PROPERTY MIDTERM NOTES COMPILATION
note: I compiled this in the order provided by our syllabus, and
included notes from previous batches as well for reference. I’ve
indicated those which are from the previous batches, so prioritize
those from our notes (unless there’s none). Use with codal. J
Good luck!
EASEMENTS/SERVITUDES
• A right in the owner of one parcel of land, by reason of such
ownership, to use the land of another for a special purpose
not inconsistent with a general property in the owner
• A privilege which the owner of one adjacent tenement has of
another, existing in respect of their several tenement, by
which first owner against whose tenement the privilege exists
is obliged to suffer or not to do something on or in regard to
his own land for the advantage of him in whose land the
privilege exists.
• Although the terms are sometimes used as if convertible,
properly speaking easement refers to the right enjoyed by
one and servitude the burden imposed upon the other.
• In the civil law, the land against which the privilege exists is
called the servient tenement; its proprietor, the servient
owner' he in whose favor it exists, the dominant owner; his
land, the dominant tenement. And, as these rights are not
personal and do not change with the persons who may own
the respective estates, it is very common to personify the
estates as themselves owning or enjoying the easements.
• The distinction between an ordinary easement and an
easement in gross is that in the former there is and in the
latter there is not a dominant tenement [easement in gross...
not connected with a dominant tenement]
• Easements in gross are personal, are not assignable, and will
not pass by a deed of conveyance. They are not inheritable.
• Easements are also classified as continuous and
discontinuous. The distinction between them being:
• Continuous are those of which the enjoyment is, or may be
continual, without the necessity of any actual interference by
them.
Compiled by Talisa Dela Rosa. From the transcribed notes of 2E 2022 and upper batches’ transcribed Robles notes
• Discontinuous are those, the enjoyment of which can be had
only by the interference of man.
• By the common law, easements may be temporary; by the
civil law, the cause must be perpetual. They impose no duty
on the servient owner, except not to change the treatment to
the prejudice or destruction of the privilege.
• Easements are as various as the exigencies of domestic
convenience or the purpose to which buildings and lands may
be applied.
• All easements must originate in a grant or agreement,
express or implied, of the owner of the servient tenement;
• Easements are extinguished: by release; by merger, when
the two tenements in respect of which they exist are united
under the same title and to the same person; by necessity, or
abandonment, as by a license to the servient owner to do
some act inconsistent with its existence; by cessation of
enjoyment, when required by prescription -- the non-user
being evidence of a release where the abandonment has
continued at least as long as the user from which the right
arose. An easement acquired by grant cannot be lost by mere
non-uses, though it may be by non-user coupled with an
intention of abandonment.
• The destruction of an easement of a private right of any for
public purposes is a taking of the property of the dominant
owner for which he must be compensated.
• An easement in favor of land held in common will be
extinguished by a partition, if nothing is said about it
• The remedy of common law for interference with a right of
easement is an action of trespass, or where it is for
consequential damages and for an act not done on plaintiff’s
own land
• Redress nay also, as a general proposition, be obtained
through a court of equity, for the improvement of an easement
and an injunction will be granted to prevent the same
• An interest in land created by grant or agreement, express or
implied, which confers a right upon the owner thereof to some
profit, benefit, dominion, or lawful use out of air over the
estate of another.
• Easements are incorporeal
1
• They are imposed on corporeal property
• They confer no right to a participation in the profits arising
from it;
• They must be imposed for the benefits of the corporeal or
incur real hereditaments, and there are usually imposed for
the benefit of corporeal;
• There must be two distinct tenements—the dominant to
which the right belongs; and the servient, upon which the
obligation is imposed; and
• By the civil law it is also required that the cause must be
perpetual.
• Easements in gross are personal, are not assignable, and will
not pass by a deed of conveyance. They are not inheritable.
• A way is never presumed to be in gross when it can be
construed to be appurtenant to the land.
• Easements are also classified as continuous and
discontinuous, the distinction between them being ...
“continuous are those of which the enjoyment is, or may be,
continual, without the necessity of any actual interference by
man. Discontinuous are those, the enjoyment of which can
be had only by the interference of man, as rights of way, or a
right to draw water."
• There must be two tenements owned by distinct proprietors:
the dominant, to which the privilege is attached; the servient,
upon which it is imposed.
• Easements confer no right to any profits arising from the
servient tenement: they are incorporeal; like other incorporeal
hereditaments, they have been held not to pass without a
grant. They are distinguished from other incorporeal
hereditaments by the absence of all right to participate in the
profits of the soil charged with them.
• By the common law, they may be temporary. By the civil law,
the cause must be perpetual. They impose no duty on the
servirnt owner, except not to change the tenement to the
prejudice or destruction of the privilege.
Compiled by Talisa Dela Rosa. From the transcribed notes of 2E 2022 and upper batches’ transcribed Robles notes
• Easements are as various as the exigencies of domestic
convenience or the purposes to which buildings and lands
may be applied.
• The right to maintain a building or other permanent structure
upon the land of another cannot be acquired by custom.
• An easement of private way over land must have a particular,
definite line. To establish an easement of a private way by
prescription, the use must be continuous and uninterrupted
under a bona fide claim of right adverse to the owner of the
land and with his knowledge and silence. If the use is by his
permission, or if he denies the right, the title does not accrue.
Verbal protests against the use prevent its accruing.
• All easements must originate in a grant or agreement,
express or implied, of the owner of the servient tenement. The
evidence of their existence, by the common law, may be proof
of the agreement itself, or by prescription, requiring an
uninterrupted enjoyment immemorially, or for upwards of 20
years, to the extent of the easement claimed, from which a
grant is implied. A negative easement does not admit of
possession. By the civil law, it cannot be acquired by
prescription, and can only be proved by grant. Use, therefore,
is not essential to its existence.
• Easements are extinguished:
o By release
o By merger
o When the two tenements in respect of which they
exist are united under the same title and to the same
person
o By necessity or abandonment, as by a license to the
servient owner to do some act inconsistent with its
existence
o By cessation of enjoyment, when acquired by
prescription — the non-use being evidence of a
release where the abandonment has continued as
long as the use from which the right arose
• An easement acquired by grant cannot be lost by mere non-
use, though it may be by non-use coupled with an intention
of abandonment.
2
 • The destruction of an easement of a private right of way for
public purposes is a taking of the property of the dominant
owner for which he must be compensated.
• One cannot acquire a prescriptive right over his own lands or
the lands of another which he occupied as tenant.
• An easement in favor of land held in common will be
extinguished by a partition, if nothing is said about it.
