Classification of Property (Art. 414) 2.
In determining the propriety of the object of
Although there are many classifications of property,
Book II of the New Civil Code enumerates the more
important classifycations, as follows:
(1) Immovable or movable (Arts. 415 to
417);
(2) Movables, in turn, are classified into
consumable or non-consumable (Art. 418);
(3) From the viewpoint of ownership,
property is classified either as property of public
dominion or of private ownership (Arts. 419 to
425).
It is obvious from Article 414 that the term
“immovable” is used synonymously with the term
“real” property and the term “movable” is used
synonymously with the term “personal” property
Kinds of Immovable (Real) Property
Immovable by nature — those which by their
essence and nature are immovable or cannot be
moved from one place to another.
Immovable by incorporation — those which are
treated as immovable by reason of their attachment
or incorporation to an immovable in such manner as
to be an integral part thereof.
Immovable by destination — those which are
essentially movable, but by the purpose for which
they have been placed in an immovable, partake of
the nature of the latter because of the added utility
derived therefrom.
Immovable by analogy or by law — Contracts for
public works, and servitudes and other real rights
over immovable property.
Doctrine of Estoppel
not only prohibits a party from assuming
inconsistent positions but also precludes him from
repudiating an obligation voluntarily assumed after
having accepted benefits therefrom.
Importance of knowing the Classifications
1. For purposes of applying the rules of
acquisitive prescription:
- The ownership of movables prescribes
through uninterrupted possession for
four years in good faith or through
uninterrupted possession for eight years,
without need of any other condition.9
Ownership and real rights over
immovable property, on the other hand,
are acquired by ordinary prescription
through possession of ten years10 or
thirty years, without need of title or of
good faith.
the contracts of pledge, chattel mortgage
and real estate mortgage.
- Only movables can be the object of the
contracts of pledge and chattel mortgage.
On the other hand, only immovables can
be the object of a real estate mortgage
contract. As a consequence, should the
parties execute a chattel mortgage over a
real property, the same is null and void
3. For purposes of determining the formalities
of a donation
- If the value of the personal property
donated exceeds P5,000.00, the donation
and the acceptance are required to be in
writing; otherwise, the donation is void
4. In extrajudicial deposit
- Only movable things may be the object
of extrajudicial deposit.
5. In crimes of theft, robbery and usurpation
- Only personal property can be the object
of the crimes of theft and robbery.18
However, the crime of usurpation defi
ned in Article 312 of the Revised Penal
Code can be committed only with
respect to a real property.
6. For purposes of determining the venue in
remedial law
- In the law of procedure, it is important to
know the classifi cation of property for
purposes of venue.
Property of Public Dominion
Art. 419 Property is either of public dominion or of
private ownership
From the viewpoint of ownership, the Civil Code
classifies properties, as follows:
(1) in relation to the State, its properties are either
of public dominion or patrimonial properties;
(2) in relation to the political subdivisions
(provinces, cities and municipalities), their
properties are either of public dominion (for
public use) or patrimonial properties;
(3) in relation to persons and entities other than
the State and its political subdivisions (or private
persons, either individually or collectively), their
properties are denominated as that of private
ownership
Kinds of Property of Public Dominion Pertaining
to the State In relation to the State, there are three
kinds of property of public dominion:
(1) those that are intended for public use; (2) those
that are intended for some public service; and
(3) those that are intended for the development of
national wealth.
Classifications
Under Section 3 of Article XII of the 1987
Philippine Constitution, lands of the public domain
are classified into agricultural, forest or timber,
mineral lands and national parks. Only
agricultural lands are allowed, however, to be
alienated.
Characteristics of Properties of Public Dominion
1. They Are Outside the Commerce of Man
- Being outside the commerce of man, it
cannot be alienated or leased or
otherwise be the subject matter of
contracts.
2. They Are Not Susceptible To Private
Appropriation and Acquisitive
Prescription
- subject property is part of the reservation
for provincial park purposes and, thus,
part of the forest zone, it is not
registrable and its possession, no matter
how lengthy, cannot convert it into
private property.
