SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES

*Case Doctrine by: Florencio Saministrado, Jr.

Art. 524

The payment of rentals by respondents reveal that they are mere lessees.
As such, the possession of respondents over Lot No. 1639-D is that of a holder
and not in the concept of an owner. (Maglucot-aw vs. Maglucot, G.R. No.
132518, March 28, 2000)

Art. 525

One who possesses as a mere holder acknowledges in another a superior

right which he believes to be ownership, whether his belief be right or
wrong. 41 Since the possession of respondents were found to be that of lessors
of petitioners, it goes without saying that the latter were in possession of Lot
No. 1639-D in the concept of an owner from 1952 up to the time the present
action was commenced. (Maglucot-aw vs. Maglucot, G.R. No. 132518, March
28, 2000)

Art. 448

By law, one is considered in good faith if he is not aware that there

exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it. 104 The
essence of good faith lies in an honest belief in the validity of one's right,
ignorance of a superior claim, and absence of intention to overreach another.
(Heirs of Mariano v. City of Naga, G.R. No. 197743. March 12, 2018)

Art. 449

“He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses
what is built, planted or sown without right of indemnity”. Thus, hereditary
successors of the registered owners of the subject property, have the right to
appropriate what has been built on the property, without any obligation to pay
indemnity therefor. (Heirs of Mariano v. City of Naga, G.R. No. 197743. March 12, 2018)
Art. 433

A judgment in a forcible entry or detainer case disposes of no other issue

than possession and establishes only who has the right of possession, but by
no means constitutes a bar to an action for determination of who has the right
or title of ownership. (Custodio vs. Corrado G.R. No. 146082, July 30, 2004)

Art 434

The distinction between a summary action of ejectment and a plenary

action for recovery of possession and/or ownership of the land is well-settled in
our jurisprudence.  What really distinguishes an action for unlawful detainer
from a possessory action (accion publiciana) and from a reinvindicatory action
(accion reinvindicatoria) is that the first is limited to the question of possession
de facto.  An unlawful detainer suit (accion interdictal) together with forcible
entry are the two forms of an ejectment suit that may be filed to recover
possession of real property.  Aside from the summary action of
ejectment, accion publiciana or the plenary action to recover the right of
possession and accion reinvindicatoria or the action to recover ownership
which includes recovery of possession, make up the three kinds of actions to
judicially recover possession. (Custodio vs. Corrado G.R. No. 146082, July 30,
2004)

 ART. 649.

The owner, or any person who by virtue of a real right may cultivate or
use any immovable, which is surrounded by other immovables pertaining to
other persons and without adequate outlet to a public highway, is entitled to
demand a right of way through the neighboring estates, after payment of the
proper indemnity.
Should this easement be established in such a manner that its use may be
continuous for all the needs of the dominant estate, establishing a permanent
passage, the indemnity shall consist of the value of the land occupied and the
amount of the damage caused to the servient estate.
In case the right of way is limited to the necessary passage for the cultivation of
the estate surrounded by others and for the gathering of its crops through the
servient estate without a permanent way, the indemnity shall consist in the
payment of the damage caused by such encumbrance.
This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the immovable is due to the
proprietor’s own acts. (Reyes vs. Valentin, G.R. No. 194488, February 11, 2015)
ART. 650.

The easement of right of way shall be established at the point least

prejudicial to the servient estate, and, insofar as consistent with this rule,
where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the
shortest.
Based on these provisions, the following requisites need to be established
before a person becomes entitled to demand the compulsory easement of right
of way:58
1. An immovable is surrounded by other immovables belonging to other
persons, and is without adequate outlet to a public highway;
2. Payment of proper indemnity by the owner of the surrounded immovable;
3. The isolation of the immovable is not due to its owner’s acts; and
4. The proposed easement of right of way is established at the point least
prejudicial to the servient estate, and insofar as consistent with this rule,
where the distance of the dominant estate to a public highway may be the
shortest.
An easement of right of way is a real right. When an easement of right of way is
granted to another person, the rights of the property’s owner are limited. 59 An
owner may not exercise some of his or her property rights for the benefit of the
person who was granted the easement of right of way. Hence, the burden of
proof to show the existence of the above conditions is imposed on the person
who seeks the easement of right of way.
We agree with the Regional Trial Court’s and the Court of Appeals’ findings that
petitioner failed to establish that there was no adequate outlet to the public
highway and that the proposed easement was the least prejudicial to
respondents’ estate. (Reyes vs. Valentin, G.R. No. 194488, February 11, 2015)