• The remedy at common law for interference with a right of
easement is an action for trespass, or for consequential
damages for an act not done on plaintiff’s own land.
Servitude
• The subjection of one person to another person, or of a person
to a thing, or of a (unreadable), to a person, or of a thing to a
thing
• A right which subjects a land or tenament to some service for
the use of another land or tenament which belong to another
master
• A real or praedial servitude is a charge laid on an estate for
the use and utility of another estate belonging to another
proprietor
• Rural servitudes are those which are due by an estate to
another estate, such as the right of passage over the serving
estate, or that which owes (?) the servitude, or to draw water
from it, or to water cattle there...
• Urban servitudes are those which are established over a
building for the convenience of another, such as the right of
resting the joists in the wall of the serving building, of opening
windows which overlook the serving estate and the like
• All servitudes are stereotyped and cannot be varied at the
pleasure of parties
• A mixed servitude is the subjection of persons to things, or
things to persons.
• A natural servitude is one which arises in consequence of the
natural condition or situation of the soil.
• A personal servitude is the subjection of one person to
another. When the subjection of one person to another is not
slavery, it consists simply in the right of requiring of another
Compiled by Talisa Dela Rosa. From the transcribed notes of 2E 2022 and upper batches’ transcribed Robles notes
what he is bound to do or not to do — this right arises from all
kinds of contracts or quasi-contracts.
• In common law, the use of the word servitude is as a
correlative of easement — where one person has an
easement which creates a burden upon the property of
another, the latter is said to be burdened with a servitude. All
servitudes are stereotyped and cannot be varied at the
pleasure of parties.
~
ANCIENT LIGHTS:
• Windows on openings which have remained in the same place
and condition twenty years or more
• A right to unobstructed light and air through such openings is
secured by mere user for that length of time under the same
title
• One is entitled to as much light as his building may ordinarily
require for habitation or business
• To constitute actionable deprivation of light, it is not enough
that there be less light than before; there must be a substantial
deprivation of light, enough to render occupation
uncomfortable according to notions of mankind
• There is no right of action merely because there was less light
then formerly, but only where material inconvenience was
caused in ordinary occupation
• This obstruction of ancient light used to be a question of
nuisance or no nuisance. The test now is, not how much light
has been taken, and whether that is enough materially to
lessen the enjoyment and use of the house which the owner
previously had, but how much light is left, and whether that is
enough for the comfortable use and enjoyment of the house
according to the ordinary requirements of mankind
• One who claims that the land adjoining his shall remain
uninmproved should show an express grant or covenant.
There can be no such easement by implication over adjoining
unimproved land of the grantor. But it has been held that a
grantee of land has an easement of light by implied grant over
the adjoining unimproved land by his grantor.
3
 • As between landlord and tenant, it is held that a lease of a
tenement carries with it an implied grant of the right to light
and air from the adjoining land of the landlord where the
situation and habitual use of the demised tenement are such
that the right is essential to its beneficial enjoyment
AQUA
• It is a rule that water belongs to the land which it covers when
it is stationary
• But the owner of running water cannot obstruct the flow to the
injury of property below him
AQUAE DUCTUS
• A servitude which consists in the right to carry water by means
of conduits over or through the estate of another
AQUAE HUCTUS
• A servitude which consists in the right to draw water from the
fountain, pond, or spring of another
AQUAE IMMITENDAE
• The right which the owner of a house, built in such a manner
as to be surrounded with other buildings, so that it has no
outlet for its water, had to cast water out of his residence on
his neighbor’s roof court, or soil. It is recognized in this
common law as an easement of drip.
RIGHT OF WAY
• Actual knowledge of right of way is as binding as registration
• Servitude of right of way created by contract cannot be
extinguished unilaterally; it may be extinguished by rescission
of the contract or by renunciation of the owner of the dominant
estate.
• The existence of an outlet to a public highway does not
preclude the granting of the easement of right of way, since
what the law requires
• is an adequate outlet.
Compiled by Talisa Dela Rosa. From the transcribed notes of 2E 2022 and upper batches’ transcribed Robles notes
• Owner of servient estate is not entitled to any indemnity (Art.
652, NCC).
• The easement or right of way may not be acquired through
prescription.
• Right of way is not voluntary but compulsory.
• Right of dominant proprietor to demand right of way is not
absolute.
• A servitude or easement of right of way may or may not be
apparent.
• It is apparent in case there is a road or pathway showing its
exercise. It is non-apparent in case there is no such apparent
sign for its exercise.
• A presumption of a way resting in grant will not be created by
the fact that it is not continuously used by the dominant owner.
• A servitude or easement of right of way even in case it is
apparent cannot be acquired by acquisitive prescription
because it is discontinuous, for the reason that it is not
possible for man to be incessantly passing over the right of
way. The classification of easements (in ART. 615) into
continuous and discontinuous refers to the exercise of the
easement, not to the right itself, for the right once created or
established is continuous. It is the exercise of the right which
may or may not be continuous when it depends upon the
intervention of the acts of man.
• A voluntary servitude of right of way cannot be extinguished
except by voluntary rescission of contract establishing the
servitude or by renunciation by the owner of the dominant
estate. The provisions of the Civil Code on the legal servitude
of right of way, particularly art. 655, are not applicable to a
voluntary servitude of right of way.
• A party seeking the establishment of a compulsory right of
way under the provisions of art. 649 (NCC) must show to the
court the pre-conditions for its grant, namely...
o a.) that it is surrounded by other immovables and has
no adequate outlet to a public highway;
o b.) after the payment of the proper indemnity;
o c.) that the isolation is not the result of the proprietor’s
own act;
4
 o d.) that the right of way is at the point least prejudicial
to the servient estate, and, where the distance from
the dominant estate to a public highway may be the
shortest.
o e.) The burden of proof to show the existence of these
pre- conditions rests upon the shoulder of the party
seeking the right of way.
• A presumption of a way resting in grant will not be created by
the fact that it is not continuously used by the dominant owner.
Heading in the notes: “Way”
• A right of way is the privilege which an individual or a particular
description of individuals, as the inhabitants of a village or the
owners or occupiers of certain farms, have of going over
another’s ground. It is an incorporeal hereditament of a real
nature, entirely different from a common highway.
• A right to pass over another’s land more or less frequently
according to the nature of the use to be made of the
easement, and how frequently is immaterial, provided it
occurred as often as the claimant had occasion or chose to
pass.
