26:45-53:30: Rach

Atty: ...that’s under Article 718 that there must be an owner; you would know there's an owner, a car,
it’s just left on the sidewalk. There must be an owner of that but he’s unknown. Or, for example, a
jewelry which is found in a certain place. A jewelry just does not grow up; somebody must have made
it. And, if it’s unknown, then 718 shows the procedure; when that procedure is involved; you cannot
find the owner, you must submit it to the mayor. It’s lost; totally.

Unless the mayor is an honest person, then the procedure there is that there will be a publication etc.
and if the owner does not appear, then the object is given to the finder. If the owner appears and
claims the thing, then he must give a reward to the finder which is usually 10%. But Article 718 is not
usually found on moral grounds. Why?

A: Maybe, sir, because once people see something, they would just keep it to themselves and it’s not
really a practice to turn it over to the mayor.

Atty: But you will be a graduate of ateneo! So?

A: But sir if I found, maybe, a piece of jewelry I would follow the law for good moral character.

Atty: Follow Article 718? Look for the mayor and give it to the mayor?

A: Yes

Atty: What happens then?

A: I would feel good about myself that I followed the law.

Atty: So what is important here actually, number one, the occupation. I think I assigned a case. Did I
assign a case for this one? I think it is, Domalsin v. Valenciano. Let's hear that case.

Domalsin v. Valenciano

A: This concerns a land in Tuba, Benguet. So, Domalsin was a lawyer-businessman and that he claimed
he was in continuous adverse possession of that property; and that he has been in the concept of owner
for almost 20 years of that property. Domalsin alleged that the Valenciano spouses entered the
premises to construct a building that was made of strong materials and that was made without his
authority and consent. They made use of force and strategy, and without a building permit from DPWH.

Spouses Valenciano denied this and claimed that the ongoing construction was consented by DPWH
while the improvements were introduced by the residents thereof including its first residents.

Atty: Anyway, this is not exactly on the mode of acquisition by occupation because this concerns the
land and, as we said before, land is not something you can acquire by the mode of occupation that is
from a lease (etc.?) 31:50

Because there is an owner of any land, and if it’s not owned by a particular person or corporation, it’s
owned by the state originally. There was a problem here because what was the land really? Was it
private land or what?

A: It was government land.

Atty: Yes, it was government land and so the two parties who claimed to have their respective claim to
the property were actually quarrelling over a government land. Did they have lawyers?

A: I think they didn’t sir.

Atty: They must have lawyers, because this reached the Court. And what do you think of those lawyers?
A: In a way, sir, I think they are already aware of the outcome but they didn’t advise their clients
properly because they knew they could make money out of it.

Atty: That could’ve been. But the thing is that, as a lawyer, when you’re asked to handle a case, you
must study very well. When it’s offered to you, you say, “I will study this.” And you really study
seriously for the purpose of...and if you feel like you can win it, then that’s it, you handle the case.
But, ok...continue.

A: In this case…

Atty: First of all, what was the issue in this case?

A: Who was the rightful owner? Because it was said that… they didn’t know that the property could not
be appropriated, sir.

Atty: They couldn’t own the property by mere occupation? Ok go ahead.

A; Yes sir, because, at first sir, the fact that the parties do not and cannot own the property under
litigation does not mean that the issue to be resolved is no longer a priority of possession. One factor
to consider when determining who is entitled to possession will be prior physical possession and not
actual physical possession. Since there is no forcible entry, as what the petitioner first alleged…

Atty: Let’s call another one. You must fight for our gender, ok? (wut).

A: I think the issue is whether or not Domalsin abandoned the property. First of, as mentioned a while
ago, the property is public domain, and thus the Court held that the parties do not and cannot own
said property.

However, this does not mean that the issue to be resolved is no longer for priority of possession. The
determining factor for one to be entitled to possession would be prior physical possession and not
actual possession. So going back to the issue, the Court held that Domalsin never abandoned the
property because, in the case, his opposition of the construction of the respondents’ house, upon
learning of the said construction and the subsequent filing of the case, are clear indications of non-
abandonment. Otherwise, Domalsin would’ve just allowed the construction to be pursued and
moreover the fact that the house, that Domalsin built, was destroyed by the earthquake in 1990 was
never rebuilt nor repaired, and that the same was allegedly leveled by one Gloria Banuca does not
signify abandonment.

Although his house was damaged by the said earthquake, Banuca, the person who demolished his
house, had no right to the same. And her act of removing, by Banuca, of the house and depriving
Domalsin of his possession of the land was an act of forcible entry. Consequently, the entry of the
respondents into the land of Domalsin was an act of forcible entry.

Atty: Who really owned the land?

A: The state.

Atty: The State, not Domalsin? You have been talking about Domalsin as if he were an owner.

A: The State owned the land, but what was discussed only was the prior possession of Domalsin.

Atty: So it was just possession that was involved in that case? Even if you…

A: Yes.

Atty: But was the land already declared alienable and disposable… nevermind that is for land, titles…
If for example, that was declared alienable and disposable, and Domalsin was occupying it, then he had
already a right to that land although it has not been perfected because he has to occupy that land,
possess it with a required number of years under the law, and only then, can the land be considered as
private land already owned by Domalsin. So any questions on this particular case? Although I have to
admit it’s not exactly on the concept of occupation as an original owner.

A: Sir I have a question. Sir, you said a while ago that the land, in this case, was declared alienable,
then could Domalsin just register the land then he would already own it?

