Bld2020 Property

From Nth BAR CHALLENGER TO ATTORNEY
PROPERTY
BAR LAW FOR DUMMIES TRAINING PROGRAM
WITH 1975-2019 BAR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

SUPPORT TOOL N0. 1 (4TH OF 5 CIVIL LAW SUBJECTS)
Ang BAR LAWS FOR DUMMIES 2020 (BLD2020) PROPERTY,OWNERSHIP AND ITS
MODIFICATION, OCCUPATION, DONATION, PRESCRIPTION and LAND TITLES AND DEEDS na may 204
na pahina ay dinesenyo upang umangkop sa kakayanan ng mga ordinaryong tao (layman) at mga pasimulang Page | 1
mag-aaral ng batas. Higit sa lahat, ang BLD2020 ay may adhikaing tulungan ang mga “nth” time bar examinees
na mapagtagumpayan na ang hamon ng napakahirap bar examination sa pamamagitan ng pag-gamit ng mga
estratehiyang pang-elementarya at highschool na pagtuturo hanggang sila ay magkaroon ng sariling technique
na kanilang magagamit sa kanilang patuloy pag-aaral.
Ang mga manunulat ay pauna na nang humihingi ng pang-unawa sapagkat may mga pagkakataon na
hindi maiiwasan na gumamit ng mga salitang bulgar upang higit na maitanim sa isipan ng mga mambabasa ang
nais ipaunawa nito. Bukod dito, ang mga katagang ginamit ay mga salitang pang-araw-araw nating gamitin,
kaya’t hindi maiiwasan ang mga maling gramatiko at pag-gamit ng lengwahe sa kaka-ibang paraan.
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
NAPAKA-MAHAL NG MGA LAW BOOKS – MAHAL PA SA TUITION FEES. KAYA GAMITIN LAGI
ANG LIBRARY CARD. BUMILI NA LANG PAG KAYO AY MGA LAWYERS NA. – SABI NG ATING MGA
MAGULANG AT NG ATING MGA WALLET
ANG MGA MANUNULAT AY NAGSIKAP NA PABABAIN ANG HALAGA NG MATERYALES NA ITO

UPANG ANG MGA MAG-AARAL AY HINDI NA MATUKSONG IPA-PDF OR PHOTOCOPY. ATIN PONG
SUPORTAHAN ANG MGA MANUNULAT NA GUMAGAWA NG BABASAHING MAY KALIDAD SA MABABANG
HALAGA.
NAWA’Y ANG GAWAING ITO ANG MAG-PASIMULA UPANG ANG MGA “MAINSTREAM
AUTHORS”, LAW SCHOOLS, AT MGA LAW PROPFESSORS AY GUMAWA NG MODULAR MATERIALS NA
MAARING MABILI DIREKTA SA KANILA SA MABABANG HALAGA GAMIT ANG MAKABAGONG
TEKNOLOHIYA
BAR LAW FOR DUMMIES 2020

PROPERTY, OWNERSHIP, OCCUPATION, DONATION, PRESCRIPTION, and LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
FIRST EDITION
AUGUST 15, 2019, BQA 2019 uploaded on JULY 14, 2020
MANILA, PHILIPPINES
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY THE AUTHORS

The author is a humble partner to succeed in your quest for a law degree and to clinch the evasive “Attorney” title
to your name. He believes that no one has the monopoly of knowledge so you may email him for any correction,
modification and suggestion at barlawfordummies@gmail.com. Other law subjects will soon be available for 2020
Bar Exams. For orders visit FB Page: Law Reviewers, Books and Bookstand for Sale/OR TEXT 09325293595
PROPERTY

FREQUENTLY ASKED TOPICS FROM
PROPERTY
1975-2019 BAR EXAMINATION
HOW TO ANSWER BAR QUESTIONS…3 Page | 2
BOOKK 2: PROPERTY, OWNERSHIP, AND ITS MODIFICATIONS
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY…9
IMMOVABLE PROPERTY …11
MOVABLE PROPERTY …14
PUBLIC DOMINION…20
OWNERSHIP …22
ACCESSION…27
ALLUVIUM/AVULSION….52
CO-OWNERSHIP ….61
CONDOMINIUM….77
SOME SPECIAL PROPERTIES…78
POSSESSION…79
USUFRUCT…99
EASEMENT AND SERVITUDE…109
PRESCRIPTION…110
EASEMENT OF LIGHT AND VIEW…111
EASEMENT RELATING TO WATERS…111
EASEMENT OF PARTY WALLS…115
EASEMENT OF LATERAL AND SUBJACENT SUPPORT…118
EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY…120
MODES OF EXTINGUISHING EASEMENT…122
OTHER EASEMENTS…123
NUISANCE…138
REGISTRY OF DEEDS…142
BOOK THREE: DIFFERENT MODES OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP

OCCUPATION 143
DONATION…144
WHAT ARE IMPERFECT DONATIONS…147
WHAT ARE VOID DONATIONS…148
DONATIONS ARE NOT CONTRACTS…149
INTER VIVOS VS MORTIS CAUSA …151
DONATIONS UNDER ART. 764 …152
PRESCRIPTION…168
2019 BQA PROPERTY...178
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS...188

PROPERTY

The BAR LAW FOR DUMMIES 2020 (BLD2020) is designed for self-study/self-review and primarily aimed to help the nth
time examinees to pass the bar exams and for average law students to fully understand difficult concepts of law as illustrated in our
day-to-day activities. The technique is spoon-feeding and we did much of all the thinking for you to save time. We included all the topics
asked in past 20 years of bar examinations, the bar answers to that bar questions, the relevant jurisprudence as well as the important
codal provisions. And because we believe that no one has the monopoly of knowledge we plan to make BLD as a “COMMUNITY
REVIEWER” where readers are encourage to email BLD2020 for any correction, addition and suggestion to come up with an ultimate
law reviewer. Those who will participate shall be acknowledged as part of the community. Page | 3
Initially, BLD2020 shall be available in hard copies to cope up with the initial expenses entailed. In the future, when all the
reviewers are complete and as the circumstances may warrant, a board of trustees shall be formed to guard the integrity of the “community
reviewer” and it shall be available via online subscription for a minimal fee just to keep the system afloat. On that note, we ask for a lot
of prayers for the people who would become part of the community to have good health and a focused mind to finish the work in time for
2020 bar examination.
You will find that we used Tagalog language and Filipino culture most of the time in explaining the law. Firstly, it is because
we are more equipped in our own native tongue when expressing our feelings and thoughts, and according to psychology of learning,
students learn better in their native language. Secondly, different concepts of laws are best illustrated with our day-to-day experiences.
And thirdly, we want the readers to laugh and stay awake by using colorful words and hilarious situations.
By the way, when you avail of BLD2020 you will be added to a Facebook group exclusive for BLD users. Take note that only
veriafiable accounts with email address shall be accepted and retained as member. We will do all the sharing and updates in that group.
HOW TO ANSWER BAR QUESTIONS?

(You may skip the exercises below and go to the main page right away)
Ang bar question, malimit maraming facts na immaterial or flowery ang mga sentences. As you read along those questions,
tanggalin ninyo sa isip ninyo yung mga immaterial facts, and retain only the material fact of the question.
Take for example the no.6 question in 2018 bar exams.
2018 BAR EXAMINATION
VI. Sammy and Santi are cousins who separately inherited two (2) adjoining lots from their grandfather. Sammy is based overseas but wants
to earn income from his inherited land, so he asked a local contractor to build a row of apartments on his property which he could rent out.
The contractor sent him the plans and Sammy noticed that the construction encroached on a part of Santi’s land but he said nothing and gave
approval to construct based on the plans submitted by the local contractor.
Santy , based locally, and who loved his cousin dearly, did not object even if he knew of the encroachment since he was privy to the plans
and visited the property regularly. Later, the cousins had a falling out and Santi demanded the portion of the aprartments that encroached on
his land be demolished.
Can Santi successfully file legal action to require the demolition?
If we take away the unimportant facts, ito lang dapat ang question.
Sammy constructed an apartment encroaching the property of Santi who has knowledge of the fact but did not oppose it. May Santi demolish
the portion of the apartment?
However, you can only spot the material facts if you know the CORRECT applicable law. So, dito papasok ang inyong stock
knowledge. Kaya kailangang maraming nabasang cases at yung mga codal provisions lamang na ginamit sa mga cases na ito ang
intindihing mabuti. You may want to read all the codal provisions but concentrate on those provisions often used in jurisprudence.
Therefore, paramihan ng nabasang cases ang survival sa bar exams. Also basahin din lahat ang mga previous bar questions taking
notes of the codal provisions used in answering that bar questions.

PROPERTY

By the way, if you are reading books or school reviewers for the bar exam, you are in the very long and slow process, at
mapupuno lang ang utak mo ng napakaraming annotations na usually “disconnected sa personal mong buhay”, kaya nga baka maya-
maya ay tulog ka na. If you are using those materials, just scan them, and look for the jurisprudence and be mindful of the codal provisions
(the law) used for such cases - napaka-rami kasing babasahin at baka ka maubusan ng oras. Kaya don’t read everything - just those
important and controversial issues. If you are enrolled in a review center, just attend the discussion of subjects which you think na
“mahina” ka. Otherwise, save time and money and do a self-review in other subjects. Maraming free lectures available provided by kind
hearted law professors to grab. Page | 4
Also, don’t tell yourself na your chance of passing the bar will increase because you are to attend the best review center or if
you were a graduate of this “known” law school. In those “known” law schools, mataas ang bar passing rate nila kasi po first year pa lang
may “pruning na”. Let say, there were 500 first year students, all who failed in a subject shall be given the pink slip to find another law
school. So next school year, 300 na lang. All students who have a failing grade sa isang subject and/or had less than 77% general
avarage shall be given that pink slip. The next sem, 250 na lang. then in the last year of law study, 150 na lang iyan. Iyan yung mga
pinaka-mahuhusay at mostly full-time students - these are the the “creme of the crop”. Kaya most likely papasa silang lahat at matataas
ang rating. But most law schools do not do like that. Kaya it is a “misnomer” to say that there is such a thing as the best law school.
Remember that we have same books and equally talented law professors. The playing field is fair and it’s still your study techniques pa
rin ang magpapasa sa iyo sa bar exams.
----------------xxx--------------------
Going back on how to answer bar questions. Read the 2018 bar exam first question and just pick the facts material to the
question. You can do this by NOT reading the facts first but the question muna. Saka mo balikan ang facts. Para as you read along,
matatangal mo n yung mga immaterial facts. At para hindi ka mabaliw sa dami ng “flowers and leaves” ng facts – eh ang hinahanap mo
lang naman ay ang “fruit to eat”.
Here, the key word is “demolition”. Automatic na papasok sa isip mo na – Aba! about property ito. Your brain will align and focus on
property and remove its attention from other subjects like marriage, person, succession, sales, agency, partnership etc...di ba malaki
natipid mo sa oras. At hindi mapapagod ang isip mo. Then, read the question intently, and remove the unnecessary words.
Sammy and Santi are cousins who separately inherited two (2) adjoining lots from their grandfather. Sammy is based overseas but wants to
earn income from his inherited land, so he asked a local contractor to build a row of apartments on his property which he could rent out. The
contractor sent him the plans and Sammy noticed that the construction encroached on a part of Santi’s land but he said nothing and
gave approval to construct based on the plans submitted by the local contractor.
Santy , based locally, and who loved his cousin dearly, did not object even if he knew of the encroachment since he was privy to the
plans and visited the property regularly. Later, the cousins had a falling out and Santi demanded the portion of the aprartments that
encroached on his land be demolished.
[So yung highlighted lang ang relevant. Discard the others by simplifying the question. Hindi ba, ito lang dapat ang tanong?]
Sammy constructed an apartment encroaching the property of Santi who has knowledge of the fact but did not oppose it. May Santi
demolish the portion of the apartment?
[Anong applicable law sa set of facts? Both are in bad faith. Both being in bad faith cancels it, and that makes them in good faith. So
the appliable law is Article 448 of the Civil Code.]
The big problem is that in Article 448, walang demolition na nabanggit. Hindi kasama sa rights ng builder in good faith to demolish the
building.

PROPERTY

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 the land
if its value is considerably more than 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 of the lease and in case of disagreement,
the shall fix the terms thereof.
Page | 5
With this type of question, and in case you are in doubt sa direct answer dahil walang applicable law. The technique is to not
to answer. Kasi baka mali. Just answer what you know is correct.
In the case at bar, Santi and Sammy are both in bad faith and that cancels it making them both in good faith. Under Article
448 of the Civil Code, the owner may compel the builder to pay for the price of the land if the value of the improvement is considerably
more than the value of the land.
Here, assuming that the value of the apartment is considerably more than the price of the land, Santi may compel Sammy to
buy it. If Sammy refuses, Santi may invoke the aid of the court to seek other relief like demolition, if so ordered in proper cases.
Hahahaha....lagi mong ipasa sa third person ang answer pag hindi mo alam. In this case sa court, at wag mo pa rin sagutin
precisely. Let say the correct answer is in the negative, but your answer is in the affirmative, Santi can demolish. Make your answer
dependent pa rin sa will of a third person or sa court “if so ordered in proper cases”. so hindi ka pa rin mali. So it is not your answer
anymore. Its the answer of one of the characters in the problem. Mautak ka lang.
Actually mahirap yung tanong kung hindi ka nagbasa ng reviewer ng BLD. Nadito ang jurisprudence applicable sa question
at partially, sa past bar questions tinanong na ito. But the question was raised in co-ownership. The answer is in the affirmative. The
owner may demolish the house or building if the builder refuses, or failed to pay.
And because nagbasa ka ng BLD, your answer should be like this.
Yes, Santi can successfully file a legal action to require the demolition. Under Article 448 of the Civil Code, the owner
of the land in good faith may compel the builder to purchase the land if the value of it is not considerably more than the value of the
improvement. Also, under the same Code where the parties are both in bad faith, it will cancel their bad faith and both shall be considered
in good faith.
Here, the parties are both in bad faith. Sammy for allowing the construction of the apartment to encroach on a portion of
Santi’s lot, and in the same token, Santi, who is aware of the encroachment chose not to oppose to it. Since, both were in bad faith, the
law will consider them both in good faith. Assuming that the value of the encroached portion of the lot is not considerably more that the
value of the apartment, or is lower, hence, Santi has the option to compel Sammy to buy that portion of lot. In case where Sammy refuses
to buy or he opted to buy but failed to pay, Santi may have the encroached portion be removed with cost to Sammy. (Torbela vs. Rosario,
661 SCRA 633 (2011), Ignacio vs. Hilario, 76 Phil 605)
[If you know the direct answer at sure ka. Use the formula below]
When you answer, gamitin po muna ninyo yung formula na ito, para masanay po kayo to think of the appliable law at para na
rin po simplified yung answer. Don’t do it like yung answer ng UPLC, masyadong scholarly made at syempre open book na yun. They
are good as source of information, but the style is not appropriate in the bar. So here is the simplified formula.
Direct answer
The legal basis
The only material facts to the legal basis
The conclusion

PROPERTY

Direct answer (Yes, or No). State the essential essence lang ng applicable law – not the whole law (According to Article ____, In
the annals of decisions, the Supreme Court ruled that____, In one of the decisions of the Supreme Court,.....According to the law....).
The only material facts to the law – do not repeat the law (Here... In the case at bar....), The conclusion (Therefore, Hence, In the Page | 6
light of the foregoing,)
(Direct answer)
Yes, Santi can successfully file a legal action to require the demolition.
(only essential part of the applicable law)
Under Article 448 of the Civil Code, the owner of the land in good faith may compel the builder to purchase the land if the
value of it is not considerably more than the value of the improvement. Also, under the same Code where the parties are both in bad
faith, it will cancel their bad faith and both shall be considered in good faith.
(the application ofthe law to the facts)
Here, the parties are both in bad faith. Sammy for allowing the construction of the apratment to encroached to a portion of
law will consider them both in good faith. Assuming that the value of the encroached portion of the lot is not considerably more that the
value of the apartment, or is lower,
(The conclusion)
hence, Santi has the option to compel Sammy to buy that portion of lot. In case where Sammy refuses to buy or fails to pay,
Santi may invoke the aid of the court to demilish the portion of the apartment be removed with cost to Sammy.
VI. Sammy and Santi are cousins who separately inherited two (2) adjoining lots from their grandfather. Sammy is based
overseas but wants to earn income from his inherited land, so he asked a local contractor to build a row of apartments on his property
which he could rent out. The contractor sent him the plans and Sammy noticed that the construction encroached on a part of Santi’s land
but he said nothing and gave approval to construct based on the plans submitted by the local contractor.
Santy , based locally, and who loved his cousin dearly, did not object even if he knew of the encroachment since he was privy
to the plans and visited the property regularly. Later, the cousins had a falling out and Santi demanded the portion of the aprartments
that encroached on his land be demolished.
Yes, Santi can successfully file a legal action to require the demolition in case where he agreed to sell the land to Sammy,
but the latter refused to buy, or failed to pay. Under Article 448 of the Civil Code, the owner of the land in good faith may compel the
builder to purchase the land if the value of it is not considerably more than the value of the improvement. Also, under the same Code
where the parties are both in bad faith, it will cancel their bad faith and both shall be considered in good faith.
Here, the parties are both in bad faith. Sammy for allowing the construction of the apratment to encroached to a portion of
law will consider them both in good faith. Assuming that the value of the encroached portion of the lot is not considerably more

PROPERTY

that the value of the apartment, or is lower, Santi has the option to compel Sammy to buy that portion of lot. In case where Sammy
refuses to buy or opted to buy but failed to pay, Santi may have the encroached portion of the apartment be removed with cost to Sammy.
(Torbela vs. Rosario, 661 SCRA 633 (2011), Ignacio vs. Hilario, 76 Phil 605)
Note: It is submitted that the better option for Santi is to sell the land and improvement in an auction and apply the proceeds
to the land first, and whatever is left be given to Sammy as indemnity.
Page | 7
No, Santi cannot successfully file a legal action to require the demoli tion. Since the builder and the landowner both acted in bad faith, their
rights shall be the same as though both had acted in good faith (Article 453, Civil Code). Sammywasnota builder in good faith with respect to the portion
of the a partment encroaching on Santi’s property, because he knew that he was not the owner of the land when he built the apartment There was bad
faith, likewise, on Santi’s part, because he did not object to the construction although he had knowledge thereof (Article 453, Civil Code).
In cases where both the landowner and the builder acted in good faith, the landowner does not have the option to demand the demolition of
the work (Article 448, Civil Code). UPLC Answer, updated Nov 18, 2019
Note: I have to stand on my answer that Santi may file legal action to demolish in case where Sammy refuses to buy the land (if the value of
the apartment is considerably higher in value than the land) or when Sammy opted to buy but failed to pay. My legal basis is an SC decision in the case
of Torbela vs. Rosario, 661 SCRA 633 (2011), Ignacio vs. Hilario, 76 Phil 605.
VIII. Sofronio was a married father of two when he had a brief fling with Sabrina, resulting in her pregnancy and the birth of
their son Sinforoso. Though his wife knew nothing about the affair, Sofronio regretted it, but secretly provided child support for Sinforoso.
Unfortunately, when Sinforoso was 10 years old, Sofronio died. Only his father, Salumbides, knew of Sabrina and Sinforoso. For the
purpose of providing support for Sinforoso, he gave Sabrina usufructuary rights over one of his properties – a house and lot- to last until
Sinforoso reaches the age of majority. Sabrina was given possession of the property on the basis of caucion juratoria. Two (2) years
after the creation of the usufruct, the house accidentally burned down, and three (3) years thereafter, Sinforoso died before he could
reach the of 18.
Will the usufruct continue after the house has burned down? If yes, will it continue after Sinforoso’s death?
Yes, the ususfruct will continue after the house has burned down. Under Article 607 of the Civil Code, if the usufruct
is constituted on immovable property of which the building forms part, and the latter should be destroyed in any manner whatsoever, the
usufructuary shall have a right to make use of the land and the materials.
Here, the house which forms part of the usufruct was burned down without the fault of the Sabrina, hence, she and her child,
Sinforoso, have the right to make use of the land and the materials. The usufruct is never extinguished by the loss of the house.
However, the usufruct is extinguished upon the death of Sinforoso. Under Article 606 of the same Code, usufruct
granted for the time that may elapse before a third person attains a certain age, shall subsist for the number of years specified, even if
the third person should die before the period expires, unless such usufruct has been expressly granted only in consideration of the
existence of such person.
Here, the usufruct was granted by Salumbides primarily to support his grandchild with Sabrina, the usufructuary. When
Sinforoso died before the age of 18, the usufruct was extinguished upon his death because it was granted only in consideration of
giving him support. His death also extiguished the obligation of the grandparent to provide support.
Yes, the usufruct will continue after the house was burned. If the usufruct is constituted on immovable property of which a building forms part,
and the latter should be destroyed in any manner whatsoever, the usufructuary shall have a right to make use of the land and the materials (Article 607,
Civil Code). The usufruct over the land and the materials continues. The thing was lost only in part, the right continues on the remaining parts (Article 604,
Civil Code).
No, it will be extinguished after Sinforoso’s death. A usufruct granted for the time that may elapse before a third person attains a certain age,
shall subsist for the number of years specified, even if the third person should die before the period expires, unless such usufruct has been expressly
granted only in consideration of the existence of such person or contrary intention clearly appears (Article 603, 606, Civil Code). The circumstances given