• A right of way may arise:
o by prescription and immemorial usage or by an
uninterrupted enjoyment for 20 years under a claim of
right;
o by grant, as when the owner grants to another the
liberty of passing over his land. If the grant be of a
freehold right it must be by deed;
o by necessity, as where a man purchased land
accessible only over land of the vendor, or sells,
reserving land accessible only over land of the
vendee, he shall have a way of necessity over the
land which gives access to his purchase or
reservation, and this may exist even after the vendor
has conveyed his land to a third person;
o by implication [ see Rightsell vs. Hale, 18 S.W. 245];
o by reservation expressly made in the grant of the land
over which it is claimed;
Compiled by Talisa Dela Rosa. From the transcribed notes of 2E 2022 and upper batches’ transcribed Robles notes
o by custom as where navigation have a right of their
nature to tow along the banks of navigable rivers with
horses;
o by acts of legislature, through a private way cannot be
so laid out without the consent of the owner of the land
over which it is to pass.
• A right of way may be either a right in gross, which is a purely
personal right incommunicable to another, or a right
appendant or annexed to an estate, and which may pass by
assignment with the estate to which it is appurtenant.
• A right of way appurtenant to land is appurtenant to all and
every part of the land, and if such land be divided and
conveyed in separate parcels, a right of way thereby passes
to each of the grantees. A way is never presumed to be in
gross when it can be construed to be appurtenant to land.
• Ways may be abandoned by agreement; by evident intention,
or by long non-user. Twenty years occupation of land adverse
to a right of way and inconsistent therewith bars the right.
Where a way of necessity once existed it will be presumed to
exist until some fact is shown establishing its non-existence.
• A person cannot acquire a prescriptive right of way over his
own lands, or the lands of another which he occupies as
tenant; and where one has uninterruptedly used a way over
his own lands, or the lands of another’s land for the necessary
length of time to establish an easement by adverse user, it will
be presumed that the user was adverse, and under a claim of
title, and the burden is on one claiming that it was by virtue of
a license to prove that fact.
• The owner of a right of way may disturb the soil to pave and
repair it. But a way granted for one purpose cannot be used
for another.
• A person having a right of way which is obstructed by a house
erected upon the way may, after notice and request to move
it, pull it down although it is actually inhabited.
5
PARTY WALL
• A wall erected on the line between two adjoining pieces of
land belonging to different persons, for the use of both
properties.
• A structure for the common benefit and convenience of both
the tenements which it separates.
• It ordinarily means a wall of which the two adjoining owners
are tenants in common. It does not as a matter of law
necessarily imply a solid structure.
• It is a wall built by one owner partly on the land of another for
the common benefit of both. The adjoining owners are not joint
tenants or tenants in common of the party wall. Each is
possessed in severally of his own soil up to the dividing line,
and of that portion of the wall which rests upon it; soil of each,
with the wall belonging to him, is burdened with an easement
or servitude in favor of the other, to the end that it may afford
a support to the wall and buildings of such other.
• Every wall and separation between the two buildings is
presumed to be a common or party wall if the contrary be not
shown.
• A party wall must be built without openings. A party wall can
only be built for mutual support; painting a sign on it is
unlawful. The principle of party walls is based upon mutual
benefit, and does not extend to the interior of the lots where
the adjoining owner cannot be (permitted ?) to build.
• Four (4) different senses of party-walls:
o A wall of which the two adjoining owners are tenants
in common
o A wall divided longitudinally into two strips, one
belonging to each of the neighboring owners
o A wall which belongs entirely to one of the adjoining
rooms, but is subject to an easement or right in the
other to have it maintained as a dividing wall between
the two tenements;
o A wall divided longitudinally into two moieties, each
moiety being subject to a cross-easement in in favor
of the owner of the other moiety.
Compiled by Talisa Dela Rosa. From the transcribed notes of 2E 2022 and upper batches’ transcribed Robles notes
• Party-walls are generally regulated by statute. The principles
of these acts generally are that the wall shall be built equally
on the lands of the adjoining owners, at their joint expense,
but when only one owner wishes to make use of it pays one-
half of its value. Each owner has a right to place his joists in it
and use it for the support of his roof.
The law of party-wall is based on the doctrine of lateral
support and is statutory extension of the principle to buildings.
An owner of a party-wall cannot extend the beams of his
building beyond the middle of the wall.
• When the party-wall has been built, and the adjoining owner
is
• desirous of having a deeper foundation, he has a right to
undermine such wall, using due care and diligence to prevent
any injury to his neighbor; and, having done so, he is not
answerable for any consequential damages which may
ensue.
• An adjoining owner of a party-wall has a right to increase its
height, but in doing so is liable for any injury to the adjoining
building, even though the addition is being built by a contractor
and the damages result from a wordstorm which causes the
wall to fall.
• When such a wall exists between two buildings, belonging to
different persons, and one of them takes it down with his
buildings, he is required to erect another in its place in a
reasonable time and with the least inconvenience; the owner
must contribute to the expense, if the wall required repairs,
but such expense will be limited to the costs of the old wall.
• When the wall is taken down, it must be done with care, but it
is not the duty of the person taking it down to shore up or prop
the house of his neighbor to prevent it from falling. If, however,
the work be done with negligence, by which injury accrues to
the neighboring house, an action will lie.
• The right to use a party-wall is not lost by lapse of time, It can
be acquired by prescription after a sufficient period.
• Where one built a party-wall, which was defective and fell over
injuring she adjourning premises, he was held liable to the
owner of the premises. Where a building having a party-wall
is destroyed by fire, leaving the wall standing, the easement
6
 in the wall ceases; and so where the wall becomes unfit either
from age or accident.
• An agreement between adjoining owners in relation ot a party-
wall erected on the division lines of their lots is binding on the
parties and those who purchase subject to such agreement,
and creates cross easements upon the lots. It creates a
covenant running (?) with the land.
• A property owner who utilizes a party-wall erected by the
owner of adjoining property must pay a reasonable price for
such use, either to the one who erected it or to his grantee,
although no agreement was made a the time the wall was
erected, and the one making use of the wall may have
acquired his title to the property after the wall was in existence.
LATERAL AND SUBJACENT SUPPORT
• The right of having one’s land and the structure erected
thereon supported by the land of a neighboring
proprietor. Each of two adjoining land-owners is entitled to the
support of the other’s land. The right of lateral support exists
only with respect to the soil in its natural condition; and it is an
incident to the land in that condition.
• If any excavation cause damage whilst the soil remains in this
condition, an action will lie, but in the absence of negligence
in excavating, or prescription, or grant, in favor of the
neighbor, no action will lie for injury occasioned to the latter if
he has increased the lateral pressure by building on the land.