3. They Are Not Subject to Attachment and
Execution
- Any encumbrance, levy on execution or
auction sale of any property of public
dominion is void for being contrary to
public policy.
4. They Cannot Be Burdened with
Voluntary Easements
- the lot is a property of public dominion
devoted to public use, it cannot be
burdened by a voluntary easement or
right of way in favor of Villarico.
Patrimonial Property of the State
1. Friar Lands
2. Alienable and Disposable Lands of the
Public Domain
3. Lands Covered by Republic Act No. 7227
It is considered as a property of the State in what
may be called the private sense. It is said that over
this kind of property the State has the same rights
and has the same power of disposition as private
individuals subject, of course, to existing rules and
regulations.
Conversion: From Public Dominion to Patrimonial
Property Property of public dominion, when no
longer intended for public use or for public service,
shall form part of the patrimonial property of the
State.
In Ignacio v. Director of Lands case, however, the
Supreme Court ruled that a property continues to be
part of the public domain, not available for private
appropriation or ownership until there is a formal
declaration on the part of the government, either
through the Executive department or the
Legislative, to the effect that the property is no
longer needed for public service, for public use or
for special industries.
Classification of Properties of Political
Subdivisions
The property of provinces, cities and municipalities
is divided into property for public use and
patrimonial property.283 The first consists of the
provincial roads, city streets, municipal streets,
squares, fountains, public waters, promenades, and
public works for public service paid for by said
provinces, cities or municipalities.284 All other
property possessed by said provinces, cities or
municipalities is patrimonial.
Private Property
Private properties may belong to the State, to
provinces, cities and municipalities or may belong
to the private individuals either individually or
collectively. Such properties when they belong to
the State, provinces, cities and municipalities are
called “patrimonial property;” and when they
belong to private entities or individuals, they are
called “properties of private ownership.”
OWNERSHIP
Which means the mastery or the absolute control
over a thing except as may be restrained by law
The word “property” is derived from the Roman
word proprius, meaning one’s own which, in
essence, is the concept of ownership.
Art. 427. Ownership may be exercised over things
or rights
Ownership Rights
1. The right to enjoy the property (Art. 428,
par. 1, NCC);
2. the right to dispose the property (Art. 428,
par. 1, NCC);
3. the right to recover the property from any
holder or possessor (Art. 428, par. 2, NCC);
4. the right to exclude any person from
enjoyment and disposal of the property (Art.
429, NCC);
5. the right to enclose or fence the land or
tenement (Art. 430, NCC);
6. the right to demand indemnity for damages
suffered due to lawful interference by a third
person to avert an imminent danger (Art.
432, NCC);
7. the right to just compensation in case of
eminent domain (Art. 435, NCC);
8. the right to construct any works or make any
plantations and excavations on the surface or
subsurface of the land (Art. 437, NCC);
 9. the right to hidden treasure found in the
owner’s property (Art. 438, NCC); and
10. the right to accessions. (Art. 440, NCC)
Attributes of Ownership
1. Jus Possidendi – the right to possess
2. Jus Fruendi – the right to enjoy the fruits
(natural, industrial, and civil)
3. Jus Utendi – the right to use and enjoy
4. Jus Acessiones – the right to accessories 5. Jus
Abutendi – the right to abuse or to consume
6. Jus Disponendi – the right to dispose
Actions for Recovery of Possession
(a) accion interdictal;
Accion interdictal comprises two distinct
causes of action, namely, forcible entry
(detentacion) and unlawful detainer
(desahuico). Forcible entry is a summary
action to recover material or physical
possession of real property when the person
who originally held it was deprived of
possession by “force, intimidation, threat,
strategy, or stealth.” An action for unlawful
detainer, on the other hand, may be fi led
when possession by “a lessor, vendor,
vendee, or other person against whom the
possession of any land or building is
unlawfully withheld after the expiration or
termination of the right to hold possession,
by virtue of any contract, express or implied
(b) accion publiciana; and
An accion publiciana is an action for
recovery of the right to possess and is a
plenary action38 in an ordinary civil
proceeding to determine the better right of
possession of realty independent of the title
or ownership of the property
AI v AP is that the issue in the former is
limited to the question of possession de
facto while the issue in the latter is the
determination of the better right of
possession or possession de jure.