PROPERTY

show that the usufruct was established by Salumbides in consideration of the existence of Sinfroso. It was meant for his support; hence, his death
extinguished the usufruct even though he died before reaching the age of majority. UPLC updated Nov 18 2019 – same lang answer naming with UPLC
XIV. Socorro is the registered owner of Lot A while Segunda is the registered owner of the adjoining Lot B. Lot A is located at
an elevated plateau of about 15 feet above the level of Lot B. Since Socorro was allegedly removing portions of the land and cement that
supported the adjoining property, Segunda caused the annotation of an adverse claim against 50 sq.m. on Lot A’s Transfer of Certificate
of Title, asserting the existence of legal easement. Page | 8
[a] Does a legal easement in fact exist? If so, what kind?
The answer is yes. The legal easement created if easement for lateral and subjacent suport. The registration is unnecessary.
Try to answer the question using the pattern.
Yes, a legal easement of lateral and subjacent support exists. According to Article 684 of the Civii Code, no proprietor shall make such
excavations upon his land as to deprive any adjacent land or building of sufficient lateral or subjacent support In the given case, an easement of lateral
and subjacent support exists in the property of Soccoro in favor of the property of Segunda. In the case of Castro v. Monsod, (G.R. No. 183719, February
2, 2011) in which the situation of the properties of the two landowners were similar to that in the given problem, the Supreme Court held that an easement
existed in favor of the property of higher elevation, because it was the owner of the said property which sued to have the easement recognized. Such
finding, however, does not mean that no similar easement exists in favor of the property oflower elevation, since Article 684 does not make a distinction
as to the elevation of the property
No. The annotation of an adverse claim over registered land under Section 70 of Presidential Decree 1529 requires a claim on the title of the
disputed land Castro v. Monsod, (G,R. No. 183719, February 2, 2011) Segunda is not claiming ownership over the property of Socorro. She only wanted
a judicial recognition of the existence of the easement. According to the Supreme Court in the cited case, an annotation of the existence of the lateral and
subjacent support is no longer necessary, because it exists whether or not it is annotated or registered in the registry of property. A judicial recognition of
the same already binds the property and the owner of the same, including her successors-in-interest. - UPLC, uploaded Nov 18, 2019, same lang answer
namin.
For more exercises in answwering bar questions and quizzes, I have a provided a free link included in BLD Persons and
Family Relations. Try check them out, dahil mas malawak ang discussion sa BLD PFR at mas maraming exercises pertaining on how to
answer bar questions.
-------------------xxxx------------------
I noticed that in the bar exams on property and ownership, paulit-ulit lang at hindi naman lumalayo ang mga tanong. Mostly
pag may bagong tanong, they come from cases. So i decided to give you lecture on the most desired topic in the bar plus cases. Madali
lang ang property and mode of acquiring ownership (succession is not included here), hindi na ito kaya pang pahirapan ng bar examiners.
Exact science nga tingin ko dito. Either no or yes lang. Walang gray area (except sa concept ng “by chance” on hidden treasure), unlike
sa Family Relations, maraming twists. Here, sa property and ownership, precise ang doctrines and law.
LECTURE FOR FIRST YEAR STUDENTS AND BAR REVIEWEES

Here are the topics asked in the past 20 years of Bar Examination. As I notice wala namang pinagbago sa mga katanungan.
Paulit-ulit lang ang mga provisions at limited lang sa pinaka importanteng provision ng batas. I included also jurisprudence na maaring
pag-mulan ng mga bagong tanong sa bar. Mahalaga ang Book 2 dahil maraming katanungan sa bar exams ang kinuha dito than any
other subject in Civil Law and they are interconnected with Land Titles and Deeds.
For bar reviewee, study smart, save time. Basahin na lamang ang BLD POM (Property, ownership and its modification). But
for first year law students, read a book after you master BLD POM and you will find out na napakadali ng subject na ito because nabasa
na ninyo here. But if you read first a book in property, ahhh mahirap...maraming jargons, maraming cases na unncessary, halu-halo

PROPERTY

doctrine – daming comparisson ng cases. A book in property ranges from 1500 to 2500, sobrang mahal. Use the library along side with
BLD POM. Bumili n lang kayo ng book, if kayo ay pumasa na sa bar at lawyer nang tunay.
Ok, let us start.

-------------------xxx-----------------
Lahat ng nakikita mo sa universe can be appropriated. Buwan, jupiter, space, etc, they can be owned by the most powerful
Page | 9
State. Let say China, nilagyan ng mga nuclear facility ang buwan, at sabi nila, amin ito dahil yung mga ninuno namin had declared
thousands of years ago na amin ang buwan. Who can oppose? Philippines opposes, nag-giyera. Natalo ang Pilipinas. Sinakop ng China
ang Philippines as bounty of war. The Philippines shall become part of China. Legal yan. Ang winner sa war, the subjugated State belongs
to the winner. As a retaliation, USA, France and Great Britain, the allied forces defeated China. So ang buwan ay magiging res nullius
uli at ang Inang Bayan ay magiging sa mga Filipino uli? No. The moon shall be owned by the allied forces and we will become theirs, as
colony.
What am I driving at? With the advent of technology nowadays, wala ng “thing” that is out of commerce of man. O di ba ang
China sea is res nullius, out of commerce of man, but China claims ownership by force. If the allied forces defeat China, the allied forces
shall be the owner of that part of the earth, as bounty of war. Who can oppose? If we oppose, go to war and defeated, ours shall be
theirs.
But as an individual citizen, can that individual be the owner of a thing – like the moon, the whole earth, or the high seas? Yes.
If he can wield out such power enough for others not to oppose. Let say, the King of Brunei becomes so powerful like Thanos (just
figuratively) and declares everything is his own. Oh di ba nga si Alexander the Great owned half of the world. So, the law that says that
there is such thing that cannot be appropriated must be revisited. Advanced na kasi ang technology nowadays. They can be used to
claim ownership over everything as long as that technology can wield out such power to repel anyone who will oppose. What is the mode
of ownership? Occupation by force. Kapag nag-oppose ka, akin ka rin.
To pass the Property subject or the bar, never answer my contention above, babagsak kayo. Hindi pa handa ang mga available
laws like the Civil Code sa ganitong argument. Let us stick with what the Civil Code provides insofar as property is concern.
Paano ang isang bagay na ito ay magiging akin. Ang tao ay sakim. Lahat gusto niyang maging kanya. So the discussion is
about the classification of property, then ownership agad, co_ownrship, and possession. Then followed by usufruct, easement and
nuisance.
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY
WHAT IS PROPERTY? (when you pronounce the word “property” dapat hindi didikit ang dila mo sa ngala-ngala, at di sasara lips ending
up smiling – hahaha)
Property may be defined as anything which is or may be the object of appropriation. (Art 414, NCC) It means lahat ng pwede
mong ariin, angkinin AT DAPAT pwede mo ring ibenta, isalin o i-pamana? Katawan? Pwedeng angkinin, pero hindi pwedeng ibenta.
Puri? Ganun din, pwedeng angkinin, bawal ibenta. Langit? Di pwedeng angkinin, di pwedeng ibenta. Universe? Pwedeng angkinin ni
Quiboloy! Pwede ba niyang ibenta? Hindi. Hahahaha! PARTE NG KATAWAN NG TAO? Pwedeng angkinin, pero hindi pwedeng ibenta
pero pwedeng i-donate. Dahil may batas tayo para dito. Parts of the human being is still not a property, pwede lang i-donate. You cannot
sell or enjoy a cadaver!
Hangin, not a property. But if you subject it to your power, let say kinuha mo lang yung oxygen...nilagay mo sa tank.
Ayan...property na yan. The buyers dont pay for the oxygen itself, but for the effort and expenses for its harvest.
Property of public dominion? Hindi mo pwedeng angkinin, pero pwedeng ibenta ng State, if there is a law allowing it. So,
property of public dominion are property because the State owns them and they can be disposed.

PROPERTY

If you own a property (land), sa iyo ang nasa ilalim, hanggang langit. Except when the law says hanggang dito lang. so hindi
mo sisingilin ang Cebu Pacific na dumadaan sa ibabaw ng bubong mo within the areial navigation. So sa isang community maraming
lupa, dikit-dikit. Para dumaan ang ibang owners, makikiraan sila sa lupa mo, maglalagay ng tubo ng tubig, maghuhukay sa tabi ng lupa
mo, ang tawag diyan – serviturde or easement. You can be compeled by law. And let say, busy ka, at hindi mo kayang bantayan ang
lupa. Sayang ang mga bunga. You tell your cousin, “ikaw, na muna tumao sa lupa. Ayusin mo lang ang lupa at bantayan baka may mag
iskwater. Lahat ng bunga ay sa iyo. Pwede mong ayusin at paupahan. Ang tawag diyan ay usufruct. Pag siningil mo ng upa – lease na
yan. Page | 10
As an owner ano pa ang sa iyo, bukod sa ilalim at sa ibabaw. Lahat ng kikitain na galing sa lupa ay iyo. Ang tawag diyan ay
accession. Upa sa lupa, mga bunga ng puno, yan mga fruits yan. Eh ano pa ang iyo? Lahat ng didikit (attach) sa lupa mo without the
intervention of man. Lupa na idinagdag ng ilog – yan sa iyo na yan. Lahat ng didikit ay accession by nature – sa iyo agad yan hindi mo
na kailangang ipa-register.
Accession na gawa ng tao – like somebody built a house, plant or sow in your land – yan sa iyo rin yan. Ayaw kasi ng batas
ng co-ownership. Kaya as an owner, the law gave you the option to pay the builder, planter or sower ng mga expenses not to own what
they put up but as part of the equity that no person shall enrich himself at the expense of others. Babayaran mo lang ng gastos ng builder,
planter or sower if they are in good faith (akala nila kanila yung lupa) – so sa iyo pa rin, babayaran mo lang. But if the builder, planter,
sower is a trespasser or in bad faith – wala kang babayaran save for the effort ng production, gathering and preservation ng fruits (not
the fruit itself).
Accession follows the principal. It means the owner of the principal owns the accession because the title of the owner of the
land is older than that of the builder of the house, or sower of plants. You dont say “bahay na may lupa” but “lupang may nakatayong
bahay”, or “Brillanteng may singsing” but “singing na may brillante”. So in the example, the owner of the gold, owns the ring and gem,
and the owner of the land owns the house. To avoid forced co-ownership, the principal owner must pay the value of the accessories.
All properties are movable. Kahit bundok, nawawala, kahit dagat. Namomove. Nai-urong na nga ang Manila bay di ba ng
raclamation. Pati ilalim ng dagat by reclamation can now be owned. So all properties are movable but let us accept that land is the
exception, and all others such as building, roads (if made of materials na movable like pure steel or kahoy gaya ng tulay), bahay ng
bubuyog o kalapati, they are all movable. Nagiging immovable lang sila if the OWNER of the land (or the immovable) himself put them
up. Kapag ang lessor or usufructuary ang nagtayo ng road o bahay, ng estatwa or kahit ano pa man, pag-alis niya, syempre tantangalin
niya yan – therefore, movable ang lahat ng itinayo ng NON-OWNER kahit na bolted pa yan ng bakal sa isang immovable. The keyword
is “intent”. The non-owner has no intent to make the construction immovable. But if at the end of the lease contract, the construction shall
belong to the owner – yan, the construction is now an immovable property because the intent is there in the contract.
If your property or your exercise of rights as an owner violates my rights, the rights of others and of the community – yannnn..
ang property mo becomes nuisance.
So ayan in the nutshell ang property.
HOW DO YOU CLASSIFY PROPERTY ACCORDING TO ITS NATURE AND ACCORDING TO ITS OWNERSHIP?
According to its nature, property may be either:
(1) Immovable or real property, or

(2) Movable or personal property. (Art. 414, NCC)
According to its ownership, it may be either:
(1) Of public dominion; or

(2) Of private ownership. (Art. 419, NCC)
WHAT IS IMMOVABLE PROPERTY?
Art. 415. The following are immovable property:

PROPERTY

(1) Land, buildings, roads and constructions of kinds adhered to the soil;
(2) Trees, plants, and growing fruits, while they are attached to the land or form an integral part of an immovable;
(3) Everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in such a way that it cannot be separated therefrom without breaking
the material or deterioration of the object;
(4) Statues, reliefs, paintings or other objects for use or ornamentation, placed in buildings or on lands by the owner of the
immovable in such a manner that it reveals the intention to attach them permanently to the tenements;
(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may Page | 11
be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works;
(6) Animal houses, pigeon-houses, beehives, fish ponds or breeding places of similar nature, in case their owner has placed them
or preserves them with the intention to have them permanently attached to the land, and forming a permanent part of it; the
animals in these places are included;
(7) Fertilizer actually used on a piece of land;
(8) Mines, quarries, and slag dumps, while the matter thereof forms part of the bed, and waters
(9) Docks and structures which, though floating, are intended by their nature and object to at a fixed place on a river, lake, or
coast;
(10) Contracts for public works, and servitudes and other real rights over immovable property.
WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT CLASSES OF IMMOVABLES?
(1) Immovables by NATURE, or those which cannot be moved from place to place, such as those mentioned in Nos. 1 (with
respect to land and roads) and 8 in Art. 415 of the NCC.
(2) Immovables by INCORPORATION, or those which are attached to an immovable in such a manner as to form an integral part
thereof, such as those mentioned in Nos. 1 (except land and roads), 2,3, and 4 of Art. 415.
(3) Immovables by DESTINATION, or those which are placed in an immovable for the use, exploitation or perfection of such
immovable, such as those mentioned in Nos. 4, 5,6,7, and 9 of Art. 415.
(4) Immovables by ANALOGY, or those which are considered immovables by operation of law, such as those mentioned in No.
10 of Art. 415.
NIDA – immovables by nature, incorporation, destination and analogy
Nature, madali na ito, self-explanatory.
Immovables by incorporation, it talks about attachment to another immovable. Building, construction, trees, plants and everything
attached to an immovable – which is the land, na pag tinaggal mo, masisira yung immovable. Exception yung no. 4. Statutes, reliefs
paintings etc, if the owner of the immovable attached them on, those things are immovables. Kasi po si owner ang nag attached. But if
the lessor, not the owner, those things are movables subject to indemnity (Bayad) if the removal from where it is attached will suffer
damage. The same reason with No.5. it must be the owner who placed the machinery, receptacles or implements para gamitin.
Let say X, the owner, lease out an apartment to Y. The water is supplied by NAWASA. So, no need for a tank. Pero laging walang
tubig. Y, put up an overhead tank. The tank is movable. Y is not the owner of the land. So, Y can mortgage or sell the tank. Pwede niyang
isanla yung tank sa chattel mortage.
But let say X, he put up the tank. He cannot mortgage it in chattel. Also, by general rule, he cannot sell the land or apartment without
the tank. He cannot say to the buyers na, tatanggalin ko yung tank, kasi direct naman ang NAWASA. No, the tank is immovable because
the owner himself put it up and it becomes part of the land and of the building.
Immovables by destination. Muli, yung no. 5 and 6 dapat si owner ang nag put up. If the lessor, no, movable yan. Syempre, dadalhin
niya yung bahayng kalapati niya na nilagay niya sa bubong ng inuupahang bahay after the lease contract. Fertilizer – immovable by
destination kasi sinabog mo na sa lupa. Yung no. 9, docks, floating structures – they are immovables. Just imagine if tatanggalin ito kada
oras ...saan dadaong ang barko? Ngayon, sa kanan, bukas sa likod naman ng isla...hahahaha kaya immovable yan...bawal galawin.