• A land-owner has a right to assume that the soil will be
permitted to remain in its natural state, and for a violation of
this right, an action will lie independently of the questions of
negligence. A person’s right to the support of the land
immediately around his house is not so much an easement,
as it has been called, as it is the ordinary right of enjoyment of
property.
• This right of a land-woner to support his land against that of
the adjacent owner does not extend to the support by any
additional weight or structure that he may place thereon. If,
therefore, a man erect a house upon his own land, so near the
boundary line thereof as to be injured by the owner by
Compiled by Talisa Dela Rosa. From the transcribed notes of 2E 2022 and upper batches’ transcribed Robles notes
excavating his land in a proper manner, and so as not to have
caused the soil of the adjacent parcel to fall if it had not been
loaded with an additional weight, it would be “damnum abegue
injuria...” a loss for which the person so excavating would not
be responsible in damages.
• The unquestionable right of a land-owner to remove the earth
from his own premises adjacent to another’s building, is
subject to the qualification that he shall use ordinary care to
cause no unnecessary damage to his neighbour’s property in
so doing. In exercising his rights over his land, the owner is
bound to use ordinary care and skill for the purpose of
avoiding injury to his neighbour. Thus, while as a general rule,
he’s not bound to continue the support his land gives to a
structure upon or other artificial arrangement of adjoining land
and is therefore not liable to the natural consequences of his
withdrawing this support, yet in doing so, he must act with
such care and caution that (as nearly as by reasonable
exertion it is possible to secure such a result) his neighbour
shall suffer no more injury than would have accrued if the
structure had been put where it is without ever having had the
support of his land.
• If a man in the exercise of his own rights of property, do
damage to his neighbour, he is liable if it might have been
avoided by the use of reasonable care
• It has been held that prior notice to the neighbour whose
property may be endangered by the excavation is an essential
part of the ordinary care referred to
• One who digs away land which affords support to an adjoining
house ought to give the owner reasonable notice of his
intention to do so, and he must allow the latter all reasonable
facilities for obtaining artificial support including a temporary
privilege of shoring up the house by supports based upon the
former owner’s land.
• One who proposes to excavate or make other alterations or
improvements upon his own land which may endanger the
land or house of his neighbour, is bound to give the latter
reasonable notice of what he proposes to do, to enable him to
take the necessary measures for the preservation of his own
property. But, after giving such notice, he is bound only to
7
 reasonable and ordinary care in the prosecution of the work.
In many cases, it is held that after notice from the owner who
proposes to excavate, it is the duty of his neighbour to shore
up his own building.
• The owner of land cannot be deprived of his right to excavate
his own land by the action of his neighbour in building at or
near the boundary line, and if he conduct his operations with
due care, and no right by grant or prescription has been
acquired by his neighbour, he is not liable even though the
building of the latter be ruined.
• In the case of a party wall, the joint owners of it have no
easement of reciprocal support from each other’s buildings,
and if one proposes to remove the building, and injury to his
neighbour is liable to result from it, he must notify him of his
intention, that he may look to his own protection, at the same
time using reasonable care and precaution to protect his
neighbour, and if this is done, and still injury results, no action
will lie.
• The action for a wrong is not for the excavation; the land
owner does not sustain damages until there is an actual
subsidence of his soil.
• The measure of damages in action for removing the lateral
support of another’s land is the amount required to restore the
property to its former condition with as good means of lateral
support, and special damages must be specially pleaded; or
the diminution of the value of the land by falling, caving, or
washing, as the natural result of the excavation.
• The doctrine of lateral support has been stated...” This right
exists independently of grant or prescription, and is also an
absolute right; so that, if his neighbor excavates the adjoining
land, and in consequence, A’s Land falls, he may have an
action, although A’s excavation was not carelessly or
unskillfully performed. This natural right does not extend to
any buildings A may place upon his land, and therefore, if A
builds his house upon the verge of his own land, he does not
thereby acquire the right to have it derive its support from the
land adjoining it until it shall have stood and had the
advantage of such support for 20 years. In the meantime,
such adjacent owner may excavate his own land for such
Compiled by Talisa Dela Rosa. From the transcribed notes of 2E 2022 and upper batches’ transcribed Robles notes
purpose as he sees fit, provided, he does not dig carelessly
or recklessly; and if, in so doing, the adjacent earth gives way,
and the house falls by reason of the additional weight thereby
placed on the natural soil, the owner of the house is without
remedy. It was his own folly to place it there. But if it shall have
stood for 20 years with the knowledge of the adjacent
proprietor, it acquires the easement of support in the adjacent
soil.
NUISANCE
• That class of wrongs that arises from the unreasonable,
unwarrantable, or unlawful use by a person of his own
property, either real or personal, or from his own improper,
indecent, or unlawful personal conduct, working on
obstruction of or to the right of another, or of the public, and
producing such material annoyance, inconvenience,
discomfort, or hurt that the law will presume a consequent
damage.
• A private nuisance is anything done to the hurt or annoyance
of the lands, tenements or hereditatments of another. It
produces damage to but one or a few persons, and cannot be
said to be public. A public or common nuisance is such an
inconvenience or troublesome offence as annoys the whole
community in general and not merely some particular person.
It produces no special injury to one more than another of the
people.
• A mixed nuisance is one which, while producing injury to the
public at large, does some special damage to some individual
or class of individuals.
• It is difficult to say what degree of conveyance constitutes a
nuisance. If a thing is calculated to interfere with the
comfortable enjoyment of a man’s house, it is a nuisance. In
relation to offensive trades, it seems that when such a trade
renders the enjoyment of life and property uncomfortable it is
a nuisance [for the neighborhood has a right to pure and fresh
air]
8
• Every citizen holds this property subject to the implied
obligation that he will use it in such a way as not to prevent
others from enjoying the use of their property.
• A thing may be a nuisance in one place which is not so in
another; therefore, the situation or locality of the nuisance
must be considered.
• Persons living in populous manufacturing towns must expect
more noise, smoke, and disturbance than those living
elsewhere, and the circumstances of every case must govern.
• To constitute a public nuisance, there must be such a number
of persons annoyed that the offense can no longer be
considered a private nuisance.
• Any annoyance arising from odor, smoke, unhealthy
exhalations, noise, interference with water power, etc, etc,
whereby a man is prevented from fully enjoying his own
property, may be ranked as a private nuisance.
• Residents in large industrial cities must put up with a certain
amount of noise which accompanies the reasonable
recreations of a crowded population. The question in each
case is whether such noises amount to a substantial
interference with the comfort of neighbors upon ordinary sober
common sense standards.