(c) accion reivindicatoria
an action whereby plaintiff alleges
ownership over a parcel of land and seeks
recovery of its full possession
It is different from accion publiciana where
plaintiff merely alleges proof of a better
right to possess without claim of title.
Requisites of Accion Reivindicatoria
First, the identity of the land claimed; and
Second, his title thereto.
First, it is possible that neither the plaintiff nor the
defendant is the true owner of the property in
dispute; and
Second, the burden of proof lies on the party who
substantially asserts the affirmative of an issue for
he who relies upon the existence of a fact should be
called upon to prove that fact.
Ownership Is A Real Right
Personal right or jus in personam is one which
imposes an obligation on a definite person.
A real right or jus in re, on the other hand, has
been defined as the power belonging to a person
over a specific thing without a definite passive
subject against whom such right may be personally
enforced.
This right of the owner is so important that the law
deems it appropriate to allow him to “use such force
as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent
an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion
or usurpation of his property.” The employment of
such reasonable force in defense of his property is
what is known in juridical science as the doctrine
of self-help.
Doctrine of Self-help vs. State of Necessity
The doctrine of self-help is invoked by the owner or
lawful possessor in protection of his right to prevent
other persons from interfering with the property.
The state of necessity, on the other hand, is availed
of by another person against someone else’s
property for the purpose of averting an imminent
danger to himself or to another person or to their
property.
Right to Sub-surface and Airspace It is a well-
known principle that the owner of piece of land has
rights not only to its surface but also to everything
underneath and the airspace above it up to a
reasonable height.
Right to the Sub-Surface or Subsoil
In Republic of the Philippines v. Court of
Appeals,165 this principle was applied to show that
rights over lands are indivisible and, consequently,
require a definitive and categorical classification.
Extent of Rights Over the Sub-Surface
Landowners’ right extends to such height or depth
where it is possible for them to obtain some benefit
or enjoyment, and it is extinguished beyond such
limit as there would be no more interest protected
by law.
Right to Hidden Treasure
“hidden treasure” on the sub-surface also belongs to
him.
The same rule applies if the “hidden treasure” is
located on a building or other property — the same
belong to the owner of the building or other
property on which it is found. However, when the
discovery is made by a stranger who is not a
trespasser and the discovery is by chance, the
finder is entitled to one-half of the treasure. If the
finder is a trespasser, he shall not be entitled to
any share of the treasure.
Concept of “Hidden Treasure” For legal purposes,
“hidden treasure” is understood to be any hidden
and unknown deposit of money, jewelry, or other
precious objects, the lawful ownership of which
does not appear.
The same rule shall apply even if the land belongs
to the State. However, if the thing found be of
interest to science or the Arts, the State may
acquire them by paying just price, whether the
finder of the treasure is the owner of the property on
which it is found or a third person.
Requisites:
(1) the deposit of money, jewelry or other precious
objects must be hidden or unknown; and
(2) the lawful ownership of which must not appear.
Under the ejusdem generis rule, the term “other
precious objects” should be understood as being
similar to money or jewelry. Hence, the concept
does not include natural wealth, i.e., minerals and
petroleum. See Regalian Doctrine.
Rule on “Treasure Hunting”
The provisions of Article 438 of the New Civil
Code on “hidden treasure” shall apply only if the
discovery of the treasure is by chance.
If the search for the hidden treasure is deliberate,
otherwise known as “treasure hunting,” such
activity is governed by the following:
1. Republic Act No. 8492
2. DENR Administrative Order No. 2002- 04,
as amended by DENR AO No. 2004-2003
In case of treasure hunting for treasures which are
not of cultural and historical values, the same shall
require the issuance of a permit for treasure hunting
or shipwreck/sunken vessel recovery to be issued by
the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, whether the treasure hunting is to be
undertaken on private lands or government lands
and subject to the consent of the private landowners
or government agencies concerned.
