BAR REVIEW

IN
PROPERTY
ATTY. TERESITA L. CRUZ
 OWNERSHIP
RIGHTS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF
OWNERSHIP
1. Enjoy and dispose of his property.
Art. 428.
2. Recover the property from any holder or
possessor.
Art. 429. 3. Exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal
of the property.
Art. 430. 4. Enclose or fence his land/tenement. DO NOT
ENTER
Art. 435. 5. Just compensation in expropriation.
Art. 437. 6. Construct any works or make any plantation or
excavation on the surface or subsurface of his land.
Art. 438. 7. Own all or part of hidden treasures found in his
property.
Art. 440. 8. Own all accessions to his property.
 DEPT. of EDUCATION vs. TULIAO,
GR 205664, JUNE 9, 2014

Predecessors Atulayan Elem. Constructed

in-interest (used a portion)
a structure
of lot as access
on the land
road for the
Mariano school children)
(registered
owner of lot)

Testimony of retired
TCT, TD & AES teacher that
RPT receipts school possessed
portion of land for
more than 30 years

Who has a better right to the ownership and

possession of the disputed real property?
 As between a certificate of title,
which is an incontrovertible proof of
ownership, accompanied with a tax
declaration and a tax receipt on one
hand, and the testimony of a lone
witness who is a retired teacher on the
other, the former prevails in
establishing who has a better right
of possession over the property,
following the rule that testimonial
evidence cannot prevail
over documentary evidence.
PRINCIPLE OF SELF-HELP: the owner or lawful possessor of a
thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and
disposal thereof and may use such force as may be reasonably
necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful
invasion or usurpation of his property. (Art. 429)

REQUISITES:
1. actual or threatened physical invasion or usurpation
of property;
2. invasion or usurpation must be unlawful;
3. owner or lawful possessor the one defending the
property;
4. reasonably necessary force to repel the invasion or
usurpation;
5. exercised at the time of an ACTUAL or THREATENED
dispossession or IMMEDIATELY AFTER dispossession.
 DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION OF
OWNERSHIP
(Art. 433)

1. Actual physical or material possession of

the property;
2. Possession must be under claim of
ownership;
3. True owner in this case must resort to
judicial process for the recovery of the
property.
DOCTRINE OF STATE OF NECESSITY: that the
owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the
interference of another with the same, if the
interference is necessary to avert an imminent danger
and the threatened damage, compared to the damage
arising to the owner from the interference, is much
greater. (Art. 432)

REQUISITES:
1. an imminent danger and threatened damage to the actor
or 3rd person;
2. interference to another’s property to avert such danger
and damage;
3. said damage is much greater than damage to the
property.
 HIDDEN TREASURE: any hidden and unknown deposit of money,
jewelry, or other precious objects the lawful ownership of which
does not appear. (Art. 439)

RIGHT TO HIDDEN TREASURE:

Finder Is:
1. owner of land, building or property
where treasure was found
2. not the owner thereof
3. merely employed by owner
All the treasure belongs to him
½ to him; ½ to owner
no share in the treasure, but should be
paid his wages, unless there is an
agreement to the contrary

4. Trespasser no share in the treasure

Treasure is of interest to science or the State acquires them at their just price;
arts division in conformity with above rules
Art. 440. ACCESSION: the right of the owner of the thing, real
or personal, to become the owner of everything which is
produced thereby, or which is incorporated or attached thereto,
either naturally or artificially.

BASIC PRINCIPLES IN ACCESSION:

1. Accessory follows the principal.
2. Union or incorporation must, with certain exceptions,
be effected in such a manner that to separate the
principal from the accessory would result in
substantial injury to either.
3. He who is in GF may be held responsible but shall not
be penalized.
4. He who is in BF shall be penalized.
5. BF of one party neutralizes the BF of the other so both
shall be considered in GF.
6. No one should be unjustly enriched at the expense of
the other.
Art. 448. RULES WHEN LANDOWNER IS IN GOOD
FAITH AND BUILDER, PLANTER, SOWER
IS ALSO IN GOOD FAITH
Rights and Obligations of Rights and Obligations of B/P/S in
Landowner in Good Faith Good Faith
1. right of appropriation after 1. right of reimbursement of
payment of indemnity provided necessary and useful expenses;
in Arts. 546 and 548; OR 2. right of retention until paid;
2. right to compel B/P to pay the 3. right to buy the land upon which
price of the land and S, the the building has been built or
proper rent. trees have been planted.
EXCEPTION: value of the
EXCEPTION: value of
land is considerably more
land is considerably
than value of the building or
more than value of the
trees, hence: forced lease
building or trees; hence,
is the remedy, the terms of
forced lease shall result.
which is as per agreement
of the parties. In case of
disagreement, the court
shall fix the terms thereof.
Art. 449 to 452. RIGHTS OF BUILDER IN BAD FAITH
AND LANDOWNER IN GOOD FAITH

Landowner in Good Faith Builder in Bad Faith

1. right of appropriation without No right except reimbursement
payment of indemnity, and of necessary expenses for
damages; OR preservation of land.
2. right to demand removal or
demolition, at builder’s
expense, + damages; OR
3. right to demand price of land or
rent, regardless if value of land
is considerably more than value
of building or trees + damages.
 SPOUSES BENITEZ vs. CA
266 SCRA 242, January 16, 1997

The option is to sell and not to buy the

land and the choice belongs to landowner;
There is no pre-emptive right to buy even
as a compromise and compulsion to sell
on the part of the landowner.
 SPOUSES ALVIOLA vs. CA
GR 117642, April 24, 1998
For Article 448 to apply “the
construction must be of permanent
character, attached to the soil, with an
idea of perpetuity. But if it is of a
transitory character or is transferable,
there is no accession and the builder must
remove the construction.”
VERONA PADA – KILARIO vs.
CA,GR 134329, Jan. 19, 2000

Mere promise to donate the land cannot

convert the builder into one in GF. At the
time the improvement was built on the land,
there was mere expectancy of ownership
which may or may not be realized.
Occupancy by petitioner of the property
was merely tolerated, hence, their
possession cannot be considered in GF.
No prescription will lie against the real
owners who have title/TCT over the land.
 PESONGCO vs. ESTOYA,
A.M. NO. P-06-2131, Mar. 10, 2006

Builder in GF has the legal right to

retain possession of the premises subject
of the case until she is reimbursed of
necessary, useful and incidental expenses,
but limited only to the value of the light
materials she incurred in the preservation
and maintenance thereof.
 SPOUSES NUGUID vs. CA,
GR No. 151815, Feb. 23, 2005
Q1: Is the owner of a parcel of land with
improvements, who failed to pay his
taxes and whose lot was sold at
public auction by the City Treasurer
of Quezon City, entitled to reimbursement
of all the necessary and useful expenses
he incurred in constructing his building?