PROPERTY

No. 10 – contracts for public works is immovable kasi the final output is immovable – kalsada, expansion ng kalsada, drainage,
tulay o poste. Servitude and other real rights – because what involves are lands or real property. Servitude or real rights cannot be taken
away from them – inseparable yan from real property, as a general rule.
ANO NAMAN KAYA ANG ITATANONG SA BAR EXAM O SA PROPERTY CLASS?
Syempre yung mga exceptions to the rule. So listen, here is the exception. An immovable, except those by nature or by Page | 12
analogy, may be considered as movable (personal personal) property if the parties enter into a contract and treat the immovable, movable.
Take note, the third person, the court, the law and all others are not bound by that agreement. For us, immovable pa rin yun. Para lang
sa dalawang “ignorant” yung agreement – kaya ang court hindi na sasali sa “kamalian” nila. Eh, naging tatlo pa sila.
So if X, mortgaged his house to Y as chattel, then Y forecloses it for failure of X to pay the loan. The court is amiss to foreclose
it under the chattel mortgage law. the court should treat is as immovable – wag na siyang umayon pa sa dalawa – at magiging tatlo na
nga silang “ignorant”. The COURT should follow the procedure in foreclosing an immovable.
If the court sold the house without publication as a rule in auctioning an immovable, the sale is void.
DOCTRINES
The petitioners are estopped from denying the characterization of the subject machines as personal property. Under the
circumstances, they are personal properties which are proper subjects of the Writ of Seizure. It should be stressed, however, that the
Court’s holding - that the machines should be deemed personal property pursuant to the Lease Agreement — is good only insofar as the
contracting parties are concerned. Hence, while the parties are bound by the Lease Agreement, third persons acting in good faith are not
affected by its stipulation characterizing the subject machinery as personal.
(Serg’s Products, Inc. vs. PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc., 333 SCRA 504, August 22,2000)
The building is a real or immovable property. Whether constructed on land belonging to the owner of the building or on land belonging
to another, such as in the instant case, from the viewpoint of the law and third persons, the building is real property by
incorporation within the meaning of No. 1 of the Art. 415 of the NCC. This is well-settled in this jurisdiction.
If a house belonging to a person stands on a rented land belonging to another person, it may be mortgaged as a personal
property as stipulated in the document of mortgage.
(See Navarro us. Pineda, 9 SCRA 631; Tumalad, us. Vicencio, 41SCRA143)
A, constructed a house on the rented lot of C. A mortgaged it (the house) as chattel to B. B forclosed the house. A opposed
by saying that the chattel mortgage over the house is void. Is A correct?
A’s contention is not correct for the following reasons:
(1) Since the contracting parties had voluntarily entered into contract, neither of them should
now be allowed to impugn its validity. It must be observed, however, that this view that parties to a contract of chattel mortgage
may agree in a contract, is good only insofar as the contracting parties are concerned. It is based, partly, upon the principle
of estoppel.
(2) It is now settled that an object placed on land by one who has only a temporary right to the same, such as the lessee or
usufructuary, does not become immobilized by attachment. Hence, if a house belonging to a person stands on a rented land
belonging to another person, it may be mortgaged as a personal property as stipulated in the document of mortgage. It should
be noted, however, that the principle is predicated on statements by the owner declaring his house to be a chattel or that he

PROPERTY

is ceding, selling or transferring by way of chattel mortgage the property, a conduct that will subsequently estop him from
claiming otherwise.
I reiterate that the house is personalty only to the parties, so if X, a creditor of A, attaches the house – yan...immovable na
yan. The law, the court and the whole world are not bound by the chattel mortgage.
The requirements of the Rules of Court with regard to publication in a newspaper of general circulation as a condition precedent Page | 13
to sales on execution of real property must be complied with. Hence, the sale made by the sheriff is void.
(Manarang vs. Ofilada, 52 Off. Gaz. 3954; Euangelista us. Alto Surety, 103 PHII. 401; See a\so Ladera vs Hodges, 48 Off. Gaz. 5374)
So, let say B, in the above problem, forecloses the property. sheriff is amiss if he will not forclose and sell it as immovable
according to Article 18, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Dapat may publication pa yan, kasi immovable ang house.
A can now question the validity of the sale. Although the contract of chattel mortgage is binding upon the contracting parties
applying the doctrine of estoppel, yet as far as the law and third persons are concerned, it is void. As far as they are concerned, the
house, whether constructed on rented land or on land belonging to the owner of such house, is still real property. Consequently, the
requirements of the Rules of Court with regard to publication in a newspaper of general circulation as a condition precedent to sales on
execution of real property must be complied with. Hence, the sale made by the sheriff is void.
A building certainly cannot be divested of its character of a realty by the fact that the land on which it is constructed belongs
to another. In the case at bar, as far as the law and third persons are concerned, the chattel mortgage contract is clearly void. This is so
because under the law, only personalty can be the subject matter of a chattel mortgage. Consequently, the sale made by the
sheriff to B is also void. Therefore, Y is now the owner of the house and lot.
If in the above problem, if A did not question the sale made by sheriff and later, A become the owner of the lot. Then, he sold
(the house and lot) to Y. Y has a better right than B. B, has never become the owner of the house via chattel mortgage. Void kasi yung
sale made by the sheriff. Si A pa rin ang owner, and not B, when he sold it to Y. Reason: Y is a third person, he is not bound by the
agreement of A and B.
-------------xxx----------
Another scenario, A mortgaged a building and machineries he STORED in that building as chattel to B. Y, another creditor,
levied the building and the machineries. Are the buidings and machineries personal properties insofar as Y is concerned?
For the buiding, no, Y is a third person – it is still an immovable. Y is not bound by the chattel mortgage. But for the machineries
(this is the tricky issue here), they are personalty because A, the owner, only stored them in the buidling. Hindi naman intended for use
ang machineries. Inilagay lang sa building para hindi masira – binodega lang. So the machineries are really movable.
-------xxx------
The machineries were installed by the lessee, and not by the owner of the tenement. They have not, therefore, become immobilized as
contemplated in No. 5 of Art. 415 of the NCC. Machinery becomes immobilized only when placed in a plant by the owner of the property
or plant, but not when so placed by a tenant, usufructuary, or any person having only a temporary right, unless such person acted as the
agent of the owner.
X built a building in the lot owned by Y. He also put some machineries inside the building, atached them in the concrete
pavement. In the contract of lease, X agreed to turn over the building and the improvement, but not the machieries. Have the machineries
placed by X become immovables? No. The building and other improvement are immovables because X acted only as agent of Y, but the
machineries are not.

PROPERTY

If later on, X becomes the owner of the lot, the machineries bacome immobilized. Immovable na ang mga ito.
Let say in the contract of lease, the machineries shall be autmoticaly turned over to Y at the end of the lease. The machineries
are immovables because X acted as agent of Y. If the transfer is not automatic because Y must pay for a certain amount to appropriate
the machineries, then, the machineries are not immovables. Because X has never acted as agent in bahalf of Y.
ARE CONTRACTS INVOLVING A REAL PROPERTY, LIKE MORTGAGE, IMMOVABLE OR MOVABLE? Page | 14
Naka-annotate ba sa likod ng TCT in the Register of Deeds. If it does, registriable sa registry of deeds at annotated, the
contract is immovable by analogy. If not, it is movable. Hindi kasi naka-attached sa immovable.
ARE THIRD PERSON ALSWAYS IMMUNE FORM VOID CONTRACTS?
No. Only those who are in good faith are immune from void contracts.
EXCEPTION
If he, being not in bad faith, acquire the rights form another person who is in good faith.
Let say Y knew about the chattel mortgage over the building between the A and B. Y is also estopped to question the validity
of the contract. Consequently, B assigned his rights over that contract to X, X then, assigned his rights to Y. Y is therefore immune from
the effects of that contract. This is shelter rule principle. Nagtatago siya sa “saya” ni X.
WHAT IS MOVABLE PROPERTY
Art. 416. The following things are deemed to be personal property:
(1) Those movables susceptible of appropriation which are not included in the preceding article;
(2) Real property which by any special provision of law is considered as personalty;
(3) Forces of nature which are brought under control by science; and
(4) In general, all things which can be transported from place to place without impairment of the real property to which they
are fixed.
The following are also considered personal property:
(1) Obligations and actions which have for their object movables or demandable sums; and
(2) Shares of stock of agricultural, commercial and industrial entities, although they may have real estate. (Art. 417, NCC)
LECTURE
[1] If its not included in Article 415 (immovable property), it is immovable.
[2] Real property as movable by special provion of law.
Growing crops – pwedeng isanla as chattel as provided for in Chattel Mortgage Law (Sec 7, Act 1508). They can also be sold
kahit bulaklak pa lang. Di ba yung bunga ng mangga, binobomba para magbunga. Binebenta na kahit wala pa. (Artcile 1462
Civil Code)
[3] Gasoline, oxygen, helium – yan binebenta per kilo.
[4] self explanatory

PROPERTY

[5] Alam mo yung promisory note, checques, evidence of credit, payment etc – nabebenta yan. Let say, the amount of check is P20,000.00
due on Dec 2019, it can be sold for P18,000.00, the difference serves as interest or profit for rediscounting the check. Another example
is when I levied the property of a debtor, my right in the action can be assigned or alienate to another person.
[6] Shares of stock – it means ownership in a company.
WHAT ARE THE TESTS WHICH MUST BE APPLIED IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN OBJECT IS MOVABLE OR NOT? Page | 15
(1) Whether the object can be transported from place to place;
(2) Whether the change of location can take place without injury to the immovable to which it may be attached; and
(3) Whether it is not included in the enumeration found in Art. 415 of the NCC.
IS THE STEAMSHIP PRESIDENT CLEVELAND PERSONAL OR REAL PROPERTY?
The steamship President Cleveland is a personal property. (See Phil. Refining Co. Us. Jarque, 61 Phil. 229) In the first place,
it can be transported from place to place; in the second place, the change of location can take place without injury to the immovable to
which it may be attached; and in the third place, it is not included in the enumeration of immovables in Art. 415 of the NCC.
However, because of its importance in the world of commerce, it partakes of the nature of immovables when it comes to the
requirement of registration. Thus, if it is mortgaged under the Chattel Mortgage Law, the mortgage must be registered not only in the
Chattel Mortgage Register but also in the office of the Collector of Customs at the port of entry. (Rubiso us. Rivera, 37 Phil. 72; Arroyo
vs. Yude Sane, 54 Phil. 7; Phil. Refining Co. Us. Jarque, 61 Phil. 229)
Let me explain. The steamship is movable but for the purpose of chattel mortgage it is not sufficient that the transaction be
registered only with the Chattel Mortgage Registry, it has to be registered at the point of entry with the Collector of Customs. The
requirment is the same, in case the steamship is sold. Dapat ipa-register ang contract of sale ng steamship with the collector of custom
at the port of entry.
Let say X, mortgaged the steamship to A, and after a month he also mortgaged it to B. A registered the mortgage with Chattel
Mortgage Registry. B registered the mortgage with the Chattel Mortgage Registry and Collector of Custom. B has the prior right than A
in spite of the fact that the mortgage of the steamship to A is older. If the steamship is to be sold, uunahing bayaran si B, bago si A.
Katulad ng mga real estate, di ba? Yung date of registration ang basis between two transactions to determine who has the prior right.
HOW DO YOU CLASSIFY MOVABLE PROPERTY ACCORDING TO ITS NATURE?
As to their possibility of being consumed by their use, movable or personal property may be either:
(1) Consumables, or those which cannot be used in a manner appropriate to their nature without their being consumed; or
(Suka – bilang sawsawan (appropriate use), nauubos habang ginagamit. Pero gamitin mong fuel sa Honda wave
(inappropriate use) – hindi mauubos ang suka hahahaha, o kaya initin mo at gawing tubig sa kape, hindi mauubos
ang suka. Pero ikaw ang susuka.
(2) Non-consumables, or those which can be used in a manner appropriate to their nature without their being consumed. (Art.
418, NCC)
Ang silya – upuan (appropriate use) mo buong buhay mo, hindi mauubos. Pero gawin mong gatong, mauubos.
As to their possibility of being substituted by others of the same kind and quality, they may be either:
(1) Fungibles, or those which can be substituted by others of the same kind and quality; or

PROPERTY

Pera, gasolina, o bigas. A borrowed 10 kilos of rice from B, B cannot require A to return the same rice, syempre
nai-saing na yun ni A. Kahit na anong bigas of the same quality pwedeng isauli ni A, wag lang yung bigas na pang-
aso. Dapat yung pang tao rin.
Pera. The debtor may return the amount loaned, not necessarily the vey same money he received from the creditor.
(2) Non-fungibles, or those which cannot be substituted by others of the same kind and quality. Page | 16
Example is an item with a very peculiar quality or with sentimental value. Hiniram ng kumare mo yung alahas mo
na minana mo pa sa lola mong si Queen Elizabeth I. Ayan, hindi kaya palitan yan. She cannot replace it with the
same kind of gem because of its historical value. Or yung sumbrerong hinagis ni April Boy, or yung panyong pinahid
mo kay idol, or yung book na may dedication ni author. Ayan...mga items that cannot be substituted. Or yung selfie
mo with the Korean idol, then nabura ko sa phone mo. Then, i tell you palitan ko na lang ng picture ko with you
hahahaha...hindi pwede yun.
BAR EXAMINATION
II. Manila Petroleum Co. owned and operated a petroleum operation facility off the coast of Manila. The facility was located
on a floating platform made of wood and metal, upon which was permanently attached the heavy equipment for the petroleum operations
and living quarters of the crew. The floating platform likewise contained a garden area, where trees, plants and flowers were planted.
The platform was tethered to a ship, the MV 101, which was anchored to the seabed.
a] Is the platform movable or immovable property?
The platform is an immovable property. Under Article 415 (9) the Civil Code, docks and structures which, though floating, are
intended by their nature and object to remain at a fixed place on a river, lake or coast are immovable property.
Here, the floating platform is a petroleum operation facility and it is intended to remain permanently where it is situated, even
if it is tethered to a ship which is anchored to the seabed. Therfore, applying the said provision, the platform is an immovable property.
b] Are the equipment and living quarters movable immovable property?
The equipment and living quarters of the crew are immovable property. Under Article 415 (3) of the Civil Code everything
attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in such a way that it cannot be separated therefrom without breaking the material or
deterioration of the object are immovable.
Here, both the equipment and the living quarters are permanently attached to the platform which is also an immovable.
Therefore, it folows that the equipment and the living quarters are immovable property.
c] Are the trees, plants and flowers immovable or movable property?
Trees, plants and flowers planted in the garden area of the platform are immovable property. Under Article 415 (2) of the Civil
Code trees, plants and growing fruits, while they are attached to the land or form an integral part of an immovable are immovable property.
Here, the garden forms an integral part of an immovable, the petroleum operation facility. Hence, it follows that the trees,
plants and flowers are imoovabe property.

PROPERTY

Pedro is the registered owner of a parcel of land situated in Malolos, Bulacan. In 1973, he mortgaged the land to the Philippine
National Bank (PNB) to secure a loan of Pl00,000.00. For Pedro’s failure to pay the loan, the PNB foreclosed on the mortgage in 1980,
and the land was sold at public auction to PNB for being the highest bidder, PNB secured title thereto in 1987.
In the meanwhile, Pedro, who was still in possession of the land, constructed a warehouse on the property. In 1988, PNB sold
the land to Pablo. The Deed of Sale was amended in 1989 to include the warehouse.
Page | 17
Pedro, claiming ownership of the warehouse, files a complaint to annul the amended Deed of Sale before the Trial Court of
Quezon City, where he resides, against both the PNB and Pablo, The PNB filed a motion to the complaint for improper venue contending
that warehouse is real property under Article 415(1) of the Civil Code and therefore the action should have instead been filed in Malolos,
Bulacan. Pedro claims otherwise. The question arose as to whether the warehouse should be considered as real or as personal property.
If consulted, what would your legal advice be?
The warehouse is an immovable property. According to Art. 435 (1) land, buidings, roads and contructions of all kinds adhered
to the soil are immovable property.
Here, the warehouse is built on the disputed land located in Malolos, Bulacan but Pedro filed the cause of action for annulment
of the deed in Quezon City. Hence, the proper venue to recover the immovable property is where it is actually situated which is Malolos,
Bulacan. The action shuld have been filed in the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan.
13. Salvador, a timber concessionaire, built on his lot a warehouse where he processes and stores his timber for shipment. Adjoining
the warehouse is a furniture factory owned by NARRAMIX of which Salvador is a majority stockholder. NARRAMIX leased space in the
warehouse where it placed its furniture-making machine.
1. How would you classify the furniture-making machinery as property under the Civil Code? Explain.
The furniture-making machinery is movable property. According to Art. 415 (5) of the Civil Code, machinery, to be considered as
immovable must be installed by the owner of the tenement.
Here, the furniture-making machine was not installed by Salvador but by his lessee – NARRAMIX. Salvador being a major
stockholder is inconsequential for the corporation has disticnct personality from its stockhoders. Hence, the machinery in making furniture
is not an immovable property.
2. Suppose the lease contract between Salvador and NARRAMIX stipulates that at the end of the lease the machinery shall
become the property of the lessor, will your answer be the same? Explain.
The machinery is an immovable property. When there is a provision in the lease contract making the lessor, at the end of the lease,
owner of the machinery installed by the lessee, the said machinery is considered to have been installed by the lessor through the lessee
who acted merely as his agent. Having been installed by the owner of the tenement, the machinery became immovable under Art. 415
(5) of the Civil Code. - UPLC
JURISPRUDENCE
POWER BARGES ARE CATEGORIZED AS IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BY DESTINATION
FELS Energy, Inc. Vs. The Province of Botangas, et at, G.R. No. 168557, February 16, 2007
Are power barges immovable properties?

PROPERTY

Yes. Article 415 (9) of the New Civil Code provides that “docks and strutfures which, though floating are intended by their
nature and object to remain at a fixed place, on a river, lake, or coast” are considered immovable property. Thus, power barges are
categorized as immovable property by destination, being in the nature of machinery and other implements intended by the owner for an
industry or work which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land and which tend directly to meet the needs of said industry ot
work. (FELS Energy, Inc. Vs. The Province of Botangas, et at, G.R. No. 168557, February 16, 2007)
PROPERTIES OF PUBLIC DOMINION ARE OWNED BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC. PUBLIC USE IS “USE THAT IS NOT CONFINED Page | 18
TO PRIVILEGED INDIVIDUALS, BUT IS OPEN TO THE INDEFINITE PUBLIC”.
Domalsin vs, Sps. Valenciano, G.R, No. 158687, January 25, 2006
WHAT ARE THE PROPERTIES OF PUBLIC DOMINION?
Under Article 420 of the Civil Code, the following things are property of public dominion:
[1] Those intended for public use such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed, by the State, banks, shores,
roadsteads, andother of similar character;
[2] Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the
national wealth.
Properties of public dominion are owned by the general public. Public use is “use that is not confined to privileged individuals,
but is open to the indefinite public.” In the case of Domalsin v. Sps. Valenciano, the court held chat the land in controversy is a portion of
Kennon Road which is for the use of the people, the same being part of public domain. This being the case, the parties cannot appropriate
the land for themselves. Thus, they cannot claim any rigbt of possession over it. Also, under Article 530 Of the Civil Code, only things
and rights which are susceptible of being appropriated may be the object possession. (Domalsin vs, Sps. Valenciano, G.R, No. 158687,
January 25, 2006)
BEING OF PUBLIC DOMINION, A CREEK CANNOT BE REGISTERED UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM IN THE NAME OF ANY
INDIVIDUAL
Usero vs. Court of Appeals, G.R, No. 152115, January 26, 2005
X has a property adjacent to a creek which usually inundates and eroded his property. He put a rip-rapped to prevent futher
damage including the strip where Y’s property is adjacent. Y, demanded that X stop the construction. Was the strip of land belongs to
the public dominion?
Yes. The subject strip of land is a creek as evidenced by a barangay certification that a creek exists in the disputed’ strip of
land. The fact that water lilies thrive in that strip of land can only mean that there is a permanent stream of water or creek there. Property
is either of public dominion or of private ownership. Concomitantly, Article 420 of the Civil Code provides: “The following things are
property of public,dominion: (1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports arid bridges constructed by
the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character;...’” The phrase “others of similar-character* includes a creek which
is a recess or an arm of a river. It is property belonging to the public domain which is not susceptible to private ownership. Being public
water, a creek cannot be registered under the Torrens System in the name of any individual. Accordingly, the spouses A and B may
utilize the rip-rapped portion of the creek to prevent the erosion of their property . (Usero vs. Court of Appeals, G.R, No. 152115, January
26, 2005)
MINING PATENTS ARE VESTED RIGHTS THAT CANNOT BE IMPAIRED
Yinlu Bicol Mining Corporation v. Trans-Asia Oil and Energy Development Corporation
G.R. No. 207942, January 12, 2015
Petitioner Yinlu Bicol Mining Corporation (Yinlu) acquired the mining patents of Philippine Iron Mmes, Inc. (PIMl) from a
foreclosure sale conducted by the Manila Banking Corporation and Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank, evidenced by a deed of

PROPERTY

absolute sale executed in favor of Yinlu. Meanwhile, respondent Trans-Asia Oil and Energy Development Corporation (Trans-Asia)
entered into an operating agreement with Philex Mining Corporation covering the areas within the mining patents of Yinlu. Trans-Asia
then applied for and was granted by the DENR a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) which gave it the exclusive right to
explore, develop and utilize the mineral deposits over the mineral lands.
Alarmed by these transactions, Yinlu filed a complaint with the DENR Secretary which upheld finlu’s ownership over the mining
patents and ordered amendment of Trans-Asia’s MPSA by excluding therefrom the mineral lands covered by Yinlu’s mining Page | 19
patents/Thereafter, Trans-Asia appealed the decision before the Office of the President and the RTC, respectively, which affirmed the
Secretary’s decision. The CA, the reversed the ruling of the Secretary and ruled that for failure to register the patents pursuant Section
101 of Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, Yinlu’s patents lapsed and had no more effect.
Yinlu claims that its mining patents, being evidenced by its TCTs that were registered were valid, existing and indefeasible;
and that its substantive rights over the mineral claims perfected under the Philippine Bill of 1902 subsisted despite the changes of the
Philippine Constitution and of the mining laws.
Are the mining patents of Yinlu valid, existing and impervious to the MPSA subsequently granted to Trans-Asia?
YES, the mining;patents of Yinlu are valid, existing and impervious to the MPSA subsequently granted to Trans-Asia. The
mining rights acquired under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and prior to the effectivrty of the 1935 Constitution were vested rights that could
not be impaired even by the government.
Consequently, Yinlu and its predecessors-in-interest had acquired vested rights in the disputed mineral lands that could not
and should not be impaired even in light of their past failure to comply with the requirement of registration and annual work obligations.
The Government, whether through the DENR or the MGB, could not alienate or dispose of the lands or mineral through the MPSA granted
to Trans-Asia or any other person or entity.
Indeed, having acquired vested rights over the mining patents, the MPSA must be amended to exclude the mineral lands
covered by Yinlu’s mining patents”.
TO BE VESTED, A RIGHT MUST HAVE BECOMES TITLE – LEGAL OR EQUITABLE-TO THE PRESENT OR FUTURE ENJOYMENT
OF PROPERTY
Dolores Campos vs. Dominador Ortega Sr. And James Silos; G.R. No. 171286, June 2, 2014
Petitioner Dolores Campos and her husband were lessees since 1966 of a residential building owned by Dominga Boloy. In
1977, in pursuant to the Zonal Improvement Program (ZIP) of Metro Manila Commission, Dolores was among those censused and
qualified as a bona fide occupant and was issued a tag number. Later, an ejectment suit was filed against petitioner by one Walter Boloy
but was dismissed. After said dismissal, and after having verified her husband’s status as a bona fide occupant, petitioner forthwith
authorized her nephew Salvador Pagunsanto follow up with the National Housing Authority (NHA) the matter concerning the award of lot
to them in line with the ZIP, more particularly after learning that all bona fide occupants may be allowed to buy the structure if the owner
has already died. However, during the meeting with the NHA, Pagunsan was informed that the property was awarded to respondents
James Silos and Dominador Ortega. Furthermore, Clarita Boloy, daughter-in-law of the deceased Dominga Boloy, executed a Deed of
Absolute Sale with respect to the subject property in favor of respondents.
Thus, petitioner filed a complaint before the RTC which ruled in her favor and upheld her vested right over the lot. This,
however, was reversed by the CA. Petitioner contends that respondents are disqualified to become lot owners since they were not duly
censused as renters or sharers pursuant to ZIP. Respondents, on the other hand, maintains that they are registered owners of the land
in question as well as the house built thereon by virtue of TCT and tax declarations, and that the Torrens title cannot be altered, modified
or cancelled except through a direct proceeding.
Does the petitioner have vested right over the said property?

