TITLE II.

OWNERSHIP
CHAPTER 1 OWNERSHIP IN GENERAL
Art. 427. Ownership may be exercised over things or rights.
Ownership
 The independent right of exclusive enjoyment and control of a thing for the purpose of deriving
therefrom all the advantages required by the reasonable needs of the owner (or holder of the right) and
the promotion of general welfare, but subject to the restrictions imposed by law and rights of others
(J.B.L. Reyes). Beneficial ownership, legal ownership, and naked ownership
 Beneficial Ownership/Title:
o Ownership recognized by law and capable of being enforced in Court
o Two senses:
 To indicate the interest of a beneficiary in trust property (Equitable ownership)
 Power of the shareholder of a corporation to buy and sell, the shares txhrough the
shareholder is not registered in the corporation’s book as the owner
o Not necessarily have to own the property
 Naked Ownership:
o Enjoyment of all benefits and privileges of ownership, as against the bare title to the property.
(La Bugal-B’Laan Tribal Association v Ramos)
Subject matter of ownership:
 Thing: generally, any material object or corporeal property but extends beyond material objects and
includes rights through these are relation and not objects.
 Rights: are classified are incorporeal property.
Art. 428. The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without other limitations than those
established by law.
The owner has also a right of action against the holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover
it.
Rights included in ownership:
 (1) Jus possidendi or the right to possess;
 (2) Jus utendi or the right to use and enjoy;
 (3) Jus fruendi or the right to the fruits;
 (4) Jus accessionis or right to accessories;
 (5) Jus abutendi or the right to consume the thing by its use;
 (6) Jus disponendi or the right to dispose or alienate; and
 (7) Jus vindicandi or the right to vindicate or recover.

GENERALLY, CLASSIFIED:
Right to Enjoy (Jus Utendi)
 Necessarily includes the right to transfer/right to exclude any person – hence they can use reasonable
force to repel actual or threatened invasion or usurpation (Art 429). However, the owner cannot make
use of his property in such a manner to injure third persons rights (Art 431)
 Right to Possess
o It is the right to hold a thing. It may be on one’s own name or another
o It does not necessarily mean the right to use (contract of commodatum)
o In a contract of sale, the vendor is bound not only to transfer ownership, but also the deliver the
thing which is the object of the sale (A1496). It would be considered delivered when it is placed
in the control and possession of the vendor (A1497)
 Right to Fruits
o When the possessor, not the owner has the right to fruits:
  Possessor in good faith (A544)
 Usufructuary (A566)
 Lessee of agricultural land (A1676)
 Antichretic creditor (A432)
o GR: all accessions and accessories are included in the obligation to deliver a determinate thing
although not mentioned (A1166).
o The ownership of property gives the right by accession to everything it produces. Thus,
accession includes the right to the fruits and the right to the accessories of a thing (A440).
 Right to consume (Jus abutendi)
o The owner has even the right to abuse or even destroy the thing owned however there are
limitations on the right of ownership.
Right to Dispose (Jus Disponendi)
 The right to dispose includes the right not to dispose. He can “change his mind” (Republic v Baylosis
1955)
 It may be through sale or donation, or partially without transferring ownership – encumber as in lease,
pledge and mortgage.
 No one can dispose what he cannot have. However, he does not have to be the owner at the time of
perfection of the contract, it is sufficient that he is at the time of delivery of the thing (A1459)
Right to Recovery
 The owner has right of action against the holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover it
(A428). A possessor however has the presumption of title in his favor (A433). The true owner must
resort to judicial process for the recover of the property (A433) He cannot take the law into his own
hands.

Hernandez v DBP: The Court ruled that Hernandez’ complaint for annulment of the cancellation of the award
of a lot and house was a personal action which was properly filed in the CFI.
 A real action is one brought for the specific recovery of land, tenements, or hereditaments.
 A personal action is one brought for the recovery of personal property, for the enforcement of some
contract or recovery of damages for its breach, or for the recovery of damages for the commission of an
injury to the person or property.
PNB v CA: The Court ruled that Montano may enforce his right of possession to the property, notwithstanding
the foreclosure made by PNB. The Tenancy Act imposed a limitation on PNB’s exercise of ownership. PNB
was only substituted to, and acquired the right title and interest and claim of the judgement mortgagor to the
property at the time of levy.