Q2: Is he required to pay rentals in the

meantime? Why?
 JOSEFA vs. SAN BUENAVENTURA, et. al.,
GR 163429, March 3, 2006

(reiterating GEMINIANO vs. CA,

GR 120303, July 24, 1996)

Issue: Is a lessee a builder in GF entitled

to the rights enumerated in Art. 448?
(Relate to Art. 1678 of the Civil Code)
 ALLUVIUM: soil deposited or added the
lands adjoining the banks of rivers
and gradually received as an effect of
the current of the waters. (Art. 457)
REQUISITES:
1. deposit of soil gradual & imperceptible;
2. cause is the current of the river;
3. river must continue to exist;
4. increase must be comparatively little;
5. lands where accretion takes place
must be adjacent to the banks of the river.

EFFECT: soil deposited belongs to the

owner of the land adjoining the river
bank where accretion took place.
 BAGAIPO vs. CA and LOZANO,
GR No. 116290, Dec. 8, 2000
The decrease in petitioner’s land area
and the corresponding expansion of
respondent’s property were the combined
effects of erosion and accretion,
respectively. All the requisites of
alluvium are present.
 REYNANTE vs. CA,
GR No. 95905, April 8, 1992

Accretions gradually received from the

effect of the current of the river
automatically become the property of the
riparian owner but it does not preclude
acquisition of the additional area by
another person through prescription.
 DESAMPARADO VDA. DE NAZARENO
vs. CA, GR No. 98045, June 26, 1996
If the land subject of the controversy
was the result of the dumping of sawdust
by the Sun Valley Lumber Co. consequent
to its sawmill operations near Balacanas
Creek and Cagayan River, there was no
accretion, since it was man-made and Art.
457 does not apply. The subject land
remains part of the public domain.
 JAGUALING vs. CA,
GR No. 94283, May 4, 1991
An island formed at the middle of a non-
floatable or navigable river belongs to the
nearer riparian owner. Preferential right is
given to him because he is in a better position
to cultivate and attend to the exploitation of
the same. However, even accretion to land
titled under the Torrens system must itself be
registered.
AVULSION: the accretion which takes place
whenever the current of river, creek or torrent
segregates from the estate on its bank a known
portion of land and transfers it to another
estate. (Art. 459).

REQUISITES:
1. Segregation or transfer is caused by the
current of a river, creek, or torrent;
2. Segregation or transfer must be
sudden or abrupt;
3. Portion of the land transported is
known or identified.
EFFECT: the owner of the land to which the
segregated portion belongs retains ownership
thereof, provided he removes (not merely claims)
the same within 2 years from such segregation.
 ABANDONED RIVER BED (Art. 461)
REQUISITES:
1. change in the course of river must be sudden
so the old river bed may be identified;
2. change in the course must be more or less
permanent;
3. change of the river bed must be a natural
one;
4. definite abandonment by the government;
5. river must continue to exist.
EFFECT: abandoned river beds belong to the owners
whose lands are occupied by the new course in
proportion to the area lost; however, the owners of
the lands adjoining the old bed shall have the right
to acquire the same by paying the value thereof,
which value shall not exceed the value of the area
occupied by the new bed.
 ACCESSION WITH RESPECT TO
MOVABLE PROPERTY
ADJUNCTION: the process by virtue of which two movable things belonging
to different owners are united in such a way that they form a single
object.
MIXTURE: combination or union of materials where the respective identities of
the component elements are lost.
SPECIFICATION: the giving of a new form to another's material thru the
application of labor.
ADJUNCTION MIXTURE SPECIFICATION
1. involves at least two 1. involves at least two 1. involves only one thing but
things; things; form is changed;
2. as a rule, accessory 2. as a rule, co-ownership 2. as a rule, accessory follows
follows the principal; results; the principal;
3. the things joined retain 3. the things mixed may 3. the new object retains or
their nature. either retain or lose their preserves the nature of the
respective nature. original object.
 TESTS TO DETERMINE WHICH IS THE
PRINCIPAL AND WHICH IS THE ACCESSORY

The PRINCIPAL is: (in the order of preference)

1. that to which the other has been united as an
ornament, or for its use, or perfection (Art.
467);
2. that of greater value (Art. 468);
3. that of greater volume (Art. 468).

SPECIAL RULE: (2nd paragraph of Art. 468)

In painting and sculpture, writings, printed matter,
engraving and lithographs, the board, metal stone,
canvas, paper or parchment shall be the accessory.
 QUIETING OF TITLE
Art. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on
title to real property or any interest
therein, by reason of any instrument,
record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding
which is apparently valid or effective but is
in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective,
voidable, or unenforceable, and may be
prejudicial to said title, an action may
be brought to remove such cloud or to
quiet the title.
NATURE OF THE ACTION:
1. quasi in rem, i.e., action in personam concerning real property or action
against a person in respect of the res.
2. judgment therein does not extend beyond the property in controversy and
is enforceable only against the defeated party and his privies.
3. not essential that the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant.
4. if brought against one co-owner, it does not constitute res judicata with
respect to the other co-owners.

WHO MAY BE THE PLAINTIFF?

1. one who has legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property
which is the subject matter of the action;
2. he need not be in possession of said property .

PRESCRIPTIBILITY OF THE ACTION

1. if plaintiff is in possession - imprescriptible
2. if plaintiff is not in possession - prescriptible
a) 10 years - ordinary prescription
b) 30 years - extraordinary prescription
 Residents of Lower Atab & Teachers’
Villages, Sto. Tomas Proper Barangay,
Baguio City, et. al. vs. Sta. Monica Industrial
& Dev. Corp., G.R. 198878, Oct. 15, 2014

Torres Sta. Monica

Petitioners
Ind. & Dev.
Corporation
Supposed Claimed to be
owner of an successors/transferees
(SMIDC)
unregistered -in-interest of Torres; in TCT#63184
177,778 sq.m. possession of subject
lot in Baguio prop.; declared their
City lots and homes for A cloud upon P’s
taxation purposes; paid title & interest
realty taxes thereon. & should be
cancelled
Quieting of Title vs.
SMIDC
Q: Is the action for quieting of title proper?
 For an action to quiet title to prosper,
two indispensable requisites must be
present, namely: “(1) the plaintiff or
complainant has a legal or an equitable
title to or interest in the real property
subject of the action; and (2) the deed,
claim, encumbrance, or proceeding
claimed to be casting cloud on his title
must be shown to be in fact invalid or
inoperative despite its prima facie
appearance of validity
or legal efficacy.”
 Legal title denotes registered
ownership, while equitable title means
beneficial ownership.