PROPERTY

In the case at bar, the “tagging of structures* in the area was conducted merely to determine the qualified beneficiaries and
dona fide residents within the area. It did not necessarily signify an assurance that the tagged structure would be awarded to its occupant
as there were locational and physical considerations that must be taken into account, as in fact, the area where petitioner’s property was
located had been classified as Area Center. The assignment of a tag number was a mere expectant or contingent right and could not
have ripened into a vested right in favor of petitioner. Hence, petitioner must respect the ownership of the respondents over the subject
lot.
Page | 20
PROPERTY UNDER PUBLIC DOMAIN IS OUTSIDE THE COMMERCE OF MAN AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IS NULL AND VOID
(Navy Officers’ Village Association, Inc. (NOVAI) v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 117168; August 22,2015).
Art. 420 of the Civil Code defines property of the public dominion as those which are intended for public use or, while not
intended for public use, belong to the State and are intended for some public service. As property of the public dominion, public lands
reserved for public or quasi-public uses are outside the commerce of man. They cannot be subject to sale, disposition or encumbrance,
and if so, the same is null and void.
PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN CANNOT BE MADE A SUBJECT OF A DEED OF DONATION BETWEEN
PRIVATE PERSONS
(Heirs of. Rafael Gozo et al. V. Philippine Union Mission Corporation of The Seventh Day Adventist Church (PUMCO) et.al., G.R. No.
195990; August 5, 2015)
Per the Public Land Act (CA. No. 141), alienable and disposable public lands suitable for agricultural purposes can be disposed
of, among others, by homestead over alienable and disposable public agricultural land granted after compliance by an applicant with the
conditions and requirements. Under said law, before compliance with the foregoing conditions and requirements the applicant has no
rigths over the land subject of the patent and therefore cannot dispose the same even if such disposal was made gratuitously. Further, it
is an established principle that no one can give what one does not have, nemo dat quod non habet. The contract of donation, executed
by the donor who has no proprietary right over the object of the contract, is null and void and produces no legal effect whatsoever.
ACQUISITION THROUGH PRESCRIPTION DOES NOT APPLY TO LAND OF PUBLIC DOMAIN WITHOUT STATE DECLARATION
OF ITS CONVERTION TO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
Liwayway Andres, et al. V. Sta. Lucia Realty & Development, Inc. G.R. No. 201405, August 24, 2015
It was clarified in the Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic of the Philippines that only lands of the public domain subsequently
classified or declared as no longer intended for public use or for the development of national wealth, or removed from the sphere of public
dominion and are considered converted into patrimonial lands or lands of private ownership, maybe alienated or disposed through any
of the modes of acquiring ownership under the Civil Code. And if the mode of acquisition is prescription, whether ordinary or extraordinary,
it must first be shown that the land has already been converted to private ownership prior to the requisite acquisitive prescriptive period.
Otherwise, Article 1113 of the Civil Code, which provides that property of the State not patrimonial in character shall not be the subject
of prescription, applies.
In the case, it appears that the subject oroperty is an unregistered public agricultural land. Thus, without an express declaration
by the State, the land remains to be a property of public dominion and hence, not susceptible to acquisition by virtue of prescription.
PROPERTY IN RELATION TO THE PERSON TO WHOM IT BELONGS
Property is either of public dominion or of private ownership.
WHAT IS MEANT BY PROPERTY OF PUBLIC DOMINION?
Following things are property of public dominion:

PROPERTY

(1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks,
shores, roadsteads, and other of similar character (Art. 420, No. 1 NCC);
(2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development
of the national wealth (Art. 420, No. 2, NCC), and
(3) Property for public use, in the provinces, cities, and municipalities, such as provincial roads, city streets, municipal streets, Page | 21
squares, fountains, public waters, promenades, and public works for public service paid for by said provinces, cities, or
municipalities. (Art. 424, paragraph 1, NCC)
Property of public dominion are outside of the commerce of man.
(1) They cannot be appropriated;

(2) They cannot be the subject matter of contracts; hence, they cannot be alienated or encumbered;
(3) They cannot be acquired by prescription;
(4) They cannot be subject to attachment or execution;
(5) They cannot be burdened by any voluntary easement.
WHAT IS LAND OF PUBLIC DOMAIN (PUBLIC LANDS)?
Public lands and public domain are synonymous. They refer only to government lands which are opened to private
appropriation and settlement by homestead and other similar acts as provided by law.
HOW ARE LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN CLASSIFIED?
Lands of the public domain are classified into:
(l) agricultural;
(2) forest or timber;
(3) mineral lands; and
(4) national parks. (Art, XIV, Sec. 10, Philippine Constitution)
WHAT IS MEANT BY PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY OF THE STATE OR OF PROVINCES, CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES?
Those property of the State which are not intended for public use, or for public service, or for the development of the national
wealth, as well as those property of provinces, cities and municipalities which are not intended for public use are patrimonial. (Arts. 421,
424, NCC)
The general rule, all government lands are of public dominion. But for a public dominion to be patrimonial – dapat the
appropriate agency convert that public domain as alienable and disposable PLUS a positive act from the State declaring such ADL as
patrimonial (not intended for public use). The important requirement is the positive act converting the land into a partimonial property.
Take the case of Roponggi lot. This is the lot given by the Japanese governement as part of the reparation program. It is
agreed that the lot shall be the site for the Philippine embassy in Japan but for some reason it has not been used for such purpose. So,
binenta ni Pres. Aquino. The Supreme Court said that Riponngi property is of public dominion, hence, it cannot be appropriated by other
person except the State.
The fact that the Roppongi site has not been used for a long time for actual embassy service does not automatically convert
it to patrimonial property. Any such conversion happens only if the property is withdrawn from public use. A property continues to be part
of the public domain, not available for private appropriation or ownership until there is a formal declaration on the part of the government
to withdraw it from being such. Abandonment must be definite.

PROPERTY

It is not for the President to convey valuable real property of the government on his or her own sole will. Any such conveyance
must be authorized and approved by a law enacted by Congress. It requires executive and legislative concurrence. (Laurel vs. Garcia,
G.R. No. 92013, Juty 25,1990)
So lahat ng lands of public dominion, must be converted into ADL and declared as patrimonial for any private entity to
appropriate it.
Page | 22
BAR EXAMINATION
In 1960, Rigor and Mike occupied two separate but adjacent tracts of land in Mindoro. Rigor’s tract was classified as timber
land while Mike’s was classified as agricultural land. Each of them fenced and cultivated his own tract continuously for 30 years. In 1991,
the Government declared the land occupied by Mike as alienable and disposable, and the one cultivated by Rigor as no longer intended
for public use or public service.
Rigor and Mike now come to you today for legal advice asserting their right of ownership of their respective lands based on their
long possession and occupation since 1960.
(a) What are the legal consequences of the 1991 declarations of the Government respecting the lands? Explain your answer;
The declaration did not change its status as property of public domain for the lot occuipied by Mike but the lot occupied
by Rigor was effectively removed from the ambit of public dominion. In Heirs of Malabanan vs. Republic, GR No. 179987, April
29,2009, the declaration by the State of the conversion into patrimonial properties must be made in the form of a law duly enacted by
Congress or by a Presidential Proclamation in cases where the President is duly authorized by law. With such express declaration, the
properties are effectively removed from the ambit of public dominion.
Here, the Government declared the land occupied by Mike as alienable and disposable, and the one cultivated by Rigor as no
longer intended for public use or public service. Aside from a declaratrion that the property is alienable and disposable, it must be
expressly declared that the property is not anymore intended for public use. Hence, the lot occupied of Rigor can now be appropriated
accordingly while the lot occupied by Mike cannot.
(b) Given that, according to Sec. 48(b) of CA No. 141, in relation to Sec. 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529, the open, continuous, exclusive,
and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public as basis for judicial confirmation of imperfect
title must be from June 12,1945, or earlier, may Mike nevertheless validly base his assertion of the right of ownership on prescription
under the Civil Code? Explain your answer.
No, Mike cannot assert right of ownership by prescription. Under the law, there must be a positive act converting land of
public dominion into a patrimonial property aside from being declared as alienable and disposable. Here, there was no positive act
declaring the lot occupied Mike as patrimonial property. Hence, Mike cannot own the land by prescription.
(c) Does Rigor have legal basis for his application for judicial confirmation of imperfect title based on prescription as defined
by the Civil Code given that, like Mike, his open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation was not since June 12,
1945, or earlier, and tract of land was timber land until the declaration in 1991. Explain your answer.
No. Rigor has no legal basis. He occupied the lot only in 1960, and not since June 12, 1945 or erlier for him to successfully
appropriate the land by filing an action for judicial confirmation of imperfect title. Likewise, he cannot claim the land by presecription. The
land was converted into patrionial in 1991, prescription began to run only in 1991. Hence, he did not complete the 30-year period required
by law for extraordinary prescription. Even under the shorter 10- year ordinary prescription, Rigor cannot acquire ownership because
possession was not in good faith and without a just title.

PROPERTY

OWNERSHIP ART 427-483
WHAT IS OWNERSHIP?
Ownership may be defined as the independent right of exclusive enjoyment and control of a thing for the purpose of deriving
therefrom all advantages required by the reasonable needs of the owner and the promotion of the general welfare but subject to the
Page | 23
restrictions imposed by law and the rights of others. (Outline of Ciuil Law, Reyes and Purto, p. 20)
WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS OF A PERSON OVER HIS PROPERTY?
[a] The right to enjoy, which includes:
(1) Jus utendi, or the right to use

(2) Jus fruendi, or the right to enjoy the fruits; and
(3) Jus abutendi, or the right to consume the thing by its use.
[b] The right to dispose (jus disponendi), or the right to alienate, encumber, transform, or even to destroy the property
[c] The right to vindicate (jus vindicandi), or the right of action available to the owner to recover the property against the holder or
possessor. (Art, 428, NCC)
[d] To exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal of the property;
[e] To enclose or fence his land or tenement;
[f] To just compensation in case of eminent domain;
[g] To construct any works, or make any plantation or excavation on the surface or sub-surface of his land;
[h] To the ownership of all or a part of hidden treasures found. In his property; and
[i] To the ownership of all accessions to his property. (See Arts. 428, 429, 430, 435, 431, 438, 440, NCC)
WHAT IS THE DOCTRINE OF SELF-HELP?
To us force in defense of property is justified if the following requisites will concur:
(1) The force must be employed by the owner or lawful possessor of the property;
(2) There must be an actual or threatened physical invasion or usurpation of the property;
(3) The invasion or usurpation must be unlawful; and
(4) The force employed must be reasonably necessary to repel the invasion or usurpation. (Art. 429, NCC)
You must study self-help doctrine with Article 536 and 433.
ACTUAL POSSESSION UNDER CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP
Art. 433. Actual possession under claim of ownership raises a disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must
resort to judicial process for the recovery of the property.
Art. 536. In no case may possession be acquired through force or intimidation as long as there is a possessor who objects thereto.
He who believes that he has an action or a right to deprive another of the holding of a thing, must invoke the aid of the comcourt, if the
holder should refuse to deliver the thing.

PROPERTY

X, bought a watch, but got lost for unknown reason. And then one day he saw Y brandishing the watch. X grabbed Y’s arm and
snatched the watch. What is the crime committed? Robbery.
X must respect Y’s possession of the watch, and he does not need to put the law in his hands to recover it. Dapat mag file siya ng
action sa baranggay to settle the issue or sa court. Kasi pag napatay siya ni Y, Y may not be liable if that amount of defense wielded is
necessary to repel the attack na ginawa ni X.
Page | 24
WHAT IS THE EXTENT OF THE RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP OF THE OWNER OF A PARCEL OF LAND?
The owner of a parcel of land is the owner of its surface and of everything under it, and he can construct thereon any works
or make any plantations and excavations which he may deem proper, without detriment to servitudes and subject to special laws and
ordinances. He cannot complain of the reasonable requirements of aerial navigation. (Art. 437, NCC)
WHAT IS A HIDDEN TREASURE?
By treasure is understood, for legal purposes, any hidden and unknown deposit of money, jewelry, or other precious objects,
the lawful ownership of which does not appear. (Art. 439, NCC)
If the discoverer is the owner of the land, building, or other property, the requirments are 2 lang:
[a] The requirement is HIDDEN and UNKNOWN. Let say, you know na ang bahay ko ay may hidden treasure (so the fact is
known to you, kasi nakita mo, hindi mo lang makuha kasi nasa ilalim ng carpet ng bedroom), you bought the house. Then, I learned
about the treasure, that treasure is mine. You were a trespasser. Nakita mo kaya mo binili bahay ko. By law, the hidden treasure is mine
(Article 438).
[b] And THE LAWFUL OWNER IS UNKNOWN. If its hidden and unknown pero nung makita mo may ID at nakalagay “akin
ito”. Hahahahah..it is not hidden treasure. Or if the money or jewelry ay matagal ng hinahanap ng kapatid mo, way back 10 years ago...it
is not hidden treasure. If you take it for yourself, the crime committted is theft.
TO WHOM DOES HIDDEN TREASURE DISCOVERED BELONG?
Hidden treasure belongs to the owner of the land, building, or other property on which it is found. Nevertheless, when the
discovery is made on the property of another, or of the State or any of its subdivisions, and by chance, one-half thereof shall be allowed
to the finder. If the finder is a trespasser, he shall not be entitled to any share of the treasure.
If the things found be of interest to science or the arts, the State may acquire them at their just price, which shall be divided in
conformity with the rule stated. (Art. 438, NCC)
If the founder is stranger, the following requisites must concur:
1. The treasure must consist of money, jewelry or other precious objects;

2. It must be hidden and unknown;
3. Its lawful ownership does not appear;
4. The discovery must be by chance; and
5. The discoverer must be a stranger and not a trespasser.
Sa bar exam, the controversial issue ay yung no. 4. Kung may treasure map b si founder and he found the treasure ni Yamashita,
by chance ba yun? In the strict sense of the word chance, dapat ba natisod mo lang yung maleta ng ginto or naghuhukay ka ng inodoro,
tapos bumulwak ang kwarta! Iba-iba pananaw ng nga sagot sa bar exams.
It is submitted, that if you have a treasure map you need to secure a permit to look for the treasure. Para makahati ka. The fact that
you have a map, it means you looked for the treasure diligently, and obviously not by chance. Lalo na pag treasure with historical value
gaya ng map ni Yamashita. Yamashita treasure does not belong to Yamashita or to the imperial Japan. These treasure are loots of the
army, taken from the South East Asia countries and navigated to the Philipines. Nung hinahabol na ng mga American Troops ang mga

PROPERTY

hapon, they need to lite down. Ang habol kasi ng mga kano ay kunin ang mga gintong ito. So they hid some of the treasure under the
big trees, in the caves, railways, rocks etc na madaling tandaan, and they make maps of each para balikan nila. Kanya-kanyang gawa
ng mapa ang mga sakang na mga illiterate. Yes, mga hindi marunong mag sulat at bumasa, ang alam lang mamaril at manaksak ng
bayoneta. Dahil they were in the run, mababaw lang ang hukay. Madalas nasa bunganga lang nga kweba na may takip na bato o ilalim
ng malaking puno. Kaya wag maniniwala na sampung metro na hinukay para itago...that’s not true. Sa dahilang hindi naman acquianted
ang mga hapones sa bayan natin, ang mga maps ay ill-drawn. Maganda pa yung map ni DORA the Explorer. So, yan yung maigsing
background ng Yamashita treasure. Page | 25
[1] X asked permission from Y, the owner of the land, to excavate believing that hidden treasure of gems and coins are buried in
that lot. Y agreed, gems and old coins which are not of interest of science or the arts are found. Who owns the treasure?
X and Y own the treasure, 50-50 sila.
BAR EXAMINATIONS
Under a tip that hidden treasure is buried in the land of ‘A,’ ‘B’ leases the property and conducts excavation, thereon. If in the
land, gold coins are found, is ‘B’ entitled to the same? Explain.
No, it was not found by chance.(Art. 438) “B” deliberately searched for it. Moreover treasure is defined as hidden and unknown
deposit of precious objects, and the lawful ownership does not appear. There being a ‘tip,’ the deposit is ‘known. (Art. 439)
Alternative answer:
As a ‘tip’ is not certain, the finding could still be considered as by chance or by a stroke of good fortune. Hence, B is entitled
to it.” (Suggested Aasuoers to the 1976 Bar Examination Questions, p. 37)
O di ba, kahit ang mga expert hindi rin sila sigurado sa salitang “chance”. Sa 1987-2018 bar questions, inulit-ulit lang ang
tanong na yan. So concentrate on the word “chance” at yung founder acted wth the acquiscence of the owner of the land, or as an agent
or employee.
A congregation for religious women, by way of commodatum, is using the real property owned and registered in the name of
spouses Manuel as a retreat house. Maria, a helper of the congregation discovered a chest in the backyard. When she opened the chest,
it contained pieces of jewelry and money.
(A) Can the chest containing the pieces of jewelry and money be considered as hidden treasure?
No, the chest cannot be considered as hidden treasure. According to Art. 439 of the Civil Code, by treasure it is understood, for
legal prurposes, any hidden and unknown deposit of money, jewelry, or other precious objects, the lawful ownership of which does not
appear.
Here, Maria found the chest of jewelry and money at the backyard which is not in anyway be considered hidden. Hence, the chest
is not a hidden treasure.
(B) Who has the right to claim ownership of it?
Since it does not come within the purview of hidden treasure, the spouse Manuel have the right to claim ownership over the chest
as well as its contents. –UPLC

