Subject: Property

Date: July 28, 2018, 1 – 5 P.M.

Professor: Atty. Mary Jude Marvel

Group Members:
Batayo, Joan
Decena, April Mae
Gomora, Angelo
Guanzon, Agatha Kristi
Laspinas, Zari
Perono, Jane

1. Discuss the three kinds of actions available to recover possession of real property.
Under existing law and jurisprudence specifically in the case law of spouses
Bonifacio vs. Court of Appeals, with GR no. 132424, there are three kinds of actions
available to recover possession of real property: (a) accion interdictal; (b) accion
publiciana; and (c)accion reivindicatoria.

Accion interdictal comprises two distinct causes of action, namely, forcible entry
(detentacion) and unlawful detainer (desahuico). In forcible entry, one is deprived of
physical possession of real property by means of force, intimidation, strategy, threats, or
stealth whereas in unlawful detainer, one illegally withholds possession after the
expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or
implied. The two are distinguished from each other in that in forcible entry, the possession
of the defendant is illegal from the beginning, and that the issue is which party has prior
de facto possession while in unlawful detainer, possession of the defendant is originally
legal but became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess.
The jurisdiction of these two actions, which are summary in nature, lies in the
proper municipal trial court or metropolitan trial court. Both actions must be brought within
one year from the date of actual entry on the land, in case of forcible entry, and from the
date of last demand, in case of unlawful detainer. The issue in said cases is the right to
physical possession.

Accion publiciana is the plenary action to recover the right of possession which
should be brought in the proper regional trial court when dispossession has lasted for
more than one year. It is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of
possession of realty independently of title. In other words, if at the time of the filing of the
complaint more than one year had elapsed since defendant had turned plaintiff out of
possession or defendants possession had become illegal, the action will be, not one of
the forcible entry or illegal detainer, but an accion publiciana. On the other hand,
accion reivindicatoria is an action to recover ownership also brought in the proper regional
trial court in an ordinary civil proceeding. Further, in the case of Serdoncillo vs. Benolirao,
et. al., G.R. No. 118328 October 8, 1998) Accion reivindicatoria or accion de
reivindicacion is thus an action whereby plaintiff alleges ownership over a parcel of land
and seeks recovery of its full possession. It is different from accion interdictal or accion
publiciana where plaintiff merely alleges proof of a better right to possess without claim
of title. In Banayos vs. Susana Realty, Inc., this Court held that: We have consistently
held that a complaint for forcible entry, as distinguished from that of unlawful detainer, in
order to vest jurisdiction upon the inferior court, must allege plaintiff’s prior physical
possession of the property, as well as the fact that he was deprived of such possession
by any of the means provided in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, namely: force,
intimidation, threats, strategy and stealth, “for if the dispossession did not take place by
any of these means, the courts of first instance, not the municipal courts, have jurisdiction.

The aforesaid Rule 70 does not, however, cover all of the cases of dispossession
of lands. Thus, “whenever the owner is dispossessed by any other means than those
mentioned he may maintain his action in the Court of First Instance, and it is not
necessary for him to wait until the expiration of twelve months before commencing an
action to be repossessed or declared to be owner of the land.” Courts of First Instance
have jurisdiction over actions to recover possession of real property illegally detained,
together with rents due and damages, even though one (1) year has not expired from the
beginning of such illegal detention, provided the question of ownership of such property
is also involved. In other words, if the party illegally dispossessed desires to raise the
question of illegal dispossession as well as that of the ownership over the property he
may commence such action in the Court of First Instance immediately or at any time after
such illegal dispossession. If he decides to raise the question of illegal dispossession
only, and the action is filed more than one (1) year after such deprivation or withholding
of possession, then the Court of First Instance will have original jurisdiction over the case.
The former is an accion de reivindicacion which seeks the recovery of ownership as well
as possession, while the latter refers to an accion publiciana, which is the recovery of the
right to possess and is a plenary action in an ordinary proceeding in the Court of First
Instance.

2. Provide a tabular representation of all the remedies available and legal effects:
4. Is negligence a defense in 447 and 448? Cite case law.
Art. 447. The owner of the land who makes thereon, personally or through another,
plantings, constructions or works with the materials of another, shall pay their
value; and, if he acted in bad faith, he shall also be obliged to the reparation of
damages. The owner of the materials shall have the right to remove them only in
case he can do so without injury to the work constructed, or without the plantings,
constructions or works being destroyed. However, if the landowner acted in bad
faith, the owner of the materials may remove them in any event, with a right to be
indemnified for damages.
Art. 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted
in good faith, 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 pay the price of the land, and the one who
sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy
the land if its value is considerably more than that of the building or trees. In such
case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to
appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree
upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the
terms thereof.

Answer:
Negligence is not a defense in art. 447 and 448. The law provides that good faith
may co-exist with negligence. It is possible that a person may be in good faith, and also
negligent. In fact, in negligence, the person has no intention to do wrong, unlike in bad
faith the person has the intent to cause damage to another. In case there be negligence,
damages for culpa will arise under article 2176 which states that Art. 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.
Although article 451 does not elaborate on the basis for damages that the owner
of the land may recover from a builder in bad faith, the court has perceived it to be that
which reasonably corresponds to the value of the property lost or described as a result of
the incorporation of bad faith, and the fruits (natural, industrial or civil) from those
properties that the owner of the land has reasonably expected to obtain.(Heirs of Ramon
Durano Sr. vs Spouse Uy, 344 SCRA 238)

5. Citing case law, what is the good required in 447 and 448?
In Art 447, Owner of the land is in good faith if he did not know that he had no right
to such land or materials. If a land owner with a Torrens title builds beyond the boundaries
of his property as stated in the certificate of title and constructs partly in his neighbor’s
land, he is still in good faith. No one, not even a surveyor, can determine the precise
location of his land by simply examining his title. (Co Tao vs. Chico, L49167, April
30,1968)
In Art 448, Good faith applies when the builder, planter, or sower really believes
he has the right to so build, plant, or sow because he thinks he owns the land. (Alburo vs.
Villanueva, 7 Phil 277). He must therefore have a claim of title; that is, he must really be
a possessor in good faith. The same rule applies if the builder constructs with the consent
of the land owner, the law treating both as possess of good faith.