Petitioners do not have legal or

equitable title to the subject property. There
are no certificates of title in their respective
names. By their own admission in their
pleadings, they acknowledged that they
applied for the purchase of the property from
the government, through townsite sales
applications coursed through the DENR.
 CO-OWNERSHIP
There is co-ownership whenever the
ownership of an undivided thing or right
belongs to different persons.

REQUISITES:

1. plurality of owners;
2. object of ownership is a thing or right which is
undivided;
3. each co-owner’s right limited to his ideal share of
the physical whole.
RIGHTS OF EACH CO-OWNER:
1. full ownership of his part, i.e. his undivided
interest or share in the common property;
2. full ownership of the fruits and benefits
pertaining thereto;
3. may alienate, assign, or mortgage his ideal
interest or share;
4. may even substitute another person in the
enjoyment of his part, except when personal
rights are involved;
5. right of redemption in case the shares of all the
other co-owners or any of them are sold to a third
person;
6. to renounce so much of his interest as may be
equivalent to his share of the expenses and taxes
to exempt himself from said obligation;
7. to demand partition.
 DEL CAMPO et. al. vs. CA,
GR No. 108228, Feb. 1, 2001
A co-owner has full ownership of his
pro-indiviso share in the co-owned
property and has the right to alienate,
assign and mortgage it and substitute
another person in its enjoyment.
 SPOUSES ABAD vs. CA,
GR No. 84908, Dec. 4, 1989

Q: Can a co-owner sell a particular

portion of the co-ownership before
partition?
 SPOUSES SI vs. CA, GR 122047,
October 12, 2000

There is NO CO-OWNERSHIP when

the different portions owned by different
people are already concretely determined
and separately identifiable, even if not
technically described. The right of legal
pre-emption or redemption is no longer
available.
 CONSENT OF CO-OWNERS REQUIRED
1. ACTION IN EJECTMENT
(Art. 487)
- includes forcible entry,
unlawful detainer, accion
publiciana, accion
reinvidicatoria, quieting of
title and replevin
2. ACTS OF PRESERVATION
(Art. 488)
- include expenses for
preservation, maintenance
or necessary repairs and
taxes
- compel contribution of
other co-owners, even if
incurred w/o prior notice or
knowledge
ONE CO-OWNER
- not only against a stranger
but even against a
co-owner
ONE CO-OWNER, but he must,
if practicable, first notify his
co-owners of the necessity of
repairs
- Co-owner may not contribute
by RENOUNCING so much of
his undivided interest = to his
share of the expenses (and
taxes) but no such renunciation
if it is prejudicial to the
co-ownership
3. ACTS OF ADMINISTRATION FINANCIAL MAJORITY,
(Art. 492) i.e., approval by those
a) include those that:
who represent the
(1) do not involve an alteration
(2) improve or embellish the thing
CONTROLLING
(3) may be renewed from time to INTEREST in the co-
time ownership;
(4) have transitory effects
(5) do not give rise to a real right
over the co-owned property
(6) do not affect the substance
or nature of the thing

4. ACTS OF ALTERATION ALL CO-OWNERS i.e.,

(Art. 491)
a) more or less permanent
b) changes the use of the
thing
c) prejudices the condition of
the thing or its enjoyment
by the others
UNANIMOUS CONSENT,
express or implied, to
make alteration valid;
but to recover
expenses, express
consent is required.
 RESUENA, et. al. vs. CA,
GR No. 128338, March 28, 2005

Q: May a co-owner of a real property

eject the persons who occupied
the whole property on the
acquiescence of another co-owner?
 ARAMBULO, et. al. vs NOLASCO, et. al.,
GR 189420, MAR. 26, 2014

co-owners Rosita Vda. de Arambulo

of 2 lots in
Tondo, Mla. withholding
7 children Iraida Genaro consent to
(+) the sale of
their 1/9
share of
3 children
this lots.

Q: May a co-owner be compelled to give

consent to a sale of his share by the
other co-owners?
 Art. 493. NCC. Each co-owner shall have the full
ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits
pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate,
assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another
person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights
are involved.

The sale by the petitioners of their parts shall not

affect the full ownership by the respondents of the
part that belongs to them. XXX With the full
ownership of the respondents remaining unaffected
by petitioners’ sale of their parts, the nature of the
property, as co-owned, likewise stays. In lieu of the
petitioners, their vendees shall be co-owners with the
respondents.
RURAL BANK of CABADBARAN, INC. (RBCI)
vs. MELECIO-YAP, GR 178451, JULY 30, 2014

3,044sq.m. lot
w/ancestral Isaac Trinidad
house & 2
other (+) (+)
structures

adm. & Erna Melecio heirs Extrajudicially

mgt. foreclosed the
RBCI REM; highest
SPA P200K loan secured by bidder; NO
REM over the house & redemption; intend
lot registered w/the RD to take possession
and annotated on TD # of the property.
425-R.

Q: If the entire property subject of co-ownership

was mortgaged by a co-owner using a forged SPA,
is the mortgage valid, voidable or void ?
 While Erna, herself a co-owner, by
virtue of Article 493 of the NCC, had the
right to mortgage or even sell her undivided
interest in the said properties, she could
not dispose of or mortgage the subject
properties in their entirety without the
consent of the other co-owners. The validity
of the subject real estate mortgage and the
subsequent foreclosure proceedings
conducted in favor of RBCI should be limited
only to the portion which may be allotted to it
(as the successor-in-interest of Erna) in the
event of partition.
TERMINATION OF
CO-OWNERSHIP

1. Consolidation or merger in only one of the co-owners of all the

interests of the other co-owners;
2. Destruction or loss of the property co-owned;
3. Acquisitive prescription in favor of a 3rd person or co-owner
who has repudiated the co-ownership;
4. Partition, extra-judicial or judicial;
1. that agreed upon by the parties
5. Termination of the 2. that imposed by donor or testator
period 3. that allowed by law, i.e., 10 years for
contractual or 20 years for testacy
6. sale of the co-owners of the thing to a 3rd person and the
distribution of its proceeds among them.
 PAULMITAN vs. CA, GR 61584, 11/25/92
Agatona
(+ 1953)
Lot 757 – 1,946 sq. m. – OCT No. RO-8376
Lot 1091 – 69,080 sq. m. – OCT No. RO-11653

Pascual
Donato
(+ 1953 shortly after death of Agatona)

several legitimate children Juliana Fanesa

The redemption of the land made by Fanesa

did not terminate the co-ownership nor give
her title to the entire land subject of the co-
ownership. She, however, acquired the right to
be reimbursed for half of the redemption price
she paid to the Prov. Gov’t. of Negros
Occidental on behalf of her co-owners.
Art. 494. ACQUISITION BY
PRESCRIPTION
1. GEN. RULE: NO CO-OWNER can acquire the whole
property by prescription.
EXCEPTION: Repudiation of the co-ownership.