Atty: No, the thing is that… First of all, you have that phase all about the occupation of the land;
occupation and possession of the land. If declared already alienable and disposable, the law requires a
number of years for the occupation. And then, after the number of years - it’s 30 years - the land is, by
law, converted into a private land. He is the owner already. But we have also that thing of registration
of title, and he can apply for registration of title over the land- that’s land titling - and if the title is
really issued to him by way of judicial registration, then he becomes a registered owner of a land
which is covered by a title, then he cannot lose his ownership by way of prescription. Even if somebody
takes over the land, no matter how long, the title still belongs to the registered owner; to him.

Have you taken up land-title by the way? You have not? That is the way here. Some people would,
whatever budget you have, have their land registered in their name through judicial proceedings and
have it covered by an original certificate of title, they can lose ownership of that land because it’s
unregistered. If, for example, they leave that land then somebody else occupies it by way of
acquisitive prescription, then that somebody can be the owner.

A: Sir, can I just clarify? So, in this case, for example, the government declared that it would be
alienable, Domalsin would only be able to register only after 30 years?

Atty: For?

A: Example lang, the property here, which is public domain, was declared alienable, so does that mean
that Domalcin could only register after 30 years from the time that the government declared it to be
alienable?

Atty: That was the jurisprudence before. You have to possess it or occupy it for 30 years after the
declaration of alienable and disposable. That was the jurisprudence before. Now, that has been
liberalized. Meaning that, so long as you have occupied it for a sufficient number of years, like 30
years, even if it’s not yet alienable and disposable, your occupation before that will be counted. And
then, so long as when you file an action for registration of title the land is already alienable and
disposable, even if the declaration is only for, let’s say 2 years, 5 years etc, So long as at the time that
you filed an application for registration, it’s already alienable and disposable, then that is correct.
That is right. You can acquire ownership over that land. Unlike before, you occupied it, it’s not yet
alienable and disposable, that doesn’t count. It’s only at the point that it is accrued. But, that
jurisprudence is not followed anymore now.

So, when you are a lawyer, your parents may have land which is not yet registered or you have a client
who owns land which is not registered but they own it? What must you advise your parents or that
client of yours?

A: To have the land registered.

Atty: And can you do it? If you just passed the bar. Yes, you can do it of course. You won’t finish a law
course unless you studied land titling, and therefore, you should know that one. And if your parents ask
you, “Will you charge that? After we sent you through the college of law?”

A: No, sir. For free.

Atty: “I will do it. Papa and Mama, because of my deep love and affection for you for sending me to
the college of law.” That’s a good one.

So, I was wondering if we could take up discovery as a mode of acquisition. And that is under Article
438. I did not discuss it in the notes. Let’s go over the articles.

Article 438, hidden treasure belongs to the owner of the land, building, or 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.

½ to the owner of the land, where it was discovered, and, ½ to the finder, who found it by chance.

Article 438... 439: 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.

Notice here that “the lawful ownership of which does not appear,” If you find a wallet full of 1000-
peso bills, is that treasure?

A: No.

Atty: Why not?

A: Because, obviously, the wallet is owned by someone else. So, the owner is apparent.

Atty: Yes, and usually it has the calling card or the name of the owner, and, therefore, it cannot be
considered as treasure. Even if you consider yourself very lucky for finding a treasure, no it’s not really
treasure. It’s supposed to be that “the lawful ownership of which does not appear.”

Several years ago, I think it was about 3 decades ago, there was a craze in the Philippines for treasure
hunting. So much so, that Malacanang, at that time, promulgated an order regulating treasure hunting
and some of them had these crazy ideas. One treasure hunter I met, he was really very serious, and he
said, first of all, he consulted an ananda marga - it’s somebody who wears orange - and that ananda
marga pointed to him, a place where the treasure is buried. So, he started digging into that place and
has several helpers. He found nothing! So, he went to the medium, the ananda marga, and said, “There
was no treasure there, what happened?!” and the andandamarga said, “I think you offended him, the
spirit guarding that treasure. Perhaps you were digging the wrong way or you did not pray first; you did
not kneel first. And so, the spirit protecting the treasure got mad and carried the treasure and
transferred it to another place.” So that was how they did that...and they were, sometimes, digging in
the cemetery and so forth.

But there is no such thing as buried treasure here. Why do you think we have provisions in the New
Civil Code about treasure? Because there are really treasures, but not the one you’re thinking of;
usually not the one you’re thinking of. These are usually Pre-Spanish gold which are buried, and there
have been instances where they were discovered. One of the very famous ones, was an employee of
the DPWH and he was operating a bulldozer somewhere in Samar or Leyte. And he was alone in that
particular spot where he was operating his bulldozer, and his bulldozer hit the entrance to a small
cave, and there he found Pre-Spanish artifacts, most of them made of precious metals like gold, silver
etc. and those objects, where are they now? They are located at the Central Bank of the Philippines.
There is a room where those are kept as treasures and so on and so forth; these were Pre-Spanish gold.
But not places like Yamashita gold or even the Buddhist, Golden Buddha and everything...there are no
such things.
You want to have treasure, what do you do? You don’t dream about it, you work for it and that’s the
time you become rich.

A: Can I ask a quick question regarding sa anandamarga, is there a law that prohibits those? Because I
think there are still some who are...meron parin mga ganun right now especially in the provinces, yung
parang spirit…

Atty: What’s the question?

A: Is there a law that prohibits those kinds of people?

Atty: Right now, I know the rules now is that you have to get a permit from Malacanang in order to go
hunting….