PROPERTY

Spouses Manuel have the right to claim ownership of the chest and its contents for they are presumptive owner under Article
433 of the Civil Code.
B. 0, owner of Lot A, learning that Japanese soldiers may have buried gold and other treasures at the adjoining vacant Lot B
Page | 26
belonging to spouses X and Y, excavated in Lot B where she succeeded in unearthing gold and precious stones. How will the treasures
found by 0 be divided?
1. 100% to 0 as finder
2. 50% to 0 and 50% to the spouses X and Y
3. 50% to 0 and 50% to the state
4. None of the above
The general rule is that the treasure shall belong to the spouses X and Y, the owners of Lot B. Under Article 438 of the Civil
Code, the exception is that when the discovery of a hidden treasure is made on the property of another and by chance, one-
half thereof shall belong to the owner of the land and the other one-half is allowed to the finder. In the problem, the finding of
the treasure was not by chance because 0 knew that the treasure was in Lot B. While a trespasser is also not entitled to any
share, and there is no indication in the problem whether or not 0 was a trespasser, 0 is not entitled to a share because the
finding was not “by chance”. UPLC
No. 4. None of the above. Under Article 438 of the Civil Code, hidden treasure belongs to the owner of the land, building, or other
property on which it is found except when the finding is by chance.
Here, the finding is not by chance for O knew that the it is hidden in Lot B owned by spouses X and Y. Hence, the treasure cannot
be appropriated by O by whole or by part. It is solely owned by spouse X and Y.
Adam, a building contractor, was engaged by Blas to construct a house on a lot which he (Blas) owns. While digging on the lot in
order to lay down the foundation of the house, Adam hit a very hard object. It turned out to be the vault of the old Banco de las lslas de
Filipinas. Using a detonation device, Adam was able to open the vault containing old notes and coins which were in circulation during the
Spanish era. While the notes and coins are no longer legal tender, they were valued at P100 million because of their historical value and
the coins’ silver and nickel content. The following legal claims over the notes and coins:
i) Adam, as finder;
ii) Bias, as owner of the property where they were found;
iii) Bank of the Philippine Islands, as successor-in-interest of the owner of the vault; and
iv) The Philippine Government because of their historical value.
a) Who owns the notes and coins?
Adam as the finder by chance of the hidden treasure is entitled to ½ of the its value and Blas as the owner of the land where the
treasure was found is entitled to the other half in accordance with Article 438. Since the find is of historical value, the Philippine
government may acquire them at the just price, which shall be divided in equal share between Adam and Blas.
Bank of the Philippine Islands cannot claim ownership since corporations cannot inherit from its predecessors and it does not shown
in the case at bar that there is an apparent owner of the treasure which had long been buried for more than a century.

PROPERTY

Marcelino, a treasure hunter as just a hobby, has found a map which appears to indicate the location of hidden treasure. He
has an idea of the land where the treasure might possibly be found. Upon inquiry, Marcelino learns that the owner of the land, Leopoldo,
is a permanent resident of Canada. Nobody, however, could give him Leopoldo’s exact address. Ultimately, anyway, he enters the land
and conducts a search. He succeeds.
Page | 27
Leopoldo. learning of Marcelino’s “find”, seeks to recover the treasure from Marcelino, but the latter is not willing part with it.
Falling to reach an agreement. Leopoldo sues Marcelino for the recovery of the property. Marcelino contests the action. How would you
decide the case?
I would decide in favor of Marcelino since he is considered a finder by chance of the hidden treasure, hence, he is entitled to
one-half (1/2) of the hidden treasure. While Marcelino may have had the intention to look for the hidden treasure, still he is a finder by
chance since it is enough that he tried to look for it. By chance in the law does not mean sheer luck such that the finder should have no
intention at all to look for the treasure. By chance means good luck, implying that one who intentionally looks for the treasure is embraced
in the provision. The reason is that it is extremely difficult to find hidden treasure without looking for it deliberately. Marcelino is not a
trespasser since there is no prohibition for him to enter the premises, hence, he is entitled to half of the treasure. - UPLC
I will decide in favor of Leopoldo. Under Art 438 of the Civil Code, a trespasser who found a hidden treasure by chance in
someone else’s property shall not be entitled to any share of the treasure.
Here, Marcelino had a map and had entered the property of Leopoldo withour his consent. He is deemed a trespasser and
the finding of the treasure was not by chance. Hence, the hidden tressure belongs to Leopoldo.
Tim came into possession of an old map showing where a purported cache of gold bullion was hidden. Without any authority from
the government Tim conducted a relentless search and finally found the treasure buried in a new river bed formerly part of a parcel of
land owned by spouses Tirso and Tessie. The old river which used to cut through the land of spouses Ursula and Urbito changed its
course through natural causes.
1. To whom shall the treasure belong? Explain.
The treasure belongs to the State. According to Art 462 of the Civil Code, whenever a river, changing its course by natural causes,
opens a new bed through a private estate, this bed shall become a public dominion, and accordidng to article 438 of the same code,
hidden treasure belongs to the owner of the land, building, or other property on which it is found. Here, the hidden treasure was found
under the new river bed. Hence, the owner of it is the State.
As to whether Tim had a share over gold bullions, he, unfortunately, cannot claim any share for he was a tresspasser without
authority from the government to dig the river bed and, also, the finding of the hidden treasure is not by chance for he relentlessly looked
for the hidden treasure using a map.
RIGHT OF ACCESSION
Accession may be defined as the right pertaining to the owner of a thing over everything which is produced thereby, or which
is incorporated or attached thereto, either naturally or artificially. (Art. 440, NCC) From the very definition itself, it is clear that it is not a
mode of acquiring ownership; it is merely a consequence of the right of ownership. Furthermore, under Art. 712 of the NCC which
enumerates the different modes of acquiring ownership or other real rights, accession is not included.
WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF ACCESSION?

PROPERTY

[A] Accession discreta, or the right pertaining to the owner of a thing over everything which is produced thereby.
1. Natural fruits, or spontaneous products of the soil and the young and other products of animals. (Art. 442, NCC)
2. Industrial fruits, or those produced by lands of any kind through cultivation or labor. (Art. 442, Jvcc)
3. Civil fruits, or rents of buildings, the price of leases of lands and other property and the amount of perpetual annuities or
other similar income. (Art. 442, NCC) Page | 28
[B] Accession continua, or the right pertaining to the owner of a thing over everything which is incorporated or attached thereto, either
naturally or artificially.
1. With regard to immovable property;
[a] Accession industrial, or that which takes place in case of building, planting or sowing. (Articles 445 – 455)
[b] Accession natural, which may be in the form of either:
i. Alluvion (Art 457 of the CC)

ii. Avulsion (Art 459 of the CC)
iii. Change of river beds (Art 461 of the CC)
iv. Formation of islands on the seas, lakes, navigational or floatable rivers, or non-navigational and non-
floatable rivers. (Art 464 and 465 of the CC)
2. With regard to movable property:
[a] Adjunction or conjunction, or that which takes place whenever movable things belonging to different owners are
united in such a way that they cannot be separated without injury, thereby forming a single object. (Art. 466, NCC)
X owns pieces gem while Y owns the gold. The gold was formed into a ring where the gem
were fashioned to accent it. They cannot be separated without causing injury (masisira na yung ring or
the gems might crack).
[b] Commixtion or confusion, or that which takes place whenever there is a mixture of things solid belonging to different
owners, the mixture of solids being called commixtion, while that of liquids, confusion. (Art. 472, NCC)
Gatas na may kape, kapeng may gatas – confusion
Buhanging at semento - commixtion
[c] Specification, or that which takes place whenever a person imparts a new form to materials belonging to another
person. (Art. 474, NCC)
X, borrowed a kilo of rice from Y. He cooked – naging “sinaing”. Who owns the “sinaing”? X.
Ang isosoli ni X ay bigas, not the cooked rice.
X uses the painting materials of Y and came out with a beautiful canvas. The canvas belongs
to X, but he must pay for the value of the materials.

PROPERTY

ACCESSION FOLLOWS THE PRINCIPAL
Kung sino may-ari ng principal thing, siya ang may-ari ng accession – that’s the general rule.
B owns the gem, Y owns the gold. Ginawang singsing, accented with a precious gem. So, it is a ring made of gold with a gem,
not a gem with a ring. The final product determines who is the principal. So here, Y owns the ring and the gem. But B can retain the ring
until indemnified for the value of the gem. Page | 29
B owns a land. Y built a house in B’s lot. It is a lot with improvement, not a house with a land. So B owns the land and the
improvement, because his ownership is older. May lupa muna, bago magtatayo ng bahay. Y has the right of retention until fully
indemnified.
Ayaw kasi ng batas ng forced co-ownership. Kaya binigyan ng batas ng solusyon ayon sa equity. The one with an older title
has a better right.
RIGHT TO DEDUCT EXPENSES FROM VALUE OF THE FRUITS
Art. 443. He who receives the fruits has the obligation to pay the expenses made by a third person their production, gathering,
and preservation.
X, in bad faith sows in the land of Y. X hired the services of Z for the production, gathering and preservation ng mga pananim.
Dumating si Y, akin lahat yan. Bad faith ka X dahil alam mong hindi sa iyo ang lupa, at hindi ka nagpa-alam sa akin na magtatanim ka.
Sabi mo maglilibing ka lang ng patay na aso. Being in bad faith, X loses the right to the fruit or harvest.
So, kinuha lahat ni Y ang isang sakong kangkong. Dapat bayaran ni Y si Z para sa pagtatanim, pagpitas at para sa pagsasako
ng kangkong. If si X din ang nagtanim, nagpitas at nagsako, at naibenta na niya yung isang sakong kangkong, aawasin niya yung
expenses sa pagtanim, pagpitas at pagsasako sa binagbentahan ng isang sakong kangkong. Yung balanse ang ibabayad niya kay Y.
X has also the right to demand reimbursement of all expenses which he might have incurred for the preservation of the land
(Article 452 NCC). Let say X put up a riprap sa tabi ng creek, if not nabawasan ang laki ng lupa ni Y. Yung gstos sa riprap, pwedeng
singilin ni X from Y.
BAR EXAMINATION
Marciano is the owner of a parcel of land through which a river runs out into the sea. The land had been brought under the
Torrens System, and is cultivated by Ulpiano and his family as farmworkers therein. Over the years, the river has brought silt and sediment
from its sources up in the mountains and forests so that gradually the land owned by Marciano increased in area by three hectares.
Ulpiano built three huts on this additional area, where he and his two married children live. On this same area, Ulpiano and his planted
peanuts, monggo beans and vegetables. Ulpiano also regularly paid taxes on the land, as shown by tax declarations, for over thirty years.
Marciano learned of the increase in the size of the land, he ordered Ulpiano to demolish the huts, and demanded that he be paid his
share in the proceeds of the harvest. Marciano claims that under the Civil Code, the alluvium belongs to him as a registered riparian
owner to whose land the accretion attaches, and that his right is enforceable against the whole world.
[a] Is Marciano correct? Explain.
Marciano’s contention is correct. Since the accretion was deposited on his land by the action of the waters of the river and he
did not construct any structure to increase the deposition of soil and silt, Marciano automatically owns the accretion. His real right of
ownership is enforceable against the whole word including Ulpiano and his two married children. Although Marciano’s land is registered,

PROPERTY

the 3 hectares land deposited through accretion was not automatically registered. As unregistered land, it is subject to acquisitive
prescription by third persons.
Although Ulpiano and his children live in the 3 hectare unregistered land owned by Marciano, they are farmworkers; therefore
they are possessors not in the concept of owners but in the concept of mere holders. Even if they possessed the land for more than 30
years, they cannot become the owners thereof through extraordinary acquisitive prescription, because the law requires possession in the
concept of owner. Payment of taxes and tax declaration are not enough to make their one in the concept of owner. They must repudiate Page | 30
the possession in the concept of holder by executing unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to ouster of Marciano, known to Marciano
and must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Only then would his possession become adverse. - UPLC
Marciano is correct. According to Article 457 of the Civil Code, to the owners of the lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong
the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters. Here, Marciano is the owner of the the adjoining
land where accretion of 3 heactares took place. Hence, he is the owner of the land.
As to to Ulpiano and his two married children, they cannot claim ownership by extraordinary acquisitive prescription over the
3 hectare accreted land for they had never held it as an open and notorious owner to oust Marcaino as the riparian owner. They held it
only as farmworkers of the latter. The payment of taxes and tax declaration do not amount to repudiation of Marcelino’s owership over
the disputed land.
What rights, if any, does Ulpiano have against Marciano? Explain.
Although Ulpiano is a possessor in bad faith, because he knew he does not own the land, he will lose the three huts he built
in had faith and make an accounting of the fruits he has gathered, he has the right to deduct from the value of the fruits the expenses for
production, gathering and preservation of the fruits (Article 443, NCC). – UPLC
Note: If Ulpiano et al were in bad faith, they have to account for all the rents earned by the nipa sheds less all necessary
expenses for the care and maintenance of the sheds and land. If they were in good faith, the answer would that in the next paragraph.
Ulpiano and his two married children may be considered as possessor in good faith. According to Article 526 of the Civil Code,
third paragraph, mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith.
Here, Ulpiano and his children are presumably unlearned in the rudiments of the law and would have thought that the land
accretion could be appropriated by merely paying taxes for and cultivating it. Hence, Ulpiano et al may afford the benefits in accordance
with Article 448 of the same code as builder, sower and planter in good faith.
THE OWNER OF THE PRINCIPAL THINGS OWNS THE ACCESSION DISCRETA (FRUITS), WHAT IS THE EXCEPTION?
(1) If the thing is in possession of a possessor in good faith in which case such possessor is entitled to the fruits. (Art. 544,
NCC)
(2) If the thing is subject to a usufruct, in which case usufructuary is entitled to the fruits. (Art. 566, NCC)
(3) If the thing is leased, in which case the lessee is entitled to the fruits of the thing, although such lessee must pay the owner
rentals which are in the nature of civil fruits. (Art. 1654, NCC)
(4) If the thing is in the possession of an antichretic creditor, in which case such creditor is entitled to the fruits with the
obligation of applying them to the interest and principal. (Art. 2132, NCC)
WHAT IS MEANT BY GOOD FAITH AND BAD FAITH IN ACCESSION?
As applied to the builder, planter or sower, there is good faith if he is not aware that there is a flaw or defect in his title or mode
of acquisition which invalidates it, while there is bad faith if he is aware of such flaw or defect. (Art. 526, NCC) As applied either to the
owner of the land or to the owner of the materials, good faith consists in the ignorance of the acts of the builder, planter or sower, or if he

PROPERTY

was aware of such acts, there was opposition on his part, while bad faith consists in knowledge of such acts and without opposition on
his part. (Art. 453, paragraph, 2, NCC)
Let use the following characters sa ating discussion:
A - Owner of land
B - Builder, planter, or sower Page | 31
C - Owner of materials
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE OWNER OF THE LAND WHO USES THE MATERIALS OF ANOTHER
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.
If A and B are in good faith and C is also in good faith, A and B has right to appropriate the improvement and C has the right
for reimbursement or to remove the materials if it hindi masisira ang construction or the improvement. Whereas, if A and B are in bad
faith, they have no right at all. C may remove plus damages or to compel them to pay plus damages.
X Co. Sold and delivered P3,000,000.00 worth of construction materials to A Co. Which the latter used in the construction of
six buildings at its compound. Because P1,000,000.00 of the purchase price had not been paid, an action to recover the unpaid balance
was brought by the former against the latter. Judgment was rendered in favor of the former and a corresponding writ of execution was
issued. As a result, the sheriff levied upon the six buildings. B Co., however, filed a third-party complaint asserting ownership over the
six building by virtue of an absolute deed of sale executed by A Co. in its favor seven months before the institution of the above-mentioned
action.
Shielded by an indemnity bond, the sheriff proceeded with the public auction and the six buildings were sold to X Co. for
P2,000,000.00. Subsequently, B Co., brought an action against the sheriff and X Co., praying for the nullification of the judicial sale.
Decide the case.
Let us analyze.
X is the owner of the materials in good faith

A is the builder and owner of the land in good faith
B is the successor-in-interest of A
What is the rule according to Article 447.
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.
A shall pay for their value. Since the property has been sold to B, the obligation to pay for the materials is transfered to him.
B has to pay the P1,000,000. While X cannot remove the materials. Masisira ang building. So, his option is to ask for the full payment
plus interest.