• * The remedies [against a nuisance] are by an action for the
damage done, by the owner, in the case of a private nuisance;
or by any party suffering special damages, in the case of a
public nuisance; by abatement by the owner, when the
nuisance is private; and in some cases when it is public; by
injunction, which is the most usual and efficacious remedy; or
by indictment for a public nuisance.
• One who maintains on his premises dangerous
instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract
children in play and who fails to exercise ordinary care to
prevent children from playing therewith or resorting to, is liable
to a child of tender years who is injured thereby, even if the
child is technically a trespasser in the premises.
• Abatement of nuisance is an exercise of police power.
• Houses constructed in public places constitute public
nuisance.
• Only nuisances per se may be abated summarily.
Compiled by Talisa Dela Rosa. From the transcribed notes of 2E 2022 and upper batches’ transcribed Robles notes
• Right to maintain private nuisance may be acquired by
prescription
• In order that a civil action for the abatement of a nuisance may
lie, there must be clear and convincing showing that the
particular nuisance be injurious or dangerous to the health or
safety of the plaintiff or his family, or annoying or offensive to
their senses, or obstructing or interfering with the free
passage of any public highway or street, or any body of water,
or hindering or impairing the use of property.
• Cabarets are not nuisances.
• Occupation of an estero is nuisance.
• Houses constructed, without governmental authority, on
public streets, and waterways obstruct at all time the free use
by the public of said streets and waterways, and, accordingly,
constitute nuisance per se, aside from public nuisance. As
such, the summary removal thereof, without judicial process
or proceedings may be authorized by the statute or municipal
ordinance, despite the due process clause.
• That class of of wrongs that arises from the unreasonable,
unwarrantable, or unlawful use by a person of his own
property, either real or personal, or from his own improper,
indecent, or unlawful personal conduct, working an
obstruction of or to the right of another, or of the public, and
producing such material annoyance, inconvenience,
discomfort, or hurt that the law will presume a consequent
damage.
• A private nuisance is anything done to the hurt or annoyance
of the lands, tenants, or hereditaments of another. It produces
damage to but one or a few persons, and cannot be said to
be public.
• A public or common nuisance is such an inconvenience or
troublesome offense as annoys the whole community in
general and not merely some particular person. It produces
no special injury to one more than another of the people.
• A mixed nuisance is one which, while producing injury to the
public at large, does some special damage to some individual
or class of individuals.
9
• It is difficult to say what degree of annoyance constitutes a
nuisance. If a thing is calculated to interfere with the
comfortable enjoyment of a man’s house, it is a nuisance. In
relation to offensive trades, it seems that when such a trade
renders the enjoyment of life and property uncomfortable it is
a nuisance (for the neighborhood as a right to pure and fresh
air)
• Every citizen holds his property subject to the implied
obligation that he will use it in such way as not to prevent
others from enjoying the use of their property.
• A thing may be a nuisance in one place which is not so in
another; therefore the situation or locality of the nuisance must
be considered.
• Persons living in populous manufacturing towns must expect
more noise, smoke, and disturbance than those living
elsewhere, and the circumstances of every case must govern.
• To constitute a public nuisance, there must be such a number
of persons annoyed that the offense can no longer be
considered a private nuisance.
• Any annoyance arising from odors, smoke, unhealthy
exhalations, noise, interference with water power, etc.
whereby a man is prevented from fully enjoying his own
property, may be ranked as a private nuisance.
• Residents in large industrial cities must put up with a certain
amount of noise which accompanies the reasonable
recreations of a crowded population. The question in each
case is whether such noises amount to a substantial
interference with the comfort of neighbors upon ordinary sober
common sense standards.
• The remedies (against a nuisance) are by an action for the
damage done, by the owner, in the case of a private nuisance;
or by any party suffering special damage, in the case of a
public nuisance; by abatement by the owner, when the
nuisance is private; and in some cases when it is public; by
injunction , which is the most usual and efficacious remedy; or
by indictment for a public nuisance.
• A person may abate a public nuisance only when it is also a
private nuisance as to him, or incommodes him more than the
general public.
Compiled by Talisa Dela Rosa. From the transcribed notes of 2E 2022 and upper batches’ transcribed Robles notes
• Every continuance of a nuisance or recurrence of the injury an
additional nuisance forming in itself the subject-matter of a
new action
OCCUPANCY
• The taking possession of those things corporeal which are
without an owner, with an intention of appropriating them to
one’s own use
• The title by which one acquires property in a thing which
belongs to nobody, by taking possession of it with design of
acquiring it
• A mode of acquiring property by which a thing which belongs
to nobody because the property of the person who took
possession of it with an intention of acquiring a right of
ownership in it. The basis of its origin seems to be not an
instinctive bas towards the institution of property, but a
presumption, arising out of the long continuation of that
institution that everything should have an owner. Occupancy
is sometimes used in the sense of occupation or holding
possession
• To constitute occupancy, there must be a taking of a thing
corporeal, belonging to nobody, with the intention of becoming
the owner of it
• A right by occupancy attaches in the finder of lost goods
unreclaimed by the owner; in the captor of beasts ferae
naturae, so long as he retains possession, the owner of lands
by accession, and the owner of goods acquired by confusion
• Occupant... one who has the actual use or possession of a
thing
• Occupation... the advisedly taking possession of that which is
at the moment the property of no man, with a view of acquiring
property in it yourself. The actual assumption of physical
possession
• Occup... to hold in possession; to hold or keep for use. In legal
acceptation, actual use, possession, and actual cultivation
10
OCCUPATION
• In order that there may be adverse possession, it is not
necessary that a person actually occupy the land, it is enough
that he brings it under his control.
• Under the law, before a free patent could be issued, the
applicant must satisfactorily show that the land was by him
continuously occupied and cultivated, either by himself or
through others.
• Property not abandoned cannot be acquired by occupation.
• Occupation is the apprehension of corporeal things which do
not have an owner, with the intent of acquiring ownership over
them, and according to the rules established by law. The
subject matter of occupation are things which have no owners
(res nullius). This mode of acquiring ownership is, therefore,
limited to things without an owner and it cannot be asserted
over things owned by someone else. However, when the thing
has already been abandoned by its owner, it becomes res
nullius and may be acquired by occupation.
DONATION
• Donation of real property must be in a public instrument.
• Oral Donation may be basis of ownership.
• Verbal donation of land can be basis of possession.
• Verbal donation may ripen into ownership by prescription
• Defective donation may ripen into ownership by prescription.
• Verbal donation may constitute legal basis for adverse
possession
• Invalid donation may give rise to prescription.
