the
entire period during which the co-possession
laster.
Art. 530 (PEaRL)
I. Things that cannot be Possessed:
1. Public Property
2. Res Communes
3. Easements
4. Thins specifically prohibited by Law
II. Res Nullius Property
Property without an owner, or have been
abandoned, may be possessed but cannot be
acquired through prescription. However, they
can be acquired through occupation.
CHAPTER 2: ACQUISITON OF PROPERTY
Art. 531
I. How Possession is Acquired
a. By Material Occupation of a thing, or exercise
of a right.
b. By Subjection to our Will
c. By Constructive Possession or proper acts and
legal formalities
II. Requirements of Possession:
a. The Corpus (holding/physical detainment of a
thing)
b. The Animus (intent to possess)
Pio Barreto Sons v Compania Maritima
Facts: Pio Barreto Inc sued Compania Maritima
for the payment of the delivery of lumber. To
prove the delivery, plaintiff presented counter-
receipts issued by the defendant certifying that
certain statements had been received from the
plaintiff.
Issue: Is this sufficient proof of delivery?
Ruling: No. The receipts only proved that plaintiff
received certain statements on claims for the
lumber allegedly delivered. It did not prove that
the lumber were actually delivered.
Art. 532
I. Acquisiton of Posession from the Possessor
1. Personal
a. Intent to possess
b. Capacity to possess
c. Object must be capable of being
possessed
2. Through authorized persons
a. Intent to possess for the principal
b. Authority to possess
c. Principal has intent and capacity to
possess
3. Through unauthorized persons (only when
ratified)
a. Intent to possess for another
b. Capacity of the principal to possess
c. Ratification by principal
Kim Rachelle N. Tapungot
Property Notes 2019
Dean Manuel Cabrera
Art. 533
When the property is renounced by the heir, the
same becomes PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY of the
State.
Art. 534
Art. 535
Art. 536
I. Possession Cannot Be Acquired through:
a. Through Force or Intimidation
b. Through Mere Tolerance (Permission is given)
c. Through Clandestine, Secret Possession or
Possession without knowledge
Art. 537
Silence or inaction is NEGLIGENCE, not tolerance.
Ayala de Roxas v Maglonso
Facts: A owned a parcel of land which was
occupied by B and C through the mere tolerance
of A. When a land tax was imposed, A asked
them to pay rentals. They promised to do so, and
acknowledge A’s ownership of the land, but they
did not really pay. After a period of years, B and
C claimed the land as theirs through prescription
Issue: Are they right?
Ruling: No, possession cannot be acquired
through mere tolerance of the owner.
Cuaycong v Benedicto
Facts: A, the owner of a parcel of land, permitted
the general public to cross his property. This
went on for a long time
Issue: Was easement of right acquired by the
public?
Ruling: No. Possession by mere tolerance does
not start the running period of prescription.
Furthermore, the easement of right of way can
never be acquired through prescription.
Art. 538
GR: Possession, as a fact, cannot be recognized
at the same time in two different personalities
Except:
a. Co-possessors
b. Possession in Different
Concepts/Degrees
II. In Case of Conflict of Possession
(Movable Property)
a. Present Possessor is preferred
b. If both are present, the possessor
Longer in possession
c. If both possessed at the same time,
the possessor who presents the oldest
Title
e. If both present a title, the Court will
determine
Immovable Property
a. Who Registered first in good faith
b. If there was no registration, the first
Possessor in good faith shall be
preferred
c. If there was no possession, the person
who presents the oldest Title shall be
preferred
Po Sun Tun v Price
Facts: A sold and delivered a parcel of
land to B. Later, A sold the same land to
C, who did not know that B had
previously bought the land. C registered
the land in his name.
Issue: Who owns the land?
Ruling: C, since he is the first registrant
in good faith
Victoriano Hernandez v Macaria
Katigbak
Facts: Leuterio sold a parcel of land to
Villanueva, but the deed of sale was
never registered. A creditor of Leuterio
named Salas, sued Leuterio for the
recovery of a debt, and a writ of
execution was levied on the land. Salas
did not know about the sale to
Villanueva, but upon the execution sale,
Salas was the highest bidder
Issue: Who owns the land?
Ruling: Salas should be considered
because by virtue of the Mirror Doctrine,
a purchaser is not required to go behind
the registry to determine the conditions
of the property.
Kim Rachelle N. Tapungot
Property Notes 2019
Dean Manuel Cabrera
Compuesto v Sales
Facts: A sold a real property to B, who
took possession of it. A sold the same to
C, who knew of the previous sale to B.
Nevertheless, C registered the land in his
own name. B then registered the land in
his name.
Issue: Who owns the land?
Ruling: B, because C is not a purchaser in
good faith

Bernas v Balo
Facts: A sold a parcel of land to B in a
private document. A sold the same to C
in a public document. C knew of the
previous sale to B, but nevertheless
registered the land under his name. The
lower court ruled in favor of C, on the
ground that the sale to B was in a private
document and therefore, cannot be
registered.
Ruling: B is the owner, because C’s was
not a purchaser in good faith, therefore
his registration does not affect B’s rights.

Chapter 3: Effects of Possession

Art. 539
I. 3 Important Rights:
a. Right to respected in his possession
b. Right to be protected of such right or
restoration to said possession through
legal means
c. The right to Prelimary Mandatory
Injuction

II. Reasons for Requiring Legal Means:

a. To prevent spoliation or disregard of
public order
b. To prevent deprivation of property
without due process of law
c. To prevent a person from taking the
law into his own hands

Kim Rachelle N. Tapungot

Property Notes 2019
Dean Manuel Cabrera