a. he must make known to the other co-owners that

he is definitely repudiating the co-ownership and
claiming complete ownership over the entire
property;
b. evidence of repudiation and knowledge on the part
of the others must be clear and convincing;
c. open, continuous, public, peaceful, adverse
possession for the period of time required under
the law;
d. period of prescription starts from such repudiation.
 Heirs of Reyes, et. al. vs. Heirs of
Reyes, et. al., G.R. 158377, 8/13/2010

In order that a co-owner’s possession

may be deemed adverse to the rights of the
other co-owners, there must be
unequivocal acts of repudiation. The sole
fact of a co-owner’s declaring the land in
question in his name for taxation purposes
and paying the land taxes does not
constitute an unequivocal act of
repudiation amounting to an ouster of the
other co-owners.
Art. 494. PARTITION
1. a co-owner can demand partition at any time, in so far as his share is
concerned.
2. action imprescriptible; cannot be barred by laches, absent a repudiation
of the co-ownership by a co-owner.
3. NO PARTITION if:
a. prohibited by agreement for a period not exceeding 10 years; may
be extended after original period has prescribed provided each
does not exceed 10 years.
b. prohibited by testator/donor for a period not exceeding 20 years.
c. prohibited by law.
d. legal nature of the common property does not allow partition.
e. physical partition would render the property unserviceable for its
intended use.

Art. 498. LEGAL PARTITION

1. resorted when the thing is essentially indivisible.
2. procedure:
a. give the whole to one co-owner who will be required to indemnify
the rest.
b. if not agreed upon, public or private sale and its proceeds divided
among the co-owners.
 QUINTOS, et. al. vs. NICOLAS, et. al.,
GR 210252, JUNE 16, 2014
Bienvenido Escolastica
(+1999)

inherited
281 sq. m. 10 children
lot located (3 Petitioners) (7 Respondents)
in Tarlac
2002 - complaint for partition

Case dismissed for failure to

prosecute.
2004 - Deed of Adjudication; TCT issued in
the names of the 10 siblings.

May partition be barred by res judicata since the

first case for partition was dismissed for failure to
prosecute?
 Under Article 494 of the NCC, no
co-owner is obliged to remain in the
co-ownership, and his proper
remedy is an action for partition
which he may bring at anytime in so
far as his share is concerned. Article
1079 of the NCC defines partition as
the separation, division and
assignment of a thing held in
common among those to whom it
may belong.
 VDA. DE REYES vs. CA
199 SCRA 646, July 26, 1991

Q: 1. Is an oral partition of land valid?

: 2. Is an oral partition covered by the
Statute of Frauds?
SPOUSES MARCOS vs. Heirs of BANGI et.al.,
GR 185745, OCT. 15, 2014

Ramona Alipio Registered

(+) (+1918) owner of lot
1918 – oral
partition
between
Eusebio Expedita Jose
the 3
siblings Sale of the Isidro Genoveva Took
1/3 portion (+) (+) possession
of a 2,138 of the lot
sq. m. lot
on 11/5/43 Heirs of Isidro

Inherited & took

possession of lot

Q : Is an oral partition of land valid?

 Partition is the separation, division
and assignment of a thing held in
common among those to whom it may
belong. Every act which is intended to put an
end to indivision among co-heirs and legatees
or devisees is deemed to be a partition.

Oral partition is effective when the

parties have consummated it by the
taking of possession and the exercise of
ownership of the respective portions set
off to each. It is obvious that Eusebio took
possession of his share and exercised
ownership over it.
DELA CRUZ vs. DELA CRUZ, GR 192383,
DEC. 4, 2013
10/7/02 - executed
an Affidavit of
Isabelo Cornelia Lucila Waiver in favor
of Isabelo
1975 → bought Corazon
1976→built 240 sq.m. lot; plea for financial
house on failed
paid DP & help for Corazon; to pay
lot monthly paid P8K balance loan
amortizations of amortizations;
TCT in her name; PVB
REM w/Phil. foreclosed
Veterans Bank REM on
3/1/89

3/27/92 → P286K
redemption price
paid by Lucila
 Affidavit of Waiver
“That to put everything in proper
order, I hereby waive all my share, interest
& participation to ½ portion (120 sq. m.) of
this lot in favor of my brother Isabelo, xxx
and the other half (120 sq. m.) to my
niece, Emelinda,xxx”.

ISSUE: WON the CA erred in affirming the RTC

decision that Lucila’s cession of the lot to
Isabelo through waiver did NOT make him
part-owner of the property with the right
to demand partition.
 Lucila said, “to put everything in
proper order, I hereby waive”….. The
phrase “hereby waive” means that Lucila
was, by executing the affidavit, already
waiving her right to the property,
irreversibly divesting herself of her
existing right to the same. After he and his
co-owner Emelinda accepted the donation,
Isabelo became the owner of half of the
subject property having the right to
demand its partition.
 Art. 523. POSSESSION
1. it is the holding of a thing or
2. the enjoyment of a right

CLASSES OF POSSESSION:
1. in one’s own name or in
the name of another.
2. in the concept of the
owner, or in the
concept of a holder, or
in the concept of both
the owner and the
holder.
3. in good faith, or in bad
faith.
Art. 538. RULES REGARDING
POSSESSION AS A FACT
1. GEN. RULE: cannot be recognized at the same time
in two different personalities.
2. EXCEPTION: a) co-possessors;
b) possession in different concepts
or degrees.
3. In case of conflict/dispute regarding possession
a. present possessor shall be preferred;
b. if both are present, the one longer in possession;
c. if both began to possess at the same time, the one
who presents or has a title;
d. if both present a title, the court will determine.
 POSSESSION OF MOVABLE ACQUIRED IN GOOD FAITH POSSESSION OF
(Art. 559) MOVABLE
ACQUIRED IN BF
1. Equivalent to title 1. NOT equivalent
to title
2. Owner may RECOVER
a. if he lost the same OR
b. he has been unlawfully deprived*
EXCEPTION:
a. possessor acquired the movable in GF at a
public sale, hence, owner must REIMBURSE
the price paid by the possessor

* Unlawful
deprivation –
includes all
cases of taking
which
constitute
a criminal
offense
 Subic Bay Legend Resorts & Casinos, Inc.
vs. Bernard Fernandez, G.R. 193426,
Sept. 29, 2014

Subic Bay Legenda’s

Legend Resorts security
& Casinos, Inc. Ludwin &
Deoven officers
played at the
casino and
operates the had their interrogated the
Legenda Hotel chips brothers; turned
& Casino encashed by them over to the
the cashier IIOSBMA; ordered
the return of the
chips and the
cash
 Applying Article 559 of the NCC, respondent
had the legal presumption of title to or
ownership of the casino chips. This conclusion
springs from respondent’s admission during trial
that the chips represented payment by a Chinese
customer for services he rendered to the latter in
his car shop. Since respondent became the
owner of the chips, he could very well have given
them to Ludwin and Deoven, who likewise held
them as “possessors in good faith and for
value” and with “presumptive title” derived
from the respondent.
 DOCTRINE OF CONSTRUCTIVE
POSSESSION

Possession in the eyes of the law does

not mean that a man has to have his feet on
every square meter of ground before it can
be said that he is in possession.
 USUFRUCT
Art. 562 USUFRUCT gives a right to enjoy the property of
another with the obligation of preserving its form and
substance unless the title constituting it or the law
otherwise provides.