Who may Limit?

 State – Police Power, Eminent Domain, Taxation
 Law – legal easements (right of way);
 Contract – lease; usufruct;

Actions available to recover possession and/or ownership:

Sio Tiat King v. Lim: The Court ruled that notwithstanding the redemption made by Calidguid, they cannot
resort to a summary remedy of a writ of possession to evict those in actual possession of the property. Art. 433
provides for a disputable presumption of ownership by the actual possessor. IN this case, recovery by
Calidguid should be made in a proper judicial proceeding where the Lims may be given the opportunity to be
heard.
Article 433. Actual possession under claim of ownership raises disputable presumption of ownership.
The true owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of the property

Article 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.

Requisites in an action to recover:

 Prove both ownership and identity
Identity of the Property
 The party who desires to recover must fix the identity of the land claimed by describing the location,
area and boundaries thereof. (Tan v Lim 1998).
 However, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to establish the precise location and extent of land claimed
or occupied by the defendant in order to establish his right to judgement for possession
Evidence of ownership
 Torrens Title (Reyes v Borbon 1927)
 Patent duly registered in the Registry of Property by the grantee (Manila Railroad v Paredes 1915)
 Deed of Sale (Barreto v Cabreza (1915)
 Occupation of a building for a long time by a party without paying rent (Gatdula v Sanos 1914)
 Adverse and exclusive possession and ownership of parcels of land for a long time attested not only by
witnesses but also by declaration of properties, payment of taxes and a deed of mortgage executed by
the possessor’s predecessors-in-interest as owners of the property. (Alano v Ignacio 1962)
Quantum of Proof: Preponderance of Evidence
Indicia of claim of ownership
 Working over a land; mere leasing of the property and receiving rent; tax declarations and tax receipts.
 Proof of actual possession of the property for a sufficient time or supported by other effective proof.
(San Miguel v CA 1990)
Recovery of personal property:

 Proper remedy is replevin or manual delivery of personal property governed by Rule 60 (ROC).
o PRESUMPTION OF OWNERSHIP: by one who has possession
 Wrongful detention must be established
 The action shall prescribe in 4 years (good faith) or 8 years (no condition) from the time the
possession thereof is lost under A1132). A property in custodia legis cannot be subject of replevin
(Calub v CA 2000).
 Requirements: Affidavit and Bond
o The claimant must state in an affidavit that he is owner [ALLEGATION OF OWNERSHIP]
o DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY particularly describing it, or that
o TITLE HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN OVER he is entitled to possession thereof and that it is
“wrongfully detained by the adverse party” (Sec 2)
o BOND – Market value of the property.
 In favor of adverse party; guarantees that pecuniary estimate of the damages to the
adverse party
 If the adverse party claims a better right, he can file a counter-claim and a counter-bond. Replevin is
supposed to be fast. Can be a provisional remedy because it allows the person who supposedly owns
to take possession of the personal property

Recovery of real property:

 Forcible entry or unlawful detainer (accion interdictal)

Forcible Entry Unlawful Detainer

“a person deprived of the possession of landlord, vendor, vendee, or other
any land or building by force, person against whom the possession of
intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth any land or building is unlawfully
withheld after the expiration or
termination of the right to hold
possession, by virtue of any contract,
expressed or implied, or the legal
representatives, or assigns of any such
landlord, vendor, vendee or other
person”
TIME OF ENTRY POSSESSION, WHICH WAS LAW
FUL AT FIRST, BUT LATER BECAME
ILLEGAL
DEMAND TO VACATE and POSTING
OF NOTICE IS ESSENTIAL (Sec 2)
WITHIN 1 YEAR @ MTC
Must be brought within one year from the date of actual entry on the land/date of
last demand to vacate as the case may be [SUMMARY NATURE] It is summary
because it disturbs social order which must be addressed promptly.
The only issue is PHYSICAL/MATERIAL POSSESSION. The plaintiff need only to
allege and prove prior possession in fact and undue deprivation
PRESCRIPTION: 1 YEAR FROM POSSESSION IN FAT