PROPERTY

So the answer should be like this.
The sale should be nullified. The property sold was already owned by B when it was sold to X. However, X is not left wihout
remedy. According to Article 447 of the Civil Code, the owner of the land in good faith shall pay for value of the materials used in the
construction.
Here, A, the predessessor-in-interest of B was the builder and owner of the land built 6 buildings using the materials of X. He
incurred a balance of P1,000,000. Hence, B as successor-in-interest of A may pay X for the value of the materials plus legal interest.
Page | 32
TIPS IN ANALYZING BAR QUESTIONS
Always determine first the rights available to the one in good faith. If both are in good faith, determine the option available to
the owner of the land.
----------------xxx---------------------
RIGTHS AND OBLIGATIONS

OF THE LANDOWNER AND THE BUILDER, PLANTER AND SOWER
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 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 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.
Art. 548. Expenses for pure luxury or mere pleasure shall not be refunded to the possessor in good faith; but he may remove
the ornaments with which he has embellished the principal thing if it offers no injury thereby, and if his successor in the possession does
not prefer to refund the amount expended.
Art. 546. Necessary expenses shall be refunded to every possessor; but only the possessor in good faith may retain the thing
until he has been reimbursed therefor.
Useful expenses shall be refunded only to the possessor in good faith with the same right of retention, the person who has
defeated him in the possession having the option of refunding the amount of the expenses or of paying the increase in value which the
thing may have acquired by reason thereof.
A – good faith
B – in good faith
A has the right to appropriate, but has to pay for the necessary and useful expenses due to B. A, also has the right to lease
out the property to B, and the latter to pay rent. B has no right at all, save the right of retention until paid.
If the value of the improvement is considerable higher than the value of the land, A may compel B to buy the land, and if B
refuses, A may have the land and the improvment sold in an auction and apply the proceeds to the land and yug natira para kay B. Or
he may have the improvement demolish. (nasa jurisprudence yan)
The right to choose between appropriating the improvement or selling the land on which the improvement stand to the builder,
planter or sowers is given to the owner of the land.
(Ballatan G.R. No. 125687, March 2,1999)

PROPERTY

As far as the first option is concerned, suppose that after the improvement was made, the owner of the land, during the
litigation, alienated such land to a third party, who shall pay the required indemnity to the builder, planter or sower—the former or the
latter?
In Bernardo us. Bataclan (66 Phil. 590), the Supreme Court declared that, although the obligation to pay the required indemnity
may be directed by the builder, planter or sower against the transferee, ultimately, the obligation must be borne by the party who has
profited from the accession. The reason for this is that in purchases of land and the improvements thereon, the purchaser may have Page | 33
already paid to the vendor the value of the improvements, and it would be unjust to make him pay again to the builder, planter, or sower.
Consequently, if the purchaser had already paid to the vendor the value of the improvement, the latter must pay the required indemnity;
if not, the former must be the one who shall pay.
There is nothing in the language of Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code which would justify the conclusion that upon the
failure of the builder to pay the value of the land, when such is demanded by the landowner, the latter becomes automatically
the owner of the improvement under Art. 445.
(Filipinas Colleges, Inc. us. Timbang, 106 Phil. 247)
ANO LANG BA ANG RIGHT NG BUILDER, SOWER OR PLANTER IN GOOD FAITH?
Wala. Except for right of retention. It means hindi siya pwedeng paalisin sa building unless the cost of it has been reimbursed
by the owner of the land. For the sower, to harvest the fruits but to pay proper rent. Lahat ng option ay binigay ng batas kay owner of the
land.
ANU-ANO BA ANG RIGHT NG OWNER OF THE LAND IN GOOD FAITH?
Dalawa lang. Either of the following:
[1] The right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting after payment of indemnity provided for in Art 546
(necessary/useful expenses) or to pay the increase in value of the land it acquired by virute of that improvement.
Rule on necessary expenses

The owner of the land must refund the cost of necessary expenses, if not, the builder may keep the thing (land) unless fully
reimbursed. Example is real estate taxes, - to beef up.
Rule on useful expenses

The owner of the land must refund the cost of useful expenses or pay the increase in value of the thing (land) caused by the
useful expenses. Let say X, the builder repairs the house of Y and the cost is P100,000. Y must pay P100,000, if not, X will stay at home
until fully paid. Or Y has the option determine po muna how much is the increase in the cost of the principal thing, in this case ng bahay.
If the increase is only P75,000 but the actual expenses is P100,000. P75,000 lang ang irerefund ng owner not the actual cost of repair.
Rule on ornamentals
The owner may not refund expended for ornamental or purely luxury expenses. The builder may remove it the principal thing
will not suffer no damages thereby. If pag tinanggal, magigiba ang bahay, hindi na pwedeng tanggalin. Let say yung apat na haligi ng
bahay nilagyan mo ng rebulto ng mg santo. Although, the posts are ornamental but they supports the secod floor, hindi mo na ito pwedeng
tanggalin. Mapupunta na ito sa owner of the principal thing.
[2] The right to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent.
Provided, the value of the land is not CONSIDERABLY MORE than the value of the building.
The questions now is how do you consider cut-above-value of the land CONSIDERABLY MORE. Walang sinabi sa batas. It
is submitted that if the value of the improvement is 1/4 higher (25%) of the value of the land, then it is consideraby more. The basis is
lesion (Article 1381)

PROPERTY

WHEN IS THE RECKONING PERIOD TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF THE LAND?
At the time when the offer is made, and not at the time of the taking. Let say X built a house on Lot A, owned by Y in 1999. At
that time the fair market value Lot A is P100,000. The offer to buy the land was made in 2019 where the fair market value of the land now
is P1,000,000. The value should be P1M considering that long time Y has been deprived to use the land.
THE OWNER SHALL HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY FOR THE LESSER VALUE? Page | 34
Under art 448 of the Civil Code, the owner may indemnify the builder of the useful and necessary expenses, hence, the value
at the time when the improvement is built. The builder has also the option to pay for the increase of value of the land had acquired by
virtue of that improvement. Syempre, whichever is lower – yun ang babayaran ni buider.
Let say X, the builder in good faith, spent P1M in the year 2000 for the construction of two-door apartment on the land of Y,
but the increase in value of the land acquired by such improvement was only P800,000 today. Logically, the owner woud choose the
second option. Kasi mas mababa ang babayaran niya.
WHAT THEN IS THE REMEDY LEFT TO THE OWNER OF THE LAND IF THE BUILDER FAILS TO PAY?
While the NCC is silent on this point, guidance may be derived from the decisions of the Supreme Court, thus:
(1) In Miranda vs. Fadultan (97 Phil. 801), the Supreme Court said that the parties may decide to leave things as they are and
assume the relation of lessor and lessee, and should they disagree as to the amount of rental, then they can go to the court to have the
amount fixed;
(2) Should the parties not agree to assume the relation of lessor and lessee, another remedy is suggested in Ignacio us.
Hilario (76 Phil. 605), wherein the Supreme Court ruled that the owner of the land is entitled to have the improvement removed when
after having chosen to sell his land the builder in good faith fails to pay for the same;
(3) A further remedy is indicated in Bernardo vs. Bataclan (66 Phil. 590), where the Supreme Court approved the sale of the
land and improvement in a public auction applying the proceeds thereof first to the payment of the value the land and the excess, if any,
to be delivered to the owner of the house in payment thereof.
--------------xxxx-------------------
BUILDER IN BAD FAITH
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 to
indemnity.
Art. 450. The owner of the land on which any has been built, planted or sown in bad faith may demand the demolition of the
work, or that the planting or sowing be removed, in order to replace in their former condition at the expense of person who built, planted
or sowed; or he may compel the builder or planter to pay the price of the land, and the sower the proper rent.
Art. 451. In the cases of the two preceding articles, the landowner is entitled to damages from the builder, planter or sower.
Art. 452. The builder, planter or sower in bad faith is entitled to reimbursement for the necessary expenses of preservation of
the land.
A – in good faith
B and C – in bad faith

PROPERTY

A may appropriate the improvement plus damages, demand the removal or demolition plus damages, or demand price of the
land plus damages. While B and C being in bad faith, have no right at all except for reimbursement of necessary expenses for peservation
of land.
Always determine first the rights available to the one in good faith. If both are in good faith, determine the option available to Page | 35
[A] A plants on land belonging to B taking advantage of the latter’s absence. Upon the latter’s return, he filed an action for the
recovery of the land as well as all of the fruits, both harvested and pending, plus damages. Granting that the action will prosper, what are
the rights of “A”?
A, the planter in bad faith has two rights available to him.
[1] he can demand reimbursement all necessary expenses which he may have incurred production, gathering, and
preservation of the fruits which have been harvested and which are adjudicated to the landowner. (Art. 443, NCC)
[2] he can also demand reimbursement of all expenses which he might have incurred for the preservation of the land. (Art.
452, NCC)
----------xxx---------
RIGHTS WHEN BOTH THE LANDOWNER

AND THE BUILDER, PLANTER OR SOWER ACTED IN BAD FAITH
Art. 453. If there was bad faith, not only on the part of the person who built, planted or sowed on the land of another, but also
on the part of the owner of such land, the rights of one and the other shall be the same as though both had acted in good faith.
It is understood that there is bad faith on the of the landowner whenever the act was done with his knowledge and without
opposition on his part.
Same as Article 448
---------xxx----------
RULE WHEN LANDOWNER IS IN BAD FAITH

BUT THE BUILDER, PLANTER, OR SOWER PROCEEDED IN GOOD FAITH
Art. 454. When the landowner acted in bad faith and the builder, planter or sower proceeded in good faith, the provisions of
Article 447 shall apply.
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. If the landowner acted in bad faith, the owner of the materials may remove them with
a right to be indemnified for damages.
Same as Article 447

PROPERTY

A, in good faith, erected thereon a building, using materials belonging to C. B, the owner of the land, was aware of the
construction being made by A, but did not do anything to oppose it. What are the rights and obligations of the parties?
A can choose between: Page | 36
(1) reimbursement by B of the value of the building plus damages, or
(2) removal of the materials, with or without injury to the building, plus damages.
It must be observed that B is in bad faith. According to the law (Art. 454, NCC), when the landowner acted in bad faith and
the builder acted in good faith, the provision of Art. 447 of the NCC shall apply.
The rights of B, owner of the land, will depend upon the option selected by A. If A decides to demand reimbursement of the
building plus damages, of course, B becomes the owner of the building. If A decides to remove the materials regardless of whether or
not there is injury to the building, plus damages, B does not become the owner of the building.
In the case of C, owner of the materials, assuming that he was in good faith, obviously, he can proceed against A for the value
of his materials and against B for damages. If A cannot pay him the value of his materials, he © can then proceed against B for the value
of said materials. (Art 455, NCC) In other words, B will then be liable not only for the value of C’s materials but also for damages.
---------xxx--------
WHEN THE OWNER BECOMES SUBSIDIARY LIABLE TO OWNER OF THE MATERIALS
Art. 455. If the materials, plants or seeds belong to a third person who has not acted in bad faith, the owner of the land shall
answer subsidiarily for their value and only in the event that the one who made use of them has no property with which to pay.
This provision shall not apply if the owner makes use of the right granted by Article 450. If the owner of the materials, plants
or seeds has been PAID by the builder, planter or sower, the latter may demand from the landowner the value of the materials and labor.
Using lumber belonging to C, B constructed a house on land belonging to A. He was aware that the lumber belonged to C and
the land to A. Both A and C were abroad at the time of construction. Two years later, the two returned to the Philippines. Subsequently,
A commenced an action against B. C intervened. What are the rights and obligations of the parties?
Since A is in good faith and B is in bad faith, the provisions of Arts. 449 to 452 are now applicable. A, therefore, may avail
himself of either of the following remedies:
(1) Appropriate the building plus damages;
(2) demand the demolition or removal of the building at the expense of the builder plus damages; or
(3) compel B to buy the land plus damages.
If A chooses the first option, C, who is in good faith, can proceed against B for the value of his lumber plus damages. If the
latter cannot pay by reason of insolvency, he can proceed against A for the value of the lumber, but not for damages. (Art. 455, NCC)

PROPERTY

If A chooses the second option, C can proceed against B for the value of the lumber plus damages. If the latter cannot pay by
reason of insolvency, he has no further remedy. A cannot be held subsidiarily liable. (Art. 455, NCC)
If A chooses the third option, C can proceed against B for the value of the lumber plus damages. A cannot be held subsidiarily
liable. (Art. 455, NCC) – Jurado Book on Civil Law Reviewer
--------xxxx-------- Page | 37
DAMAGES IN BEING IN GOOD FAITH
Art. 456. In the cases regulated in the preceding articles, good faith does not necessarily exclude negligence, which gives
right to damages under Article 2176.
So the one in good faith may be liable if he is negligent. Let say, X bought a lot and immediately he built a house on it without
consulting a geodetic engineer the exact metes and bounds of his property. The house encroached the property of Y. X is in good faith
but shall be liable for damages.
BAR EXAMINATION
[3] Josef owns a piece of land in Pampanga. The National Housing Authority (NHA) sought to expropriate the property for its
socialized housing project. The trial court fixed the just compensation for the property at P50 million. The NHA immediately deposited the
same at the authorized depository bank and filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession with the trial court. Unfortunately, there
was delay in the resolution of the motion. Meanwhile, the amount deposited earned interest.
Josef sought the release of the amount deposited NHA argued that Josef should only be entitled to P50 million. Who owns
the interest earned?
Josef owns the interest. Under the law, accession follows the principal. Similarly, under Article 440 of the Civil Code, the
owenership of the property gives the right by accession to everything which is produced thereby, or which is incorporated or attached
thereto, either naturally or artificially.
Here, the P50M is owned by Josef as payment of just compensation. Hence, the interest incurred when it was deposited in
the bank belongs to him also by right of accession.
In Republic v. Holy Trinity Really Development Corp., (G.R. No. 172410, April 14,2008), the Supreme Court has declared that
upon deposit by the appropriator of the amount fixed for just compensation, the owner whose property is sought to be expropriated
becomes the owner of the deposited amount. Any interest, therefore, that accrues to such deposit belongs to the owner by right of
accession.
In the case of NPC v. Heirs of Ramoran GR No. 193455, June 13, 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that the imposable rate of
interest is 12% per annum from the time of the taking until June 30, 2013, and 6% per annum July 1,2013 until full payment.
[6] Pedro bought a parcel of land described as Cadastral Lot No. 123 and the title was issued to his name. Juan also bought
a lot in the same place, which is described as Cadastral Lot No. 124. Pedro hired a geodetic engineer to determine the actual location of
Lot No. 123 but for some reason, the engineer pointed to Lot No. 124 by mistake. Pedro hired a contractor to construct his house and
the latter put up a sign stating the name of the owner of the project and the construction permit number. It took more than a year before
the house was constructed. When Pedro was already residing in his house, Juan told him to remove his house because it was built on
his (Juan’s) lot.

PROPERTY

Juan filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession and prayed that the house be removed because Pedro is a builder in bad
faith. Pedro filed his Answer with Counterclaim that he is entitled to the payment of the value of the house plus damages because he is
a builder in good faith arid that Juan is guilty of estoppel and laches.
[A] If Pedro is a builder in good faith, what are the rights given to Juan under the law? Explain.
If Pedro is a builder in good faith and Juan is likewise an owner in good faith, Juan has the right to appropriate the house after Page | 38
payment of indemnity in accordance with Article 448 fo the civil Code, or to require Pedro to pay rent. If both parties cannot agree on the
terms of the rent, the court may fix the terms thereof. Nonetheless, Juan may compel Pedro to pay for the value of the land if the house’s
value is considerably more than the value of the land. If Pedro refuses, Juan may have the house and lot sold and apply the proceeds
first to the value of the land and the rest be given to Pedro for the value of the house, or he may have the house demolished. On the
other hand,Pedro had no right save the right of retention in case where Juan chooses to appropriate the house until the latter paid the
indemnity.
It is the the owner of the land who is authorized to exercise all the options under Article 448 because his right is older and by
principle of accession, he is entitled to the ownership of the accessory thing. The land being the principal and the house as the accessory.
Whereas, if Pedro is in good faith and Juan is in bad faith, Pedro had the option to require Juan to pay for the value of the
house and reparation for damages, and if Pedro is also the owner of the materials used in building the house, he may have them remove
in any event, with a right to be indemnified for damages under Article 447 fo the Civil Code. In all cases, Pedro had the right of retention
until fully compensated.
[B] If Pedro is a builder in bad faith, what are the rights given to Juan under the law? Explain.
If Pedro is a builder in bad faith and Juan is an owner in good faith, Under Article 449 and 450 of the Civil Code, Pedro loses
the house without right to indemnity. Juan may demand its demolition at the expense of Pedro, or to compel Pedro to pay for the price of
the land. In all cases, Juan is entitled for damages.
Whereas, if both parties are in bad faith, the law will consider them both in good faith and the provision stated in Article 448
of the Civil Code shall be applied.
[7] Benjamin is the owner of a titled lot which is bounded on the north by the Maragondon River. An alluvial deposit of two (2)
hectares was added to the registered area. Daniel took possession of the portion formed by accretion and claims that he has been in
open, continuous and undisturbed possession of said portion since 1923 as shown by a tax declaration. In 1958, Benjamin filed a
Complaint for Quieting of Title and contends that the alluvium belongs to him as the riparian owner and that since the alluvium is, by law,
part and parcel of the registered property, the same may be considered as registered property. Decide the case and explain.
I will decide in favor Daniel. Although under Article 447 of the Civil Code, the riparian owner becomes ipso facto owner of the
accretion, it does not automatically become registered land and it is susceptible to acquisition by prescription by third person.
Here, Daniel had been occupying the accretion in an open, continuous, exclusive and notorious manner for 35 years, and it
is more than 5 years than what the law required for him to acquire the land by extraordinary prescriptive period. Hence, he successfully
ousted Benjamin and become the owner of that land by prescription.
VII. Mr. And Mrs. X migrated to the US with all their children. As they had no intention of coming back, they offered their house
and lot for sale to their neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. A (the buyers) who agreed to buy the property for P8 Million. Because Mr. And Mrs. A
needed to obtain a loan from a bank first, and since the sellers were in a hurry to migrate, the latter told the buyers that they could already
occupy the house, renovate it as it was already in a state of disrepair, and pay only when their loan is approved and released. While
waiting for the loan approval, the buyers spent P1 Million in repairing the house. A month later, a person carrying an authenticated special

PROPERTY

power of attorney from the sellers demanding that the buyers either immediately pay for the property in full now, or vacate it and pay
damages for having made improvements on the property without a sale having been perfected.
[A] What are the buyers’ options or legal rights with respect to the expenses they incurred in improving the property under the
circumstances?
The sale was perfected and Spouses A acquired ownership over the house and lot upon delivery. Payment of the price was Page | 39
subject to an indefinite period, that is, after the approval of the bank loan. As owners, they have the right to make improvements on the
said properties, and to retain the same. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the sale was not perfected and Spouses A had not
acquired ownership over the house and lot because of a notarized deed of sale, of rescission, they may be considered builders in good
faith since they entered into the property believing in good faith that they were the owners of the property in question. As builders in good
faith, they are entitled to reimbursement for necessary and useful expenses incurred upon the property, and may retain the property until
reimbursement therefore (Art. 448 and 546 Civil Code). The improvements in question are necessary and useful since the house was
already in a state of disrepair. - UPLC
Spouse A have the right for reimbursement for the necessary and useful expenses they spent for the house and lot, and in
case of failure of the spouses X to do so, the former have the right of retention until full reimbursement. And in cases, where there were
ornaments embellished the property, spouses A may remove them if possible without causing injury to the principal thing. In all cases,
spouses A have the right for reimbursement or refund of the P1M expended. According to Art 448 in relation to article 546 and 547 of the
Civil Code, the builder in good faith have the right of retention of the property for the useful and necessary expenses and the right to
remove ornamentals in proper cases until full reimbursement.
Here, spouses X allowed the buyers Spouse A to occupy and renovate the house while awaiting for the bank approval of the loan
supposedly for the payment of the house and lot. Hence, spouses A are buiders in good faith and had the right of retention until all useful
and necessary expenses or the increase in value caused by such improvements to the house are refunded, and had the option to remove
any ornamentals when no damages to the house may be caused thereby.
(A) Can the buyers be made to immediately vacate on the ground that the sale was not perfected? Explain briefly.
No, spouses A may not be made to vacate the properties. According to Art 1475 of the Civil Code, a contract of sale is a consensual
contract which is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of the minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the
price.
Here, the sale was already perfected since there was already a meeting of the minds as to the object of the sale, which is the house
and lot, and as to the price, which is P8 Million. The fact that there was no payment yet is immaterial since it is not a requisite for the
perfection of the contract. Hence, the sale was perfected and spouses cannot be made immediately vacate the property with first
rescinding the sale.
Even assuming that the sale was rescinded, the buyers may still not be made to vacate the properties. As builders in good faith,
spouses A have the right to retain the properties in question until the full reimbursement of useful and necessary expenses in accordance
with Arts. 448 and 546, Civil Code.
Ciriaco Realty Corporation (CRC) sold to the spouses Dela Cruz a 500-square meter land (Lot A) in Paranaque. The land now
has a fair market value of P1,200,000. CRC likewise sold to the spouses Rodriguez, a 700-square meter land (Lot B) which is adjacent
to Lot A. Lot B has a present fair market value of P1,500,000.
The spouses Dela Cruz constructed a house on Lot B, relying on the representation of the CRC sales agent that it the property
they purchased. Only upon the completion of their house did the spouses Dela Cruz discover that they had built on Lot B owned by the
spouses Rodriguez, not on Lot A that they purchased. They spent P1,000,000 for the house.