• Void donation may serve as basis of acquisitive prescription
• A donation of real property in order to be efficacious must be
embodied in a public instrument and that the acceptance must
be in the deed of gift or in a separate public instrument and
that the donor should be duly notified of the acceptance.
• Deed of donation which does not identify land donated is of
no effect
• Assignment of real property which partakes of the nature of
donation must be in a public document and accepted in writing
• Attorney-in-fact of donor is not incapacitated as donee.
Compiled by Talisa Dela Rosa. From the transcribed notes of 2E 2022 and upper batches’ transcribed Robles notes
• Incapacities applicable to donation are similar to those in
testamentary succession
• Acceptance of donation is essential to its validity.
• Only donation inter vivos need be accepted. Donation mortis
causa being in the nature of legacies need not be accepted.
• Donation made in writing should be accepted in the same
form.
• Donation is perfected only upon acceptance. Donation without
acceptance is not valid.
• Donation transfers title upon acceptance with all the requisite
formalities
• Grandmother may accept pure donation for grandchild
although she was not legal guardian
• Conditions in a donation are binding on donee
• Where right to dispose of property was reserved by donor,
• donation is revocable
• Retention of ownership and title by grantor is incompatible
with donation inter vivos of such title
• Only onerous donations are governed by law of contracts
• Donee has burden of proving onerous donation
• Donation in consideration of the services rendered and to be
rendered by donee is onerous
• All donations for services are subject to collation
• Obligation to collate donation does not prescribe during life of
donor
• Creditors cannot ask for reduction of inofficious donation
• Forced heirs are entitled to have inofficious donation set
aside
• Collation of donation may be threshed out in settlement of
estates of deceased donor
• Donations inter vivos are regarded as advances chargeable
to the recipient’s share in the legitime
• Inofficiousness of donations presupposes that the sum of the
donee’s share in the legitime plus the free portion, is
exceeded by the value of the thing donation as of the
donation
11
• Donation is inofficious when donor has no other property than
that donated
• Courts alone can declare revocation of donation
• Revocation of donation must be with donee’s consent or by
judicial decree
• Prior donation is not revoked by subsequent one
• Action for revocation of donation may be brought by donor
even after donee’s death
• Positive proof of non-compliance with conditions is needed to
revoke donation
• Donation may be revoked only on grounds provided by law
• Subsequent disposition of property by donor does not revoke
prior donation thereof
• Juridical sanction is necessary for revocation of donation with
onerous cause
• When the terms of a donation have been substantially
complied with, rescission does not lie.
• Heir of donor cannot have better right than predecessor to
assail donation made by the latter.
• Donation is not revocable by donor’s unilateral act.
• Action to revoke donation for breach of condition is
intransmissible. And prescribes after 10 years.
• Prescription of action to revoke donation begins upon
commission of breach by donee.
• Action for revocation should be filed within 4 years from non-
compliance with conditions.
• Donation mortis causa is invalid if not executed with
formalities of a will.
• Legal heirs, who are not forced heirs, cannot question
decedent’s donation inter vivos.
• Irrevocability is characteristic of donation inter vivos.
• Characteristics of donation mortis cause:
o 1. The deed conveys no title or ownership to the
transferee before the death of the transferor (that the
donor retains the ownership, full on naked, and
control of the property while alive);
Compiled by Talisa Dela Rosa. From the transcribed notes of 2E 2022 and upper batches’ transcribed Robles notes
o 2. That before the transferor’s death, the transfer
should be revocable by the transferor at will;
o 3. That the transfer should be void if the transferor
should survive the transferee.
• Donation transferring ownership immediately is inter vivos.
• Donation from husband to wife is illegal.
• Donee who accepts donation is estopped to deny down to
ownership.
• Lack of description of donated property is curable by extrinsic
evidence.
• Donation of conjugal properties affects only the donor’s half
interest therein.
• Unregistered deed of donation cannot affect third person
• Mere trustee of property cannot donate it.
• Donation does not require tradition to complete transfer of
ownership.
• In pari delicto rule does not apply to donee who is a minor.
• Reserves between spouses are not contemplated in
remunerative onerous donation.
• A gift: a transfer of the title to property to the one who receives
it without paying for it. The act by which the owner of a thing
voluntarily transfers the title and possession of it from himself
to another person, without any consideration.
• A donation is never perfected until it has been accepted; for
an acceptance is a requisite to make the donation complete.
• (inter vivos) A gift between living persons. A contract which
takes place by the mutual consent of the giver; who divests
himself of the thing given in order to transmit the title of it to
the donee, and the donee who accepts and acquires the legal
title to it.
• (mortis causa) A gift made by a person in sickness, or other
immediate peril, who, apprehending his death as near,
delivers, or causes to be delivered, to another, the possession
of any personal goods, to keep as his own in case of donor’s
decease.
12
 • The civil law defines it to be a gift under apprehension of
death; as, when anything is given upon condition that if the
donor dies the donee shall possess it absolutely, or return it if
the donor should survive or should repent of having made the
gift, or if the donee should die before the donor.
• It differs from a legacy, in as much as it does not require proof
in the court of probate, and no assent is required from the
executor to perfect the donee’s title. It differs from a gift inter
vivos because it is ambulatory and revocable during the
donor’s life.
• A delivery of more than what was intended to be given cannot
overrule the donor’s intention and the donee can take only as
much as was intended to be given.
• Technically, there must be an acceptance by the donee as
well as a delivery by the donor; but this is a matter of slight
practical importance, for where the gift is beneficial to the
donee, an acceptance will be presumed.
• The delivery must be as complete as the nature of the property
will admit of.
• To make a gift valid, there must be a renunciation by the donor
and an acquisition by the donee, of all interest and title to the
property intended to be given.
• To constitute such a gift, the subject must be delivered either
to the donee or to some person for his use and benefit and
the donor must part with all dominion over the property, and
the title must vest in the donee, subject to the right of the
donee at any time to revoke the gift.
• A donation mortis causa does not require the executor to
assent, and is revocable by the donor during his life, or by
recovery or resumption of possession.
ANIMALS
• Any animate being which is not human, endowed with the
power of voluntary motion.
• Domitas are those which have been tamed by man;
domestic.
• Ferae naturae are those which still retain their wild nature.
Compiled by Talisa Dela Rosa. From the transcribed notes of 2E 2022 and upper batches’ transcribed Robles notes
• A man may have an absolute property in animals of a
domestic nature, but not so in animals ferae naturae, which
belong to him only while in his possession. Yet animals which
are sometimes ferae naturae may be tamed so as to become
subjects of property.