 Accion Publiciana – Right of Possession

o It is an ordinary civil proceeding to recover the better right of possession of realty
independent of title.
o It is dispossession by other means other than those in Rule 70, Sec 1. [DISPOSSESSION
FOR MORE THAN 1 YEAR]
o The action must be brought in the RTC within 10 years otherwise the real right of possession is
lost (A555[4]).
o Title cannot be collaterally attached; issue of ownership may be opened in a separate
proceeding
 Accion Reivindicatoria or Accion Reivindicacion (Action to recover possession based on
ownership)
o Seeks the recovery of possession based on ownership (jus utendi and jus fruendi) also
before the RTC in an ordinary civil proceeding (Emilia v Boado 1968)
o The issue here is ownership which is ordinarily includes possession although a person may be
declared owner but he may not be entitled to possession because the possessor has some
rights which must be respected, hence the owner cannot eject one who holds the property by an
independent right of possession (Ramos v CA 1988).
Accion Interdictal Accion Publiciana Accion Reinvidicatoria
Alleges proof of a better right to posses
Possession de facto Possession de jure – where the complaint does not
(Ganila v CA 2005) state how entry was effected or how dispossession
started but contains bare allegations that
respondents occupies the land and depriving them
possession thereof. (Valdez v CA 2006)
Titong v CA: The remedy of Quieting of Title may be availed only when there is a cloud on title to real property
by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding. Physical intrusion into his alleged
property are grounds for forcible entry but not for quieting of title

Accion Publiciana
Suarez v. Emboy: The following are the jurisdictional facts which must be established in an unlawful detainer
case:
 Possession of the property by defendant by contract with or tolerance of plaintiff
 Possession became illegal upon notice of termination of the defendant’s right to possession
 Defendant remained in possession and deprived plaintiff of enjoyment thereof
 Within one year from demand to vacate, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment
As a general rule, a pending action for ownership does not justify suspension of ejectment. The Court has
ruled in Amagan that for purposes of equity, the Court may suspend cases for unlawful detainer based on
mere tolerance when it would lead to demolition of the property thereon.
Modesto v Urbina: When the MSA was being applied, the property was still part of public domain hence it was
void. On the other hand, Modesto were the actual possessor of the property when it was declared alienable
and disposable and continued to possess the property.
Madrid v. Sps. Mapoy: In an Accion Publiciana, the resolution will depend on the weight of the partiers’
respective claims. In this case, the Court ruled that the Torrens title prevails over an oral sale. Moreover, a
collateral attack on the Torren is not allowed.
Sps. Padilla v. Velasco: During trial it was proved that the petitioners were occupying Lot 2161 which was
owned by respondents. It was proved that the lot sold to them was Lot-76 hence they should not be there. The
action for publiciana prescribes in 10 years.
Caneza v Bautista: While captioned as a Writ of Demolition, the action is in reality an action to recover a
parcel of land or accion reivindicatoria under Art. 434 NC. For it to prosper, it is indispensable that the party
must fully prove, not only his ownership to the thing claimed, but also identity of the same. If the plaintiff
already proved ownership, and the defendant is occupying without right, any part of the tract, it is not
necessary to establish the precise location and extent of the portion occupied by the defendant.

Accion Reivindicatoria
Chacon v CA: The nature of their claim constitutes a cause of action for quieting of title or a removal of a
cloud over such title. The averments were of lawful ownership and actual possession by plaintiffs since time
immemorial and through their predecessors-in-interest. An action to quiet title are
imprescriptible as long as his grantors are occupying the land and claiming it as his. The reason is that he has
a continuing right to the aid of a court of equity to ascertain the nature of a claim and its effect on his title or
assert superior equity in his favor.