FORMULA:

Naked ownership right to dispose

+
Usufruct right to use and right to the
fruits

Full ownership

REASONS FOR CONSERVING FORM AND SUBSTANCE:

1. prevent extraordinary exploitation;

2. prevent abuse which is frequent;

3. prevent impairment.
OBLIGATIONS OF THE USUFRUCTUARY:
1. make an inventory;
BEFORE
2. give security or bond.

1. take care of the property w/ the

DOAGFOAF;
2. make ordinary repairs;
DURING
3. notify owner of urgent extra-
ordinary repairs;
4. notify owner of any prejudicial act
committed by 3rd persons.

1. return the object unless there is

AFTER right of retention;
2. indemnify owner for any loss due to
his fault or negligence.
CAUCION JURATORIA – is a sworn duty to take
good care of the property and return the same at
the end of the usufruct; takes the place of the
bond or security (usufructuary is required but
cannot afford to give security) and is based on
necessity and humanity.
REQUISITES:
1. proper court petition;
2. necessity for delivery of:
a). furniture or house for use by usufructuary
and his family OR;
b). implements, tools or other movables for a
vocation or industry in which he is engaged.
3. approval of the court;
4. sworn promise;
5. BUT usufructuary cannot alienate or lease the
property for this means he does not need them.
 EASEMENT OR SERVITUDE
- is an encumbrance imposed upon an
immovable for the benefit of another
immovable belonging to a different owner
or for the benefit of a community or one or
more persons to whom the encumbered
estate does not belong by virtue of which
the owner is obliged to abstain from doing
or to permit a certain thing to be done on
his estate. (Arts. 613/614).
CHARACTERISTICS OF AN EASEMENT:
1. a real right;
2. imposed on a real property only;
3. Imposable only on another’s property;
4. involves two neighboring estates, the dominant and
the servient estates;
5. a limitation or encumbrance on the servient estate
for another’s benefit;
6. a right limited by the needs of the dominant estate;
7. inherent from the servient estate as such;
8. inseparable from the servient estate;
9. non-possessory;
10. indivisible;
11. intransmissible;
12. perpetual.
MODES OF ACQUIRING EASEMENTS (Arts. 620 – 623)
A. CONTINUOUS AND 1. By TITLE
APPARENT a) does not necessarily mean
document
b) it means a juridical act or law
sufficient to create the
encumbrance. Ex: Law,
EXAMPLES: donation, will, contract
1. Easement of aquaduct
2. Easement of light and view 2. By PRESCRIPTION - TEN YEARS
a) positive, when made: a) positive – computed from the day
(1) on one’s own wall the dominant owner commenced
extending over to exercise the easement upon
another’s property OR servient estate.
(2) on a party wall
b) negative, when made: b) negative – computed from the day
(1) on one’s own wall notarial prohibition was made on
w/c does not extend the servient estate.
over another’s
property.
MODES OF ACQUIRING EASEMENTS (Arts. 620 – 623)
B. DISCONTINUOUS AND
APPARENT

C. CONTINUOUS AND
By TITLE ONLY
NON-APPARENT

D. DISCONTINUOUS AND
NON-APPARENT
EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY (Arts. 649 -
657): by which one person or a particular
class of persons is allowed to pass over
another’s land, usually thru one particular path
or line.
A. REQUISITES: (Art. 649)
1. property (dominant) is surrounded by other
estates;
2. no adequate outlet to a public highway;
3. absolutely necessary for use or cultivation of
the enclosed estate of the claimant;
4. isolation not due to claimant’s own act;
5. established at the point least prejudicial to
servient estate;
6. claimant must be the owner or one with a real
right thereto;
7. payment of the proper indemnity.
B. AMOUNT OF INDEMNITY (Art. 649)
1. If passage is permanent – value of
the land + amount of damage
caused to servient estate
2. If passage is temporary – amount of
damage caused to servient estate
C. EXTINGUISHMENT OF THE LEGAL
EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY
(Art. 655)
1. opening of a new road;
2. joining the dominant estate to another
which abuts, and therefore, has
access to the public highway;
3. such new access is adequate and
convenient to the dominant estate.
 CRISTOBAL vs. CA,
GR No. 125339, June 22, 1998
Q: Who has the burden of proving entitlement
to a legal easement of right of way?

A: An easement involves an abnormal restriction

on the property rights of the servient estate
owner and is regarded as an encumbrance on the
servient estate. It is incumbent upon the dominant
estate owner to establish by clear and convincing
evidence the presence of all the requisites before
his claim for the legal easement of ROW may be
granted. IF IT CANNOT BE PROVEN, IT CANNOT
BE GRANTED.
DICHOSO, JR. et.al. vs. PATROCINIO MARCOS,
GR 180282, April 11, 2011

Q: May petitioners who were already granted

a ROW by another landowner still compel
respondent to grant them a ROW
contending that the alternative route given
to them was longer and circuitous?
A: Convenience of the dominant estate has
never been the gauge for the grant of a
compulsory ROW. The true standard for
the grant of the legal EOROW is
“adequacy”.
 QUINTANILLA vs. Abangan & Daryl’s
Collection International Inc., GR 160613,
February 18, 2008
The criterion of least prejudice to the
servient estate must prevail over the
criterion of shortest distance. As between
a ROW that would demolish a fence of strong
materials and warehouses to provide ingress
and egress to a public highway and another
ROW which, although longer, will only require a
vehicle to make a turn, the 2nd alternative
should be preferred. Mere convenience of
the dominant estate is NOT the criterion
to grant the legal EOROW.
 CHAN vs. CA, GR No. 105294,
Feb. 26, 1997

May the owner of the lot who built a

concrete fence on the southern portion of
her property to separate it from
her neighbors and closed the 28-inch
clearance which was her means to reach
the national highway be entitled to the
legal easement of right of way?
 ABELLANA vs. CA,
GR No. 97039, April 24, 1992
The use of a footpath or road may be
apparent but it is not a continuous
easement because its use is at intervals
and depends upon the acts of men. It can
be exercised only if a man passes or puts
his feet over someone else’s land.
 Bicol Agro-Industrial Producers Coop. Inc.,
(BAPCI) vs. Obias, et. al., GR 172077, Oct. 9, 2009
The easement of right of way – the privilege of
persons or a particular class of persons to pass over
another’s land, usually through one particular path or
line – is characterized as a discontinuous easement
because its use is in intervals and depends on the acts
of men. Because of this character, an easement of
right of way may ONLY be acquired by virtue of a
title, NOT by prescription.
 Unisource Commercial and Dev. Corp.
vs. Chung, GR 173252, July 17, 2009