PROPERTY

As their lawyer, advise the spouses Dela Cruz on their rights and obligations under the given circumstances, and the recourses
and options open to them to protect their interests.
Based on the facts as stated, the spouses Dela Cruz as builders and the spouses Rodriguez as land owners, are both in good
faith. The spouses Dela Cruz are builders in good faith because before constructing the house, they exercised due diligence by asking
the agent of CRC the location oflot A, and they relied on the information given by the agent who is presumed to know the identity of the
lot purchased by the Dela Cruz spouses (PleosantviUe v. CA, G.R. No. 79688, February 1,1996,253 SCRA10). On the other hand, there Page | 40
is no showing that the landowners, spouses Rodriguez, acted in bad faith. The facts do not show that the building was done with their
knowledge and without opposition on their part (Art. 453, Civil Code). Good faith is always presumed (Art. 527, Civil Code).
The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good faith shall have the right: [1] To appropriate
as his own the works after payment of the indemnity provided for in Articles 546 and 548, or [2] to oblige the one who built to pay the
price of the land.
However, the builder cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the building. In such case,
be shall pay reasonable rent if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity (Art. 448,
Civil Code).
The house constructed by the spouses Dela Cruz is considered as a useful expense, since it increased the value of the lot.
As such, should the spouses Rodriguez decide to appropriate the house, the spouses Dela Cniz are entitled to the right of retention
pending reimbursement of the expenses they incurred or the increase in value which the thing may have acquired by reason of the
improvement (Art 546, Civil Code). Thus, spouses Dela Cruz may demand P1,000,000 as payment of the expenses in building the house
or increase in value of the land because of the house as a useful improvement, as may be determined by the court from the evidence
presented during the trial [Lepra v. Dumlao, G.R. No. 57348, May 16,1995,136SCRA475); Technogas Phils, v. CA, G.R. No. 108894,
February 10,1997,268 SCKA 5). -UPLC
Spouses Dela Cruz are buyers in good faith under Article 448, but liable for damages under 456 of the Civil Code. Likewise,
spouses Rodriguez are owners in good faith for having no knowledge of the construction going on on his lot according to Article 453 of
the same Code. According to the abovementioned Art 448, the builder in good faith cannot be obliged to buy the land if the value of the
land is considerably more than the value of has been built. And in case, where the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the
buiding, the builder may pay a reasonable rent, and in case the parties disagree upon the term of the lease, the court shall fix the terms
thereof.
Here, spouses Dela Cruz spent for the building P1,000,000 on a P1,500,000 worth of land. The value of the land is more than
what has been spent for the building. Hence, spouses Dela Cruz may not be obliged to buy the land but they have the right to retain the
property until reimbursement of P1Million or be paid the increase in value of the land caused by the improvement in accordance with
Article 546 of the Civil Code, or enter into a forced lease in case spouses Rodriguez refuse to reimburse or appropriate the building.
In all cases, spouses DeLa Cruz are liable for damages for not exercising due diligence in locating their proper lot in
accordance with Article 456 of the Civil Code. They should know its proper location by consulting the geodetic engineers of CRC and not
their agent to locate the metes and bounds of the porperty they are buying.
Alex died without a will, leaving only an undeveloped and untitled lot in Taguig City. He is survived by his wife and 4 children.
His wife told the children that she is waiving her share in the property, and allowed Bobby, the eldest son who was about to get married,
to construct his house on 1/4 of the lot, without however obtaining the consent of his siblings. After settlement of Alex’s estate and partition
among the heirs, it was discovered that Bobby’s house was constructed on the portion allocated to his sister, Cathy. Cathy asked Bobby
to demolish his house and vacate the portion allotted to her. In lieu of demolition, Bobby offered to purchase from Cathy the lot portion
on which his house was constructed. At that time, the house was valued at P300.000 while the portion of the lot on which the house was
constructed was valued at P350.000.

PROPERTY

[A] Can Cathy lawfully ask for demolition of Bobby’s house?
Art. 448 of the New Civil Code is applicable by analogy {Conception Fernandez del Campo v. Abeisa, 160 SCRA 379 [1988]).
Pursuant thereto, Cathy is given two options: (1) to appropriate the house that Bobby built, upon payment of indemnity; or (2) to compel
Bobby to buy the land, considering that its value is not considerably higher than the value of the house. At this stage she is not given the
option to demand demolition of the house. However, if she has chosen to sell the land to Bobby and the latter does not or cannot buy the
land, she can demand the demolition of the house. -UPLC Page | 41
NOTE: It is submitted that demolition of the property is not proper when there is a more appropriate option like auctioning the
land and house where both parties’ rights are protected.
No, Cathy cannot lawfully ask for demolition of Bobby’s house. According to Art 448 of the Civil Code, land owners may either
appropriate the house upon reimbursement; or to compel the builder to buy the land in case the value of the land is not considerably
more than the value of the building.
Here, Bobby built the house with acquiscence of her mother who owns ½ of the community property after having waived her
share in the inheritance. Legally, Bobby acted in good faith in building the house on the part the land which could have been within the
community property share of her mother which is ½ of the property. However, upon partition, the part of the lot where the house was built
was allocated to another heir, his sister Cathy. After having established that Bobby acted in good faith, Cathy may only pick either of the
two options as stated above in accordance with Art 448 of the Civil Code. Since the value of the land is P50,000 more than that of the
house, Cathy cannot compel Bobby to buy the land much less has the option to have it demolished. Her option is to obliged Bobby to
enter into a force lease agreement. And in case of default in payment of rentals or after the lease agreement’s termination, she may
have the land and buiding auctioned and apply the proceeds first to the value of the land and whatever is left to the house.
It is submitted that demolition of the property is not proper when there is a more appropriate option like auctioning the land
and house where the owner of the land’s preference can be served.
In the above case, what the widow had renounced was her inheritance share in the estate of the husband. So, ½ of the
property goes to her as her share in the community property and ½ goes to the 4 siblings which means that each of them get 1/8 of the
entire lot.
1/8 x 4 siblings = 4/8 or ½
½ for the spouse = ½
So when Bobby asked her where to build his house, the widow offered her share in the community property which is more
than ¼ na sinakop ng bahay ni Bobby. Unfortunately, upon partition, that ¼ portion went to Cathy, his sibling. Paano mangyayari yun eh
1/8 lang naman ang share ng isang sibling.
If the question pertains that the widow renounced including her share in the community property which is ½ of the property,
that cannot be done. Dapat may wrtitten donation, not renounciation. In the case at bar, there was no mention about donation. Hence, i
still hold my ground that Bobby was in good faith when he built the house that could the part of his mother’s share in the community
property.
Assuming that the widow successfully renounced including her share in the community property, then each sibling has ¼ of
the the entire property. Here is the answer.
Yes, Cathy may ask for demolition of the house. The provisions on Article 5 in relation to Article 491, and 1168 of the Civil
Code are the governing laws. The act of alteration without the consent of all the co-owners is illegal and invalid, being an act executed
against the provision of mandatory law. Under article of 1168 which provides that when the obligation consists in not doing, and the
obligor does what has been forbidden him, it also sahll be undone at his expense.

PROPERTY

Here, Bobby built his house on a co-owned property without the consents of the co-owners altering the property, hence, that
act is illegal and the house can be demolished at his expense.
[b] Can Bobby legally insist on purchasing the land?
No, Bobby cannot legally insist on purchasing the land. The rules on building, planting and sowing are not applicable to co-
ownership. The rules applicable to coownership are acts of alteration or acts of ownership on one hand and acts of mere administration Page | 42
on the other. Even if it were applicable, Bobby acted in bad faith and. Hence, demolition is one of the three options open to an owner. It
is the owner of the land, not the builder, planter or sower who has the options, even if both acted in bad faith or good faith. – UPLC
Note: Wala ng co-ownership in the case at bar. The lot was already partitioned and proper portion for each heir were already
indentified. Thus, I have reservation sa answer ng UPLC.
No, Bobby cannot legally insist to purchase the land. Under Article 448 of the Civil Code, where the value of the building is
considerably more than the value of the land, the owner of the land may oblige the builder to buy the land. Here, Bobby, as the builder,
is obliged by law to buy the land from Cathy if she chooses to sell it. He has no right except for the right of retention under the law. Hence,
Bobby is not legally permitted to insist on purchasing the land.
2001 BAR EXAMNINATION
Mike built a house on his lot in Pasay City. Two years later, a survey disclosed that a portion of the building actually stood on
the neighboring land of Jose, to the extent 40 square meters. Jose claims that Mike is a builder in bad faith because he should know the
boundaries of his lot, and demands that the portion of the house which encroached on his land should be destroyed or removed. Mike
replies that he is a builder in good faith and offers to buy the land occupied by the building instead.
[1] Is Mike a builder In good faith or bad faith? Why?
Yes, Mike is a builder in good faith. Under Article 527 of the Civil Code, good faith is always presumed, and upon him who alleges
bad faith on the part of a possessor rests the burden of proof. Here, Jose alleges that Mike is in bad faith for not knowing the metes and
bounds of his property. That mere allegation is insufficient to prove that Mike is in bad faith who should know the exact perimeter of his
property. He is neither a surveyor nor a geodetic engineer. Hence, the evidence propounded by Jose is insufficent to make Mike a builder
in bad faith.
However, Mike may be liable for damages under Art 456 of the same Code for not exercising due diligence in locating his property’s
proper metes and bounds.
[2] Whose preference should be followed? Why?
None of the preferences shall be followed. The preference of Mike cannot prevail because under Article 448 of the
Civil Code, it is the owner of the land who has the option or choice, not the builder. On the other hand, the option belongs to
Jose, he cannot demand that the portion of the house encroaching on his land be destroyed or removed because this is not
one of the options given by law to the owner of the land. The owner may choose between the appropriation of what was built
after payment of indemnity, or to compel the builder to pay for the land if the value of the land is not considerably more than
that of the building. Otherwise, the builder shall pay rent for the portion of the land encroached.- UPLC
None of the preference of the parties shall be followed. Under Art 448 of the Civil Code, the owner of the land may appropriate
the buiding after payment of indemnity or compel the builder to pay for the value of the land if the valued of the building is considerably
more than the value of the land. Otherwise, the parties shall enter into a force lease agreement.
Here, Jose’s preference to demolish the portion of the building is not one of the options given by law. Unfotunately for Mike, the
builder, he was not given any option at all under the law except for the right of retention. Hence, no preference shall prevail over the
other.

PROPERTY

[1] Demetrio knew that a piece of land bordering the beach belonged to Ernesto. However, since the latter was studying in
Europe and no one was taking care of the land, Demetrio occupied the same and constructed thereon nipa sheds with tables and benches
which he rented out to people who want to have a picnic by the beach. When Ernesto returned, he demanded the return of the land.
Demetrio agreed to do so after he has removed the nipa sheds. Ernesto refused to let Demetrlo remove the nipa sheds on the ground
that these already belonged to him by right of accession. Who is correct? Page | 43
Ernesto is correct. Under Article 449 of the Civil Code, he who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses
what is built, planted or sown without right to indemnity. Here, Demetrio knew that the land bordering the beach was not his, but owned
by Ernesto who was studying abroad. Hence, he is bad faith as a builder and does not have the right to appropriate the nipa sheds.
Ernesto becomes the owner of the nipa sheds by right of accession.
[2] In good faith, Pedro constructed a five-door commercial building on the land of Pablo who was also in good faith. When
Pablo discovered the construction, he opted to appropriate the building by paying Pedro the cost thereof. However, Pedro insists that he
should be paid the current market value of the building, which was much higher because of inflation.
[a] Who is correct, Pedro or Pablo?
Pablo is correct. Under Article 448 of the Civil Code, the owner of the land had the option to indemnify the builder of the useful
and necessary expenses or to pay the increase in value which the land may have acquired by reason of the improvement. Here, Pedro,
in good faith, built the five-door commercial building on the land of Pablo. Hence, the option to indemnify by refunding the useful expenses
or to pay the increase in value by virtue of such improvement lies on Pablo. It is the actual expenses incurred and not the current market
value of the building. On the other hand, Pedro had no right save the right to retain the property until being reimbursed of what he actually
expended for the 5-door commercial building.
[b] In the meantime that Pedro is not yet paid, who is entitled to the rentals of the building, Pedro or Pablo?
Pablo is entitled to the rentals of the building. Under the 445 of the Civil Code whatever is built, planted or sown on the land of
another and the improvements or repairs made thereon, belong to the owner of the land, subject to the provisions of the following articles.
Here, Pable has become the owner of the 5-door commercial building. Hence, he is entitled to the rentals thereof. However, Pedro who
has the right of retaining the building may keep the rentals and apply the proceeds as partial payment for the indemnity deducting
reasonable cost and maintenance while he has not yet fully paid.
DOCTRINE
The case of Pecson v. CA, 244 SCRA 407, is not applicable to the problem. In the Pecsoncase, the builder was the owner of
the land who later lost the property at a public sale due to non-payment of taxes. The Court ruled that Article 448 does not apply to the
case where the owner of the land is the builder but who later lost the land; not being applicable, the indemnity that should be paid to the
buyer must be the fair market value of the building and not just the cost of construction thereof. The Court opined in that case that to do
otherwise would unjustly enrich the new owner of the land.
Because of confusion as to the boundaries of the adjoining lots that they bought from the same subdivision company, X
constructed a house on the adjoining lot of Y in the honest belief that it is the land that he bought from the subdivision company.
[a] What are the respective rights of X and Y with respect to X’s house? with respect to X’s house?
X and Y are both presumed to be in good faith. Under Article 448 of the Civil Code, Y the owner of the land in good faith has the option
to appropriate the house as his own after payment of the indemnity provided for in Articles 546 and 548 of the same code or oblige the
X to pay the price of the land if its value is not considerably more than the value of the house. Otherwise, X shall pay reasonable rent.

PROPERTY

On the other hand, X has the right of retaining the property while not yet paid but may be subject to pay damages under Article 456 of
the same Code for failure to exercise due diligence in locating the proper metes and bounds of his property.
[b] Suppose X was in good faith but Y knew that X was constructing on his (Y’s) land but simply kept quiet about it, thinking
perhaps that he could get X’s house later. What are the respective rights of the parties over X’s house in this case?
Y is therefore in bad faith. Under Article 453 second paragraph, it is understood that there is bad faith on the part of the Page | 44
landowner whenever the act was done with his knowledge and without opposition on his part, and under the article 454 of the same code,
the provisions of Article 447 shall apply whenever the owner of the land acted in bad faith.
Here, Y knew about the construction on his land and he never opposed the act. In fact, he wanted to own the house when it
s finished. Hence, following the above mentioned articles, X has the right to demand the value of the house plus reparation for damages.
If X were also the owner of the materials, he may removed them in any event with a right to be indemnified for damages.
Bartolome constructed a chapel on the land of Eric. What are Bartolome’s rights if he were:
[1] A possessor of the land in good faith?
Assuming that Eric also acted in good faith, Bartolome has the right of retention while he has not been paid for the cost of the
useful expenses such as the cost of buiding the church in this case or the value of increase in the land by reason of the improvement
built thereon. Nevertheless, if Eric acted in bad faith, Bartolome, under Article 454 of the Civil Code, may demand the value of the church
plus reparation for damages, and if he were also the owner of the materials, he may remove them in any event with a right to be
indemnified for damages. In all cases, he has the right of retaining the property until fully paid.
[2] A possessor of the land in bad faith?
Assuming that Eric acted in good faith, Bartolome, under Art. 449 of the Civil Code loses whatever he built, without any right to indemnity.
And under articles 450, 451 and 452 of the same code, Eric may demolish the church at the expense of Bartolome or he may be compelled
to buy the land without any option to refuse to buy it. In both cases, Bartolome is liable to pay for damages. However, he has the right for
reimbursement for he necessary expenses of the preservation of the land.
If Eric were also in bad faith, under Art 453 of the same code, both of them shall be consdered in good faith and Article 448 shall be
applied.
A owns a parcel of residential land worth P500,000. Unknown to A, a residential house costing P100.000.00 is built on the
entire parcel by B who claims ownership of the land. Answer all the following questions based on the premise that B is a builder in good
faith and A is a landowner in good faith.
[1] May A acquire the house built by B? If so, how?
Yes, under Art 448 of the Civil Code, A may pay P100,000 to B for the actual expenses in building the house or by paying the
increase in value of the land by reason of that improvement.
[2] If the land increased in value to P500,000.00 by reason of the building of the house thereon, what amount should be paid
by A in order to acquire the house from B?
A has the option to pay only P100,000 which is the actual cost of the house. Under article 546 of the civil code, A has the
option of refunding the amount of the expenses or paying the increase in value which the land may have acquired by reason of the
improvement thereon. Here, A has the option to pay P100,000 or P500,000. Reasonably, he will choose to pay the lesser value.

PROPERTY

[3] Assuming that the cost of the house was P900,000.00 and not P100,000.00, may A require B to buy the land?
Yes. Under Article 448 of the Civil Code, the builder can be obliged to buy the land if the value of the land is not considerably
more than the value of the building. Here, the land is worth more than land. Hence, A may oblige B to buy the land.
[4] If B voluntarily buys the land as desired by A, under what circumstances may A nevertheless be entitled to have the house
removed? Page | 45
A may demand that the house be removed if B agreed to buy but failed to pay.
[5] In what situation may a “forced lease* arise between A and B, and what terms and conditions would govern the lease?
Article 448 of the Civil Code provides that the builder cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than
that of the building. In such case, he pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not to appropriate the building after proper
indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court fix the terms thereof. Here, if A
chose not to appropriate the building, B shall be to pay rent and enter into a force lease.
JURISPRUDENCE
OWNERSHIP OF THE SHARES INCLUDES THE DIVIDENDS AND INTERESTS ACCRUING THERETO
Cojuangco, et. al vs. Sandigandbayan, et.al, G.R. No. 183278, April 24, 2009
The shares are the principal, and dividends and interests are the accession.
The Court in directing the reconveyance to the Republic of the 111,415 shares owned by PTIC in the name of Prime, declared
the Republic as the owner of said shares and, necessarily, the dividends and interests accruing thereto were also included. Ownership
is a relation in law by virtue of which a thing pertaining to one person is completely subjected to his will in everything not prohibited by
law or the concurrence with the rights of another. Its traditional elements or attributes include just utendi or the right to receive from the
thing what it produces. Although the inclusion of the dividend and interests of the 111,415 PT1C shares as belonging to the Republic
was not mentioned in the Court’s, decision, it is clear from its body that what was being adjudicated in favor of the Republic was the
whole block of shares and the fruits thereof, said shares having been found to be part of the Marcos ill-gotten wealth, and therefore,
public money. It would be absurd to award the shares to the Republic as their owner and not include the dividends and interests accruing
thereto. An owner who cannot exercise the “juses” or attributes of ownership – the right to possess, to use and enjoy, to abuse or
consume, to accessories, to dispose or alienate, to recover or vindicate, and to the fruits – is a crippled owner. (Cojuangco, et. al vs.
Sandigandbayan, et.al, G.R. No. 183278, April 24, 2009)
THE RIGHT TO FENCE FLOWS FROM THE RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP
Aneco Realty and Development Corp. vs. Landex Development Corp., G.R. No, 165952, July 28, 2008
Article 430 of the Civil Code gives every owner the right to enclose or fence his land or tenement by means of walls, ditches,
hedges or any other means. The right to fence flows from the right of ownership. As owner of the land, YY Development, Inc., may fence,
his property subject only to the limitations and restrictions provided by law. Absent a clear legal and enforceable right, as here, no one
can interfere with the exercise of an essential attribute of ownership.
ACCION REINVINDICATORIA VS. ACCION PUBLICIANA
Hillario vs Salvador GR No. 160384, April 28, 2005
Differentiate action reinvindicatoria from action publiciana.