Replevin
Ibot v Tayco: NCC 433 states the requisites for the reconveyance of property: “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.”

Art. 429. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the
enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably
necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his
property.
Principle of Self-Help
 Requisites:
 o The person defending must be the owner/lawful possessor
o There is unlawful physical invasion by a third party
o He must used only such force reasonably necessary
o There is no delay. It may be exercised at the time of an actual or threatened dispossession or
immediately after the dispossession to regain possession.
o The person against whom force is employed ha acted/is acting wrongfully or unlawfully.
 Art. 432 [State of Necessity] is an exception to this Rule.
 A REACTIVE measure

German Management v CA: The doctrine of self-help can only be exercised at the time of actual or
threatened dispossession, which is absent in the case at bar. No question that the sps owned the land, but the
farmers were in possession. When possession has already been lost, the owner must resort to judicial process
for the recovery of property pursuant to Art. 536 of the Code.

Art. 430. Every owner may enclose or fence his land or tenements by means of walls, ditches, live or
dead hedges, or by any other means without detriment to servitudes constituted thereon
Right to enclose or fence
 A limitation here is the right of others to existing servitudes imposed on the land/tenement.
 PROACTIVE MEASURE

ANECO (2008) – Case on 430. Both buyers bought subdivided lots. Landex and Aneco were both purchasers
of lots. Landex fenced. Aneco got mad – how will I cross to my property? SC: No! Aneco cannot rely on the old
subdv. The case reaffirms the right of the owner to fence

The original lots were for a subdivision lots to be developed by FHDI but the plans for it were cancelled.
Landex put up the concrete wall but Aneco wanted them to demolish it. Landex CAN fence off its property
since they were the owners. Based on Art. 430, Landex can fence their property because it will not interfere
with Aneco’s lots. SC’S IMPORTANT NOTE: If Aneco wanted to transform their own lots into subdivisions,
they should provide for their own roads and not rely on Landex to provide it!

Art. 435. No person shall be deprived of his property except by competent authority and for public use
and always upon payment of just compensation. Should this requirement be not first complied with,
the courts shall protect and, in a proper case, restore the owner in his possession.
 Elements
o Taking
o Competent authority
o Public Use
o Just Compensation
 Ibrahim v Ibrahim – It covers 437 (owner of the land owns its surface and everything under it; he cannot
complain of regulation of aerial navigation). Ibrahim’s family applied for a permit to drill a well to tap
their water. It was denied because there were tunnels under their land which was pathways for water
for the Agus project. Ibrahim asked for rentals. SC: Ibrahim needs to be paid for use of their land, just
compensation.
 NAPOCOR cases – you have deprived the land owners of the jus utendi. It talks about the surface. Pay
just compensation.

Art. 438. 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 sub-
divisions, 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. 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.

Right to Hidden Treasure

 Treasure – any hidden and unknown deposit of money, jewelry, or other objects, the LAWFUL
OWNERSHIP OF WHICH IS UNKNOWN
 Hidden treasure belongs to the owner of the land, building, or other property on which it is found.
o If any other person – ½ owner; ½ finder
o Trespassers not entitled to any share
 Finder is entitled to ½ if he doesn’t own the land -- “By chance”
 It the thing is of interest to science or arts, the State MAY acquire the treasure but must provide just
compensation.
Limitations on Right of ownership
 Generally,
o Police Power
o Taxation
o Eminent Domain
 Specific
o Easements
o Non-injury to others
o State of Necessity
Art. 432. The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the interference of another with the same, if the
interference is necessary to avert an imminent danger and the threatened damage, compared to the
damage arising to the owner from the interference, is much greater. The owner may demand from the
person benefited indemnity for the damage to him.
Obligation to permit interference under conditions
 It is based on state of necessity, as a justifying circumstance under the RPC which does not exempt
also exempt the offender from civil liability.
 It embodies the principle of “the least evil” rule.
 Requisites:
o The interference must be necessary to avert an imminent danger and threatened damage to the
actor
o The imminent danger or threatening damage must be greater