Encarnacion
Francisco
Sandico
Hidalgo
OCT w/ Vol. EOROW

Several transfers
of lots

Unisource Commercial Joseph, Kiat, Cleto

and Dev. Corp. (Chung)
TCT # 176253 TCT # 121488
w/vol. EOROW
 The opening of an adequate
outlet to a highway can extinguish
ONLY legal or compulsory
easements, NOT voluntary
easements. A voluntary easement of
right of way, like any other contract,
could be extinguished only by mutual
agreement of the parties or by
renunciation of the owner of the
dominant estate.
 SPS. SALIMBAGON vs. SPS. TAN,
GR 185240, Jan. 21, 2010

Q: What is the effect if the servient

estate owners in an easement of
right of way later become the
dominant estate owners?
A: The easement is extinguished by
operation of law. The existence of a
dominant estate and a servient estate
is incompatible with the idea that both
estates belong to the same person.
 City Street

Lot A Lot B Lot C

3-m.
(Victoria) (Eduardo) (Carlos)
ROW

Lot D Lot E
(Guillermo) (Benedicta)
EASEMENT OF LATERAL
AND SUBJACENT
SUPPORT

No excavation upon
one’s own land may
be made to deprive
adjacent land or
building of sufficient
lateral and subjacent
support (Art. 684).
 CASTRO vs. MONSOD, GR 183719,
Feb. 2, 2011

ISSUE: Whether the easement of lateral &

subjacent support exists on the
subject adjacent properties and if it
does, whether the same may be
annotated at the back of the title of
the servient estate.
 In the instant case, an easement of lateral
and subjacent support exists in favor of
respondent. A permanent injunction on the
part of petitioner from making injurious
excavations is necessary in order to protect
respondent’s interest. However, an
annotation of the existence of the lateral
and subjacent support is no longer
necessary. It exists whether or not it is
annotated in the Registry of Property. A judicial
recognition of the same already binds the
property and its owner, including his successors-
in-interest.
 NUISANCE
NUISANCE (Art. 694) –
is any act, omission,
establishment, business,
condition of property or
anything else which:

1. injures or endangers
the health or safety
of others
2. annoys or offends the
senses;

3. shocks, defies or disregards

decency or morality;
4. obstructs, or interferes with
the free passage of any
public highway or street or
any body of water;

5. hinders or impairs the use of property.

 CLASSIFICATION OF
NUISANCE: (Art. 695)
I. ACCORDING TO SCOPE/EXTENT
OF ITS INJURIOUS EFFECTS

A. PUBLIC – one which affects a

community or neighborhood or
any considerable number of
persons although the extent of
annoyance, danger or damage
upon individuals may be
unequal.
1. REMEDIES
1). Prosecution under the Revised Penal Code or any local
ordinance;
2). Civil action;
a). Gen. Rule: must be commenced by the city or municipal
mayor.
b). EXCEPTION: private person may file the action if the nuisance
is specially injurious to himself.
3). extrajudicial abatement.
a). district health officer determines whether or not it is the best
remedy.
b). by private person himself, provided: (Art. 703/705)
(1). nuisance specially injurious to himself;
(2). demand is first made upon the owner or possessor of the
property to abate the nuisance;
(3). such demand has been rejected;
(4). abatement be approved by the district health officer and
executed with the assistance of the local police;
(5). removing or if necessary, by destroying the thing which
constitutes the nuisance, without committing a breach of
the peace or doing unnecessary injury;
(6). Value of the destruction does not exceed P3000.00.
2. Remedies are cumulative NOT exclusive.
3. All remedies may be availed of by public officers but a
private person may avail of the last two (2) remedies only.
B. PRIVATE – one which affects
only private rights or produces
damage to one or a few
persons.
1. Remedies:
1). Civil action
2). extrajudicial abatement
II. ACCORDING TO ITS NATURE
A. Nuisance per se
B. Nuisance per accidens
PER SE PER ACCIDENS
1. nuisance at all times and 1. becomes a nuisance by
under any circumstances, reason of circumstances,
regardless of location or location or surroundings;
surroundings; 2. proof of the manner of
2. proof of its existence is its conduct, or the act,
sufficient; its consequences and
3. may be summarily abated other like circumstances,
under the undefined law is necessary;
of necessity. 3. reasonable notice and
hearing on whether or
not, in law, it constitutes
a nuisance.
 GANCAYCO vs . City Gov’t . Of Q .C .
& MMDA , GR 177807 , Oct . 11, 2011
Q: In 2003, MMDA demolished the “wing
walls” of Justice Gancayco’s bldg.
constructed on his 375 sq.m. lot in EDSA,
claiming it to be a nuisance per se,
alleging violation of the Bldg. Code and
Q.C. Ordinance No. 2904.
Are the “wing walls” nuisance per se?
A: A nuisance per se affects the immediate
safety of persons and property and may be
summarily abated under the undefined law
of necessity. When Justice Gancayco was given
an exemption from constructing an arcade and
issued a permit to construct his bldg., the City
Council did NOT consider the wing walls as
nuisance per se. An ordinance may declare a
structure illegal but it does not necessarily make
the same a nuisance.

The MMDA does not have the power to

declare a thing a nuisance. Only courts of law
have the power to determine
whether a thing is a nuisance.
 Perez, both in his personal & official capacity as
Chief, Marikina Demolition Office vs. Spouses
Fortunito & Yolanda Madrona,
GR 184478, Mar. 21, 2012

Q: May the owners of a H & L who constructed a

concrete fence with a steel gate on their
property be ordered by the Chief of the
Demolition Office to demolish said fence on
the contention it was encroaching on the
sidewalk?
A: Respondent’s fence is NOT a nuisance per
se. By its nature, it is not injurious to the health
or comfort of the community. It was built
primarily to secure respondent’s property
and to prevent intruders from entering it.
The sidewalk still exists. If petitioner believes that
respondent’s fence indeed encroaches on the
sidewalk, it may be so proven in a hearing
conducted for that purpose.

Not being a nuisance per se but at most a

nuisance per accidens, its summary
abatement WITHOUT
judicial intervention
is unwarranted.
DOCTRINE OF ATTRACTIVE
NUISANCE

One who maintains in 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 or resorting thereto is liable
to a child of tender years who is injured thereby,
even If the child is technically a trespasser in the
premises.