PROPERTY

An action reinvindicatoria is a suit which has for its object the recovery of possession over the real property as owner. It
involves recovery of ownership and possession based on the said ownership. On the other hand, an action publiciana is one for the
recovery of possession of the right to possess. It is also referred to as an ejectment suit filed after the expiration of one (1) year after
the occurrence of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty. (Hillario vs Salvador GR No. 160384,
April 28, 2005)
Article 487 of the Civil Code provides that any one of the co-owners may bring an action for ejectment The article covers all Page | 46
kinds of actions for the recovery of possession, including an action publiciana and a reimindicatory action. A co-owner may file suit without
necessarily joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all. Any judgment
of the court in favor of the plaintiff will benefit the other co-owners, but if the judgment is adverse, the same cannot prejudice the rights
of the unimpleaded co-owners. (Plasabas, et. al vs. Lumen, et. al, GR No. 166519, March 31, 1009)
ACCION REINVINDICATORIA IS NOT AN EJECTMENT CASE
Manalang, et vs. Bacani, GR No. 156995, January 12, 2015
Is a boundary dispute an ejectment case or an action reinvindicatoria?
Action reivindicatoria, not an ejectment case. The boundary dispute is not about possession, but encroachment, that is,
whether the property claimed by the defendant formed part of the plaintiffs property. A boundary dispute cannot be settled summarily
under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, the proceedings under which are limited to unlawful detainer and forcible entry. In unlawful detainer,
the defendant unlawfully withholds the possession of the premises upon the expiration or termination of his right to hold such possession
under any contract, express or implied. The defendant’s possession was lawful at the beginning, becoming unlawful only because of the
expiration or termination of his right of possession. In forcible entry, the possession of the defendant is illegal from the very beginning,
and the issue centers on which between the plaintiff and the defendant had the prior possession de facto. (Manalang, et vs. Bacani, GR
No. 156995, January 12, 2015)
THE PERSON WHO CLAIMS A BETTER RIGHT TO IT MUST PROVE TWO (2) THINGS: FIRST, THE IDENTITY OF THE LAND
CLAIMED; AND SECOND HIS TITLE THERETO
Del Fierro, ett, at vs. Seguiran, GR No. 152141, August 8, 2011
The requisites of reconveyance are provided for in Article 434 of the Civil Code, thus:
Art. 434. In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not
on the weakness of the defendant’s claim.
Article 434 of the Civil Code provides that to successfully maintain an action to recover the ownership of real property, the
person who claims a better right to it must prove two (2) things: first, the identity of the land claimed; and second his title thereto, In regard
to the first requisite, in an acrcon reinvindicatoria, the person who claims that he has a better right to the property must first fix the identity
of the land he is claiming by describing the location, area and boundaries thereof. Anent to the second requisite, i.e., the claimant’s title
over the disputed area, the rule is that a party can claim a right of ownership only over the parcel of land that was the object of the deed.
In this case, A, B, C, D failed to prove the identity of the parcels of land sought to be recovered and their iitlc thereto. A, B, C, D contend
that they are the owners of Lot, Nos. 1625 and 1626 by virtue of the decision of the Municipal Court in the ejectment case (forcible entry)
declaring them as the ones in possession of the property, which decision was affirmed on appeal. However, as stated by the trial court
and the Court of Appeals, the property involved in the ejectment case was Lot No. 1197, and it was never mentioned in the respective
decisions of the Municipal Court that the portion intruded upon was Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626. Moreover, A, B, C, D failed to adduce in
evidence the technical description of Lot No. 1197 and failed to prove that Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626 were part of or used to be part of Lot
No. 1197. (Del Fierro, ett, at vs. Seguiran, GR No. 152141, August 8, 2011)
[1] THE RIGTH OF THE OWNER OF THE LAND IS OLDER THEN THE RIGHT OF THE BUILDER, PLANTER OR SOWER
[2] THE ACCESSORIES FOLLOWS THE PRINCIPAL.

PROPERTY

Tuatis vs. Spouses Escol, et al, Gr. No. 175399, October 27,2009
What is the raison d’etre for Article 448 of the Civil Code?
The rule that the choice under Article 448 of the Civil Code belongs to the owner of the land is in accord with the principle of
accession, i.e., that the accessory follows the principal and not the other way around. Even as the option lies with the landowner, the
grant to him, nevertheless, is preclusive. The landowner cannot refuse to exercise either option and compel instead the owner of the Page | 47
building to remove it from the land. The raison d’etre for this provision has been enunciated thus: Where the builder, planter or sower has
acted in good faith, a conflict of rights arises between the owners, and it becomes necessary to protect the owner of the improvements
without causing injustice to the owner of the land. In view of the impracticability of creating a state of forced con-ownership, the law has
provided a just solution by giving the owner of the land the option to acquire the improvements after payment of the proper indemnity, or
to oblige the builder or planter to pay for the land and the sower the proper rent. He cannot refuse to exercise either option. It is the
Owner of the land who is authorized to exercise the option, because his right is older, and because, by the principle of accession, he is
entitled to the ownership of the accessory thing. (Tuatis vs. Spouses Escol, et al, Gr. No. 175399, October 27,2009)
Auction: the basis is the current market value of the useful expenses
Nuguid vs. CA., G.R. No. 151815, February 23, 2005
Under Article 448, the landowner is given the option, either to appropriate the improvement as his own upon payment of the
proper amount of indemnity or to sell the land to the possessor in good faith, Relatedly, Article 546 provides that a builder in good faith
is entitled to full reimbursement for all the necessary and useful expenses incurred; it also gives him right of retention until full
reimbursement is made. Since A and B opted to appropriate the improvement for themselves, despite the knowledge that the auction
sale did not include the apartment building, they could not benefit from the lot’s improvement, until they reimbursed the improver in full,
based on the current market value of the property. (Nuguid vs. CA., G.R. No. 151815, February 23, 2005) .
Kaya sa current market value ang basis ng value ng improvement is because the property is to be redeemed in an auction.
Otherwise, the basis in determining the value of the improvement is the actual expenses. Check on this.
THE CONDOMINIUM ACT IS CONTROLLING NOT ARTICLE 448 OF THE CIVIL CODE
Leviste Management System, Inc vs, Legaspi Towers 200, Inc.,et.al, G.R.NOS. 199353 &199389, April 4,2018
Is Art 448 applicable to the act done by a condominium unit owner?
No. Firstly, it is recognized in jurisprudence that, as a general rule, Article 448 on builders in good faith; does not apply where
there is a contractual relation between the parties. Moreover, in several cases, the Court has explained that the raison d’etre for Article
448 of the Civil Code is to prevent the practicability of creating a state of forced co-ovmership.
In the case at bar, however, the land belongs to a condominium corporation, wherein the builder, as a unit owner, is considered
a stockholder or member in accordance with Section 10 of the Condominium Act.
The builder is therefore already in a co-ownership with other unit owners as members or stockholders of the condominium
corporation, whose legal relationship is governed by a special law, the Condominium Act. It is a basic tenet in statutory construction that
between a general law and a special law, the special law prevails. The provisions of the Civil Code, a general law, should therefore give
way to the Condominium Act, a special law, with regard to properties recorded in accordance with Section 4 of said Act. Special laws
cover distinct situations, such as the necessary co-ownership between unit owners in condominiums and the need to preserve the
structural integrity of condominium buildings; and these special situations deserve, or practically, a separate set of rules.
Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code on builders in good faith are therefore inapplicable in cases covered by the Cdndominium
Act where the owner of the land and the builder are already bound by specific legislation on the subject property (the Condominium Act),
and by contract (the Master Deed and the By-Laws of the condominium corporation). The Court has ruled that upon acquisition of a
condominium unit, the purchaser not only affixes his conformity to the sale; he also binds himself to a contract with other unit owners.

PROPERTY

In accordance therefore with the Master Deed, the By-Laws of LT, and the Condominium Act, the relevant provisions of which
were already set forth above, X is correct that it has the right to demolish Concession 4 at the expense of Y. Indeed, the application of
Article 448 to the present situation is highly iniquitous, in that an owner, also found to be in good faith, will be forced to either appropriate
the illegal structure (and impliedly be burdened with the cost of its demolition) or to allow the continuance of such an illegal structure that
violates the law and the Master Deed, and threatens the structural integrity of the condominium building upon the .payment of rent.
WHILE TAX DECLARATIONS AND REALTY TAX PAYMENTS ON PROPERTY ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF Page | 48
OWNERSHIP, THEY ARE NEVERTHELESS GOOD INDICIA OF POSSESSION IN THE CONCEPT OF OWNER
Republic of the Philippines vs Ng, GR No. 182449, March 6, 2013
Are tax declarations and realty tax payments on property conclusive evidence of ownership?
While tax declarations and realty tax payments on property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they are nevertheless
good indicia of possession in the concept of owner, for no one in the right frame of mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not
in one’s actual or at least constructive possession. The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes is an
announcement of one’s claim against the State and all other interested parties. In fact these documents already constitute prima facie
evidence of possession (The Republic of the Philippines v. Santua, G.R. No. 155703, September 8, 2008). Moreover, if the holders of
the land present a deed of conveyance in their favor from its former owner to support their claim iof ownership, the declaration of
ownership and tax receipts relative to the property may be used prove their good faith in occupying and possessing it. Additionally, when
considered with actual possession of the property, tax receipts constitute evidence of great value in support of the claim of title of
ownership by prescription. (Republic of the Philippines vs Ng, GR No. 182449, March 6,2013)
QUIETING OF TITLE
State the nature of an action for quieting of title.
An action for quieting of title is essentially a common law remedy, grounded on equity. It is a common law remedy for the
removal of any cloud upon or doubt or uncertainty with respect to title to real property. In action for quieting of title, the competent court
is tasked to determine the respective rights of the complainant and other claimants, ‘x x x not only to place things in their proper place,
to make the one who has no rights to said immovable respect and not disturb the other, but also for the benefit of both, so that he who
has the right would see every cloud of doubt over the property dissipated, and he could afterwards without fear introduce the
improvements he mray desire, to use, and even to abuse the property as he deems best. (Calacala, et al, vs. Republic, et al, G.R.No.
154415, July 28, 2005)
Moreover, there are two requirements for an action to quiet title to prosper, (1) the plaintiff had a legal right 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 costing
doubt/cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.
In what instance an action for quieting of title becomes imprescriptible?
An action for quieting of title becomes imprescriptible in case where the person seeking relief is in possession of the disputed
property. A person in actual possession of apiece of land under claim of ownership may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title
is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right, and that his undisturbed possession gives him the continuing right to seek the laid
of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his life. (Rumarate vs.
Hernandez, G.R. No. 168222, April 18, 2006)
THE FILING OF AN ACTION TO QUIET TITLE IS IMPRESCRIPTIBLE IF THE DISPUTED REAL PROPERTY IS IN THE POSSESSION
OF THE PLAINTIFF
Syjuco vs. Republic of the Philippines, GR No. 148748, January 14, 2015

PROPERTY

The filing of an action to quiet title is imprescriptible if the disputed real property is in the possession of the plaintiff. One who
is in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to be owner thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked
before taking steps to vindicate his right.
Hence, the petitioners may rightfully institute the action to project their ownership over the subject land.
A LESSEE IS NEITHER A BUILDER IN GOOD FAITH NOR IN BAD FAITH THAT WOULD CALL FOR THE APPLICATION OF Page | 49
ARTICLES 448 AND 546 OF THE CIVIL CODE ON RULES ON ACCESSION
Sulo sa Nayon, Inc. et al vs. Nayong Puiplno Foundation, G.R. No. 170923, January 20,2009
Introduction of valuable-improvements on the leased premises does not give DEF Hotel the right of retention and
reimbursement which rightfully belongs to a builder in good faith. Otherwise, such a situation would allow the lessee to easily “improve”
the lessor out of its property. Moreover, a lessee is neither a builder in good faith nor in bad faith that would call for the application of
Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code on rules on accession. His rights are governed by Article 1678 of the Civil Code, which reads:
Art. 1678. If the lessee makes, in good faith, useful improvements which are suitable to the use for which the lease is intended,
without altering the form or substance of the property leased, the lessor upon the termination of the lease shall pay the lessee one-half
of the value of the improvements at that time. Should the lessor refuse to reimburse amount, the lessee may remove the improvements,
even though the principal thing may suffer damage thereby. He shall not, however, cause any more impairment upon the property leased
than is necessary.
` With regard to ornamental expenses, the lessee not be entitled to any reimbursement, but he may remove the ornamental
objects, provided no is caused to the principal thing, and the lessor does not choose to retain them by paying their at the time the lease
is extinguished.
Under Article 1678, the lessor has the option of paying one-half of the value of the improvements which the lessee made in
good faith, which are suitable for the use for which the lease is intended, and which have not altered the form and substance of the land.
On the other hand, the lessee may remove the improvements should the lessor refuse to reimburse. (Sulo sa Nayon, Inc. et al vs. Nayong
Puiplno Foundation, G.R. No. 170923, January 20,2009)
OPEN, CONTINUOUS AND NOTORIOUS POSSESSION
PELBEL Manufacturing, Corp. vs. Republic, GR No. 141174, July 31,2006
Define open, continuous and notorious possession.
Possession is open when it is visible and apparent to a common observer. Continuous possession consists of uninterrupted
acts of non-permissive –possession of property by the current occupants and their predecessors. To be notorious, possession must be
so conspicuous that it is generally known, and talked of by the public or at least by the people in the vicinity of the premises. Mere
possession of land and the making of vague assertions to the public that a possessor is claiming the land are not sufficient to satisfy the
requirement of open and notorious possession.
Those who occupy the land of another at the letter’s tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, are
necessarily bound by an implied promise that the occupants will vacate the property upon demand
Macasaet vs. Macasaet GR Nos. 154391-92
Those who occupy the land of another at the letter’s tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, are
necessarily bound by an implied promise that the occupants will vacate the property upon demand. A summary action for ejectment is
the proper remedy to enforce this implied obligation. The unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession is to be from the date of the
demand to vacate. Toleration is defined as “the or practice-of permitting or enduring something not wholly approved of.”

PROPERTY

The facts of the present case rule out the finding of possession by mere tolerance. X and Y were able to establish that A and
B had invited them to occupy the subject lots in order that they could all live near one other and help in resolving family problems. By
occupying those lots, X and Y demonstrated their acceptance of the invitation. Hence, there was a meeting of minds, and an agreement
regarding possession of the lots impliedly arose the parties. The occupancy of the subject lots by X and Y was not merely “something
not wholly approved of by A and B. Neither did it arise from what Tolentino refers to as “neighborliness or familiarity.“ In point of fact, their
possession was upon the invitation of and with the complete approval of A and B, who desired that their children would occupy the
premises. It arose from familial love and a desire for family solidarity, which are basic Filipino traits. Page | 50
ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN INDIRECT ATTACK ON VALIDITY OF TITLE
Hortizuela vs. Tagufa, GR No. 205867, February 23, 2015
In a complaint for reconveyance, the decree of registration is respected as incontrovertible and not being questioned. What is
being sought is the transfer of the property wrongfully or erroneously registered in another’s name to its rightful owner or to the one with
a better right. If the registration of the land is fraudulent, the person in whose name the land is registered holds it as a mere trustee, and
the real owner is entitled to file an action for reconveyance of the property.
THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS PREFERRED OVER THE TRANSFEREE UNDER AN UNREGISTERED DEED
OF SALE
Gina Endaya vs. Ernesto V. Villaos, G.R. No. 202426. January 27, 2016
In resolving the issue of possession in an ejectment case, the registered owner of the property is preferred over the the
transferee under an unregistered deed of sale. A Torren’s Certificate of Title is endefeasible andbinding upon the whole world unless and
until has been nullified by a court of competent jurisdiction. The registered owner had a right to the possession of the property, which is
one of the atributes of ownership.
ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE BASED ON A VOID CONTRACT DOES NOT PESCRIBE
Uy vs CA, GR No. 173186, September 16, 2015
An action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the rightful owner of land which has been wrongfully
or erroneously registered in the name of another for the purpose of compelling the latter to transfer or recover the land to him.
Here, X does not only seek to annul the sale but also to cancel to cancel the TCTs which is in the name of petitioner. If the
same is cancelled, the titles to the lots will revert back to X as the previously registered owner. No, action for reconveyance based on
void contracts does not prescribe.
Prescriptibility of actions for reconveyance applies when the action is based on fraud, or when the contract used as basis for
the action is voidable. When the action for reconveyance is based on a void contract, the action is imprescriptible.
X sought the declaration of the inexistence of the deed of sale because of the absence of their consent. Thus, following
provision of Article 1410 of the Civil Code, this kind of action is imprescriptible. The action for reconveyance is likewise imprescriptible
because the basis is the alleged void contract of sale.
A LESSEE CANNOT BE A BUILDER IN GOOD FAITH
Frederico Geminiano vs. CA (G.R. No. 120303, July 24, 1996
The Court held that lessees are not builders in good faith. They came into possession. of the lot by a contract of lease executed
by petitioner’s mother in their favor. They are estopped to deny their landlord’s title, or to assert a better title not only in themselves, but
also in some third person while they remain in possession of the leased premises and until they surrender possession to the landlord.
Estoppel applies even though the lessor had no title at the time. The relation of lessor and lessee was created and may be asserted not


Bld2020 Property

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bld2020 Property

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

From Nth BAR CHALLENGER TO ATTORNEY

ANG MGA MANUNULAT AY NAGSIKAP NA PABABAIN ANG HALAGA NG MATERYALES NA ITO

BAR LAW FOR DUMMIES 2020

BOOK THREE: DIFFERENT MODES OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP

2019 BQA PROPERTY...178

LAND TITLES AND DEEDS...188

HOW TO ANSWER BAR QUESTIONS?

Take for example the no.6 question in 2018 bar exams.

2018 BAR EXAMINATION

Can Santi successfully file legal action to require the demolition?

Can Santi successfully file legal action to require the demolition?

Can Santi successfully file legal action to require the demolition?

And because nagbasa ka ng BLD, your answer should be like this.

(only essential part of the applicable law)

(the application ofthe law to the facts)

2018 BAR EXAMINATION

Can Santi successfully file legal action to require the demolition?

Try to answer the question using the pattern.

LECTURE FOR FIRST YEAR STUDENTS AND BAR REVIEWEES

Ok, let us start.

So ayan in the nutshell ang property.

According to its nature, property may be either:

(1) Immovable or real property, or

According to its ownership, it may be either:

(1) Of public dominion; or

WHAT IS IMMOVABLE PROPERTY?

Art. 415. The following are immovable property:

WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT CLASSES OF IMMOVABLES?

NIDA – immovables by nature, incorporation, destination and analogy

Nature, madali na ito, self-explanatory.

ANO NAMAN KAYA ANG ITATANONG SA BAR EXAM O SA PROPERTY CLASS?

A’s contention is not correct for the following reasons:

ARE THIRD PERSON ALSWAYS IMMUNE FORM VOID CONTRACTS?

WHAT IS MOVABLE PROPERTY

Art. 416. The following things are deemed to be personal property:

The following are also considered personal property:

[1] If its not included in Article 415 (immovable property), it is immovable.

[2] Real property as movable by special provion of law.

[3] Gasoline, oxygen, helium – yan binebenta per kilo.

[4] self explanatory

[6] Shares of stock – it means ownership in a company.

IS THE STEAMSHIP PRESIDENT CLEVELAND PERSONAL OR REAL PROPERTY?

HOW DO YOU CLASSIFY MOVABLE PROPERTY ACCORDING TO ITS NATURE?

a] Is the platform movable or immovable property?

b] Are the equipment and living quarters movable immovable property?

c] Are the trees, plants and flowers immovable or movable property?

1997 BAR EXAMINATION

If consulted, what would your legal advice be?

1995 BAR EXAMINATION

Are power barges immovable properties?

WHAT ARE THE PROPERTIES OF PUBLIC DOMINION?

MINING PATENTS ARE VESTED RIGHTS THAT CANNOT BE IMPAIRED

PROPERTY IN RELATION TO THE PERSON TO WHOM IT BELONGS

Property is either of public dominion or of private ownership.

WHAT IS MEANT BY PROPERTY OF PUBLIC DOMINION?

Following things are property of public dominion:

Property of public dominion are outside of the commerce of man.

(1) They cannot be appropriated;

WHAT IS LAND OF PUBLIC DOMAIN (PUBLIC LANDS)?

HOW ARE LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN CLASSIFIED?

Lands of the public domain are classified into:

(2) forest or timber;

(3) mineral lands; and

(4) national parks. (Art, XIV, Sec. 10, Philippine Constitution)