• Animals ferae naturae were considered by the Roman law as
belonging in common to all the citizens of the state; and by
the common law the property in game was based on common
ownership and subject to governmental authority. One may
have the privilege of hunting wild animals to the exclusion of
other persons. In the U.S.A., the ownership of such animals is
vested in the state, not as proprietor, but in its sovereign
capacity, as representing the people and for their benefit. It
alone has power to control the killing and ownership of wild
game. Animals wild by nature are subjects of ownership while
living only when on the land of the person claiming them. One
has a right in wild game birds within his game preserves,
which entitles him to protect them against trespassers. Deer,
when reclaimed and enclosed, are property.
• Bees are ferae naturae; but when hived or reclaimed one may
have a qualified property in them; because bees have a local
habitation, more often in a tree than elsewhere, and while
there, they may be said to be within control, because the tree
may be at any time be filled. But the right to cut it down is in
the owner of the soil, and therefore such property as the bees
are susceptible of is in him also. The mere finder of them on
the land of another acquires no title to the tree or the bees.
• The common law recognized a property in dogs. Dogs are
reculiar in that they differ among themselves more widely than
any other class of animals, and can hardly be said to have a
characteristic common to the entire race. They stand between
animals ferae naturae, in which, until killed, there is no
property, and domestic animals, in which the right of property
is complete.
• The owner of a mischievous animal, known to him to be so is
responsible, when he permits him to go at large, for the
damage he may do. He is liable, though not negligent, in the
matter of his escape from a close. It is said that though it may
be, in a certain sense, that the action for injury by vicious
13
 animals is based upon negligence, such negligence consists
not in the manner of keeping the animal, or the care exercised
in respect to confining him, but in the fact that he is ferocious
and the owner knows it. The negligence consists in keeping
such animal.
• One knowingly harboring a vicious and dangerous dog is
liable for damages sustained by others from its bite. Keeping
a dog known to be savage stands on the same footing as
keeping a wild beast. It is enough if he occasionally attacks
human being without provocation; the owner must ave had
actual knowledge. One who has long harbored a vicious dog
is presumed to know its propensities.
• Where one kept dogs of the same family and appearance, a
person bitten by one of them is not required to prove which
one, nor to prov that previous attacks on others were made by
the same dog.
• When wild animals are kept for a purpose recognized as not
censurable, all that can be demanded of their keeper is that
he shall take that superior precaution to prevent their doing
mischief which their propensities in that direction justly
demand of him. One who knowingly, voluntarily, and
unnecessarily places himself within reach of a ferocious
animal which is chained up cannot recover for injuries
received. An injunction will lie against keeping a vicious dog
without appropriate restraint. It is a nuisance.
• Any person may justify the killing of ferocious animals.
• It is the duty of the owner of domestic animals to keep them
upon his own premises.
CONDOMINIUMS/SUBDIVISIONS
• Read opinion of Abad-Santos on the specific question of W/N
aliens can acquire condominium units
Compiled by Talisa Dela Rosa. From the transcribed notes of 2E 2022 and upper batches’ transcribed Robles notes
AN ACT TO DEFINE CONDOMINIUM, ESTABLISH
REQUIREMENTS FOR ITS CREATION, AND GOVERN ITS
INCIDENTS
SECTION 2. A condominium is an interest in real property consisting
of separate interest in a unit in a residential, industrial or commercial
building and an undivided interest in common, directly or indirectly, in
the land on which it is located and in other common areas of the
building. A condominium may include, in addition, a separate interest
in other portions of such real property. Title to the common areas,
including the land, or the appurtenant interests in such areas, may be
held by a corporation specially formed for the purpose (hereinafter
known as the "condominium corporation") in which the holders of
separate interest shall automatically be members or shareholders, to
the exclusion of others, in proportion to the appurtenant interest of
their respective units in the common areas.
The real right in condominium may be ownership or any other interest
in real property recognized by law, on property in the Civil Code and
other pertinent laws.
SECTION 5. Any transfer or conveyance of a unit or an apartment,
office or store or other space therein, shall include the transfer or
conveyance of the undivided interests in the common areas or, in a
proper case, the membership or shareholdings in the condominium
corporation: Provided, however, That where the common areas in the
condominium project are owned by the owners of separate units as
co-owners thereof, no condominium unit therein shall be conveyed or
transferred to persons other than Filipino citizens, or corporations at
least sixty percent of the capital stock of which belong to Filipino
citizens, except in cases of hereditary succession. Where the common
areas in a condominium project are held by a corporation, no transfer
or conveyance of a unit shall be valid if the concomitant transfer of the
appurtenant membership or stockholding in the corporation will cause
the alien interest in such corporation to exceed the limits imposed by
existing laws.
(The Condominium Act, Republic Act No. 4726, [June 18, 1966])
14
.D. OPINION NO. 180
Series of 1973
RE FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN LAND AND/OR BUILDINGS
December 21, 1973
The Acting Secretary of Trade Quezon City
Sir:
This is with reference to your request for opinion on the following
questions regarding foreign investment in lands and/or buildings:
"1. Can foreign investors or multinational corporations own
building or units thereof (as in condominium)? Apartments?
"2. Can there be joint-ownership at 60 percent-40 percent of land
and building between foreign investors and their Filipino
counterparts?"
I have considered a similar question in opinion No. 175, current series
— a copy of which I am herewith enclosing for your information and
guidance. On the basis of the opinion, foreigners or multinational
corporation may own building provided they are constructed on rental
land, the lease not to exceed ten years.
Regarding the ownership of condominium units by foreign
investors or multinational corporation, as reasoned out in
Opinion No. 175, current series, supra, the same may be allowed
but subject to the qualifications mentioned in the proviso of
Section 5 of R.A. No. 4726 which needs:
". . . Provided, however, That where the common areas in the
condominium project are owned by the owners of separate units as
co-owners thereof, no condominium unit herein shall be conveyed or
transferred to persons other than Filipino citizens, or corporations at
least 60% of the capital stock of which belong to Filipino citizens,
except in cases of hereditary succession. Where the common areas
in a condominium project are held by a corporation, no transfer or
conveyance of a unit shall be valid if the concomitant transfer of the
appurtenant membership or stockholding in the corporation will cause
the alien interest in such corporation to exceed the limits imposed by
existing laws."
Compiled by Talisa Dela Rosa. From the transcribed notes of 2E 2022 and upper batches’ transcribed Robles notes
As to the ownership by foreign investors or multinational
corporations of apartments which do not fall within the purview
of the Condominium Act (R.A. No. 4726) suffice it to state that I
am not aware of any law which prohibits aliens or foreign
corporations from owning apartment buildings, so long, of
course, as they will merely lease the land on which the building
will be constructed, for a period not exceeding ten years.