This doctrine does not apply to bodies of water,

artificial or natural, in the absence of some
unusual condition or artificial feature other than
the mere water and its location.
 DONATION
DONATION includes:
1. an act of liberality whereby a person
disposes gratuitously of a thing or
right in favor of another, who accepts
it. (Art. 725).
2. giving to another a thing or right on
account of the latter’s merits or of the
services rendered by him to the donor,
provided they do not constitute a
demandable debt (Art. 726).
3. giving to another a thing or right and
imposes upon the donee a burden
which is less than the value of the
thing given (Art. 726).
 REQUISITES OF A VALID
DONATION

1. donor’s capacity to make the

donation of a thing or right;
2. donative intent;
3. delivery, actual or constructive;
4. acceptance/consent of the donee
to the donation;
5. compliance with formalities
prescribed by law.
DISTINCTIONS:
INTER VIVOS MORTIS CAUSA
1. takes effect during the lifetime 1. takes effect upon
of the donor; the death of donor;
2. made out of donor’s pure 2. made in contemplation of death
generosity; without intention to dispose in
case of survival;
3. valid, even if donor survives the
donee; 3. void, should donor survive the
donee;
4. must follow formalities of
donation; 4. must follow formalities of a will;

5. must be accepted by donee 5. can only be accepted after

during the lifetime of donor; donor’s death;
6. cannot be revoked except for 6. always revocable before donor’s
grounds provided by law; death;
7. generally, right to dispose of the 7. right to dispose is retained by
property is conveyed to the the donor while still alive;
donee;
8. preferred in case of impairment 8. not so preferred, hence reduced
of legitime. first if legitime is impaired.
 VOID DONATIONS (Art. 739):

1. between persons who are guilty of

adultery or concubinage at the time of
the donation;
2. between persons found guilty of the same
criminal offense, in consideration thereof;
3. made to a public officer or his wife,
descendants and ascendants, by reason
of his office;
4. between spouses, during their marriage,
except moderate gifts during times of
family rejoicing. (Art. 87 FC).
FORMALITIES OF A DONATION:
I. DONATION INTER VIVOS
A. For movable property (Art. 748)

1. may be made orally or in writing;

2. oral donation requires

simultaneous delivery of the
thing or of the document
representing the right donated;

3. donation AND acceptance must

be in writing if the value of the
property exceeds P 5,000.00.
B. For immovable property (Art. 749)
1. donation must be in a public
instrument, specifying therein
the property donated and the
value of the charges which the
donee must satisfy;

2. acceptance may be in same

deed or in a separate public
document;

3. if in a separate document,
donor shall be notified thereof
in an authentic form and this
step shall be noted in both
instruments.
II. MORTIS CAUSA –
formalities of a will
 CARINAN vs. SPOUSES CUETO,
GR 198636, OCT. 8, 2014

Roberto Sps. Gavino

Jose Esperanza paid a total of
Ventura (+) & Carmela P1,300,680.37
Jazer Cueto for unpaid
monthly
DOA w/TOR & failed to pay payment by amortizations,
AOO over 180 monthly Gavino was a transfer of
sq. m. lot amortizations. DONATION to title & house
w/TCT in the her. renovation;
name of GSIS
TCT in
Esperanza’s
name was
surrendered
to them.
Article 748 NCC, which applies to donations of
money, reads:

The donation of a movable may be made orally or

in writing.

An oral donation requires the simultaneous

delivery of the thing or of the document
representing the right donated.

If the value of the personal property donated

exceeds five thousand pesos, the donation and the
acceptance shall be made in writing. Otherwise,
the donation shall be VOID.
 QUILALA vs. ALCANTARA
GR No. 132681, Dec. 3, 2001
DONATION INTER-VIVOS
Donor ________, out of love, affection and
generosity, donates this lot to donee _______ covered
by TCT # __________, more particularly described as:
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________

Donee ________ accepts this donation with

appreciation and gratefulness.
Signed:

Donor Donee

Witness #1 Witness #2
(1)
Witness #1
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Witness #2
Before me, a Notary Public,
personally appeared Donor
_________________ x x x and she
acknowledged that the same is her free
and voluntary act and deed.

X x x consisting of 2 pages x
x x has been signed by the Donor and
her instrumental witnesses x x x.

Notary Public
(2)
 The instrument should be treated in
its entirety. It cannot be considered a
private document in part and a public
document in another part. The fact that it
was acknowledged before a notary public
converts the deed of donation in its entirety to
a public instrument. It is the conveyance that
should be acknowledged as a free and
voluntary act. Donee’s acceptance,
explicitly set forth on the 1st page of the
notarized deed of donation, was made in a
public instrument.
LAGAZO vs. CA, GR No. 112796
March 5, 1998

DEED OF DONATION ACCEPTANCE

I, __________________, I, accept with full

donate this real gratitude the
property to donee donation of real
_______________. property located at
_______________ made
by Donor.

Signed: Signed:

January 30, 1985 August 28, 1990

 GROUNDS FOR REVOCATION OF
DONATION (Art. 760)
1. birth, adoption, re-appearance of a
child (within 4 years from BAR);

2. noncompliance with any of the

conditions imposed by the donor
(within 4 years from noncompliance);
3. ingratitude of the donee (within 1
year from knowledge of ingratitude).
 GROUNDS FOR REDUCTION OF
DONATION
1. failure of the donor to reserve sufficient means to
support himself or dependent relatives (anytime
during lifetime of donor).

2. failure of the donor

to reserve sufficient
property to pay-off
his existing debts
(within 4 years from
perfection of
donation).
debtor creditor
3. Inofficiousness (within 5 years after death of
donor).

4. birth, adoption, re-appearance of child of

donor (within 4 years from BAR).
 ACTS OF INGRATITUDE AS GROUND
FOR REVOCATION: (Art. 765)
1. if the donee should commit some
offense against the person, the
honor or the property of the
donor or of his wife or children
under his parental care.
2. if donee imputes to the donor any
criminal offense or any act
involving moral turpitude, even
though he should prove it, unless
the crime or the act has been
committed against the donee
himself, his wife or children under
his authority.
3. if he unduly refuses him support
when the donee is legally or morally
bound to give support to the donor.
CALANASAN vs. DOLORITO, G.R. 171937,
November 25, 2013

DEED OF DONATION

“I, Cerila, donate this lot to my niece,

Evelyn (married to Virgilio); Evelyn must
redeem said lot w/c was mortgaged for
P15K; I am entitled to possess and enjoy
this lot for as long as I am alive.”
Sgd.
__________________
Cerila
“I accept the donation
& its conditions”
Sgd.
__________________
Evelyn
 The donor has no factual and
legal basis for the revocation of the
donation. First, the ungrateful acts
were committed NOT by the donee;
it was her husband who committed
them. Second, the ungrateful acts
were perpetrated NOT against the
donor; it was the petitioner’s sister who
received the alleged ill treatments.
 VILLANUEVA vs. SPOUSES BRANOCO,
GR 172804, Jan. 24, 2011

Alvegia Rodrigo

Casimiro Eufracia
Vere Rodriguez
DOS-Aug. ‘70 DOD-May 3, 1965

Gonzalo Sps. Branoco

3,492 sq.m.
Villanueva
lot located DOS-July ‘83
in Leyte DOS-July ‘71
 DEED OF DONATION
3 May 1965

I, DONOR, XXX due to love & affection, devise a lot to

DONEE, her heirs, successors & assigns; lot is now in the
possession of DONEE since May 21, 1962 in the concept of
an owner; ownership shall be vested on DONEE upon my
demise; if DONEE predeceases me, the said lot shall not
be reverted to DONOR but will be inherited by DONEE’s
heirs.
Sgd. ______________
DONOR
I accept the land & I will give ½
of its produce to DONOR
during her lifetime.
Sgd. ______________
DONEE
_______________ _______________
Witness # 1 Witness # 2
This is a donation inter vivos.