Anent your second query, the following provisions of Article XIV of the
new Constitution are pertinent:
"Section 9. The disposition, exploration, development, exploitation, or
utilization of any of the natural resources of the Philippines shall be
limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations or associations
at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such
citizens, . . .
"Section 10. . . . No private corporations or association may hold
alienable lands of the public domain except by lease not to exceed
one thousand hectares in area; nor may any citizen hold such lands
by lease in excess of five hundred hectares or acquire by purchase or
homestead in excess of twenty-four hectares . . .
SECTION 14. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private land
shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations or
associations qualified to acquired or hold lands of the public domain."
Upon the basis of these provisions, the following conclusions
may be made your second query:
1. Only citizens of the Philippines, as individuals, may
acquire both private lands and lands of the public
domain. Therefore, there can be no joint ownership of
such lands between Filipinos and foreign investors are
individuals.
2. However, corporations or associations at least 60 percent
of the capital stock of which is owned by Filipinos, and
the remainder by foreigners, may own private lands.
3. Corporations or associations — whether of citizens or of
citizens and aliens — may not own, but may only hold by
lease lands of public domain.
15
 4. As to the "joint-ownership at 60 percent-40 percent of
lands and buildings foreign investors and Filipinos, this
may be legally feasible as long as the ownership of the
land building is by corporations or associations at least
60% of the capital stock of which is owned by Filipino
citizens and only the remainder by the foreign investors.
Very truly yours,
(SGD)
VICENTE ABAD SANTOS Secretary of Justice
J.D. OPINION NO. 175
Series of 1973
RE FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN CONDOMINIUMS
PHILIPPINES
The Secretary of Tourism
Manila
Sir:
This has reference to your request for opinion on the following
questions regarding foreign investment in condominium in the
Philippines.
a) May 100% owned and controlled foreign firms set up
condominiums corporations under RA 4726, if the land is leased?
b) If the answer in the affirmative, would a lease for a period of
ninety-nine (99) years be allowable?
c) Would a lease of the land for a period of fifty (50) years
renewable for another period of fifty (50) years, be legally
tenable?
I have carefully examined Republic Act No. 4726 ("The Condominium
Act") and I have found no provision therein which, expressly or by
necessary implication, prohibits a corporation whose capital
stock is wholly owned by aliens from establishing a
condominium corporation and setting up a condominium project
on leased land. For this reason I'm answering the first query in
the affirmative.
Compiled by Talisa Dela Rosa. From the transcribed notes of 2E 2022 and upper batches’ transcribed Robles notes
Regarding the second and third questions on the allowable duration of
leases of lands to aliens, this Office has had occasion to rule in
Opinion No. 216, series of 1952, that a lease of urban land to a foreign
corporation for a period of 10 years, renewable for additional period of
10 and 5 years, or a total period of 25 years, is not unreasonable. In
other instances, 25 years was fixed as the maximum allowable period.
(See Ops. No. 58, s. 1949; No. 155; No. 235, s. 1952). But in
subsequent opinion (no. 290, S. 1954) the then Secretary of Justice
Pedro Tuason remarked:
"In the opinions cited of this Department . . ., 25 years was fixed
as the maximum allowable period. Even this period may be to
long, so long as virtually to amount to a transfer or ownership of
IN THE the property purportedly leased. Pending determination of the
reasonable period by the courts, and in the absence of legislation
on the subject, 10 years would, in my opinion, be more in
consonance with the spirit of the Organic Law."
I share this later view of my predecessor in office and I hereby
adopt the same.
You also profound, on the case where the condominium corporation
is a Filipino corporation which owns the land on which the
condominium is located, the question of whether interests in units in
the condominium together with an undivided interest in the common
areas thereof may be transferred to foreigners.
The Condominium Act does not forbid the transfer to aliens of an
interest in a unit and the undivided interest in common areas in
a condominium. It should be noted that only a "separate interest"
in a unit and an undivided interest in the common areas are what
are transferred as a matter of a course to the grantee by virtue of
condominium grant. (Sec. 2 and 5.) Moreover, paragraph (b) of
section 3 defines "unit for purposes of the Act as "a part of
condominium project intended for any type of independent use
for ownership, "and paragraph (e) of the same section in defining
the term "to divide real property" in the condominium project
speaks of dividing the ownership thereof or other interest
therein."
16
But in this connection it should be stressed that section 5 of the In resume and by way of emphasis, my conclusions on your queries
Act contains a pertinent prohibition. Said section reads: are as follows:

"Any transfer or conveyance of a unit, or an apartment office or store
or other space therein, shall include the transfer or conveyance of the
undivided interests in the common areas or, in a proper case, the
membership or shareholdings in the condominium corporation;
Provided, however, that there were the common areas in the
condominium project are owned by the owners of separate units as
co-owners thereof, no condominium unit therein shall be conveyed or
transferred to persons other than Filipino citizens, or corporations at
least sixty percent of the capital stock which belong to Filipino citizens,
except in cases of hereditary succession. Where the common areas
in a condominium project are held by a corporation, no transfer or
conveyance of a unit shall be valid if the concomitant transfer of the
appurtenant membership or stockholding in the corporation will
caused the alien interest in such corporation to exceed the limits
imposed by existing laws."
1. Any corporation which is owned 100% by a foreign firm
may establish a "condominium corporation" under R.A.
4726 and set up a condominium project on land leased
for a period not to exceed 10 years.
2. Where the condominium corporation is a Filipino
corporation which owns the land on which the
condominium project is situated, R.A. 4726 allows the
transfer to an alien of an "interest" in a "unit" in the said
condominium, and of an "undivided interest" in the
common areas thereof, subject to the qualifications
mentioned in the proviso of section 5 of said Act.
Very truly yours,
(SGD) VICENTE ABAD SANTOS

Applying the proviso in this section to the present case, the

result would be so that should it be a case covered by the first
sentence of the proviso, no unit in the condominium may be
transferred to aliens or to corporation more than 40% of the
capital stock of which is owned by aliens; and should it be case
covered by the second sentence, the transfer to aliens of units in
the project may be made only up to the point where the
concomitant transfer for membership or stockholding in the
condominium corporation would not cause the alien interest in
such corporation to exceed 40% of its entire capital stock.

Compiled by Talisa Dela Rosa. From the transcribed notes of 2E 2022 and upper batches’ transcribed Robles notes 17