The donor stipulated that “if the Donee predeaceases

me, the property will not be reverted to the Donor, but
will be inherited by the donee’s heirs,” signalling the
irrevocabillity of the passage of title to the donee’s
estate, waiving donor’s right to reclaim title. This transfer
of title was perfected the moment she learned of the
donee’s acceptance of the disposition which, being
reflected in the Deed, took place on the day of its
execution on 3 May 1965. The donee’s acceptance
underscores its essence as a gift in presenti, NOT in
futuro, as only donations inter vivos need acceptance by
the recipient.
 DEL ROSARIO vs. FERRER, GR 187056,
September 20, 2010

Leopoldo Guadalupe
(+June ‘72) 126 sq.m. lot (+Sept. ’68)
Pandacan, Mla.
DDMC
Deed of
Assignment
12/19/68

Asuncion Emiliano Zoilo

(+)

Jarabini
 DONATION MORTIS CAUSA
IT IS OUR WILL THAT:

Our property in Pandacan be divided equally among

Asuncion, Emiliano & Jarabini; this DMC shall be
irrevocable and shall be respected by the s.s.; Jarabini &
Emiliano will continue to occupy the portions now occupied
by them; anyone of the s.s. reserves the right, ownership,
possession, adm. of this property; this DMC shall be
operative & effective upon the death of DONORS.

Accepted: Sgd. ______________

Sgd. 1.______________ DONORS
2.______________
DONEES
3.______________

_______________ _______________
Witness # 1 Witness # 2
 The express "irrevocability" of the
donation is the "distinctive standard that
makes the document a donation inter
vivos." Here, the donors plainly said that it is
"our will that this Donation Mortis Causa shall
be irrevocable and shall be respected by the
surviving spouse." The intent to make the
donation inter vivos becomes even clearer by
the proviso that the surviving donor shall
respect the irrevocability of the
donation. Consequently, the donation was in
reality a donation inter vivos.
GESTOPA vs. CA, GR No. 111904
October 5, 2000
DEED OF DONATION
I, ____________, donate these real properties out
of love and affection to donee, reserving lifetime
usufuct over these properties to myself and further
reserving sufficient properties for my maintenance;
donee cannot sell or dispose of the lands without
prior consent and approval by the donor during his
lifetime.
Signed:
Donor

Accepted:

Donee
SPS. SICAD vs CA, GR 125888, 8/13/1998
DEED OF DONATION INTER VIVOS
I, ____________, donate this lot to my grandchildren
___________________; this donation to take effect 10 years
after my death; my grandchildren shall not sell or
encumber this lot within 10 years after my death.

Signed:
Accepted: Donor

donees
 TAN QUETO vs. POMBUENA,
GR No. 35648, Feb. 2, 1987

An oral donation of land is VOID: it

cannot be considered a valid donation
intervivos because it was not executed in
a public instrument; it cannot also be a
valid donation mortis causa because it did
not comply with the formalities of a will.
 DE LUNA vs. ABRIGO,
GR No. 57455, Jan. 18, 1990
DEED OF DONATION 4/9/71
I, ____________, donate this lot to Luzonian Colleges….
construct a chapel, nursery and a kindergarten school
which must be 70% finished by the end of 3 years from
the date of donation….completed w/n 5 yrs from date
of donation…. Failure to comply with any of the
conditions will mean automatic reversion of this lot to
Donor.
Signed:
DONOR

Accepted:

donee
 ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP
OF MANILA vs CA, GR Nos. 77425
& 77450, June 19, 1991

Donation of a parcel of
land was subject to a
resolutory condition that
property should not be sold
within 100 years from the
execution of the Deed of
Donation, violation of
which would render the
donation ipso facto null
and void.
 SECRETARY OF EDUCATION vs. HEIRS
OF DULAY, SR., GR 164748, Jan. 27, 2006
DEED OF DONATION
Aug. 3, 1981
We, ____________, donate a 10,000 sq. m. lot to
DECS……… to build a school house ……………………….
Signed:
Donors
Accepted:

donee

1. TCT transferred – 4/3/83

2. Rufino Dulay died – 12/22/94
3. Reconveyance of property
8/31/97.
 Tamayo vs. Tamayo, GR 148482, 8/12/2005
Dorothela
Jose Dayanghirang Dr. Jose Tamayo Sr.
Matuco Tamayo 10/7/90

Jose Jr.
Joseph Lina Florits Fortuna
Laureana Flor
Luzviminda
1. Nov. 15, 1977 – Sps. Tamayo donated 2 lots to their 4
leg. children
2. April 15, 1978 – TCT over the 2 lots transferred in the
names of the 4 leg. children.
3. Oct. 7, 1990 – Dr. Jose Tamayo Sr. died.
4. June 13, 1996 – Ill. children of Dorothela filed a
complaint for the revocation of the donation alleging
preterition from the estate of Dr. Tamayo and fraud in
the execution of the DOD.
 The trial court dismissed the complaint as
petitioners never offered any evidence, testimonial
or documentary, of the subject document (Deed of
Donation Inter vivos) which they seek to nullify.
Petitioners concentrated on offering evidence to
prove their legitimacy and filiation to Dr. Jose
Tamayo, Sr.

The right to bring an action for the

revocation or reduction of an inofficious
donation must be brought within FIVE (5)
years from the
DONOR’s DEATH.
ARCABA vs. TABANCURA Vda. DE BATOCAEL,
GR 146683, November 22, 2001
Cirila Francisco Zosima
(34 yrs. old) 75 yrs old (+1991) (+)

418 sq.m. lot w/house

DEED OF DONATION
In consideration of the faithful services
rendered to me by Cirila Arcaba for over 10 years, I
donate to her 150 sq.m. lot with the house erected
thereon.
Francisco Comille
Accepted: Donor
Cirila Arcaba
 That’s all
Folks!!!

Thank you for listening…