After an audited report of expenses has been
evaluated and approved by the oversight committee,
the sharing of the net proceeds shall be as follows:
(1) for treasure hunting within public lands –
75% to the Government and 25% to the
permit holder;
(2) for treasure hunting in private lands – 30%
to the Government and 70% to be shared by
the permit holder and the landowner; and
(3) for shipwreck/sunken vessel recovery – 50%
to the Government and 50% to the permit
holder.
Right to the Airspace
While the airspace is a public highway, it is obvious
that if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of
the land, he must have exclusive control of the
“immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere.”
RIGHT OF ACCESSION
Accession
The ownership of property gives the right by
accession to everything which is produced thereby,
or which is incorporated or attached thereto, either
naturally or artificially. Accession, therefore, is the
right of an owner of a thing to the products of said
thing as well as to whatever is inseparably attached
thereto as an accessory.
It is not, therefore, a mode of acquiring ownership
but a right included in ownership.
The seven modes of acquiring ownership
(occupation, intellectual creation, law, donation,
succession, tradition and prescription)
Kinds of Accession
Accesion discreta is subdivided into: (1) natural
fruits, (2) industrial fruits, and (3) civil fruits.
Accesion continua, in turn, may refer to either
immovable property or movable property.
Accesion continua is classified into either
industrial accession or natural accession. In
industrial accession, the incorporation takes place
artificially, while natural accession takes place
through natural means. Industrial accession, in turn,
may take the form of either building, planting, or
sowing. Natural accession, on the other hand, has
four forms: (1) alluvion, (2) avulsion; (3) change of
course of river; and (4) formation of islands
With respect to movable property, accesion
continua may either be: (1) adjunction or
conjunction, (2) commixtion or confusion, and (3)
specification. Adjunction or conjunction, in turn,
may take place by: (1) inclusion (engraftment), (2)
soldadura (attachment); (3) tejido (weaving); (4)
pintura (painting); or (5) escritura (writing).
Exceptions to the Rule The rule in Article 441 is
not absolute inasmuch as there are cases where the
owner is not entitled to the fruits of his property.
The exceptions to the rule are the following:
(a) in usufruct
(b) in lease of rural lands
(c) in antichresis
(d) in possession in good faith
(e) fruits naturally falling
Kinds of Fruits
1. Natural – spontaneous products of the soil
and the young, and other products of animals. [Art.
442(1), CC] Partus sequitur ventrem: To the
owner of female animals would also belong the
young of such animals although this cannot apply
when the owner mixes his cattle with those of
another and they interbreed, thus co-ownership is
applied. [Siari Valley Estate v. Lucasan, G.R. No.
L-13281 (1960)].
2. Industrial – Fruits produced by the lands of any
kind through cultivation of labor [Art. 442 (2), CC]
3. Civil – Rents of buildings, price of leases of
lands and other property and the amount of
perpetual or life annuities or other similar income
[Art. 442 (3), CC]
Existence of Fruits, When Recognized
With respect to natural and industrial fruits, only
those “manifest” or “born” are considered as such.
Article 443 applies only when the fruits are already
harvested and gathered since the article refers to
persons “who receives the fruits.” Hence, the article
does not apply to a situation where the fruits are still
pending.
Right of Accession with Respect to Immovable
Property
As defined, accesion continua is the right of the
owner to anything which is incorporated or attached
to his property, whether the attachment is by reason
of natural or artificial causes.
Industrial Accession
Industrial accession may take the form of building,
planting or sowing
Controversial Cases
(1) When the landowner builds, plants or sows on
his land but using materials belonging to another;
(2) When a person builds, plants or sows on
another’s land but he made use of materials
belonging to him; and
(3) When a person builds, plants or sows on
another’s land but he made use of materials
belonging to another.
Presumptions
• All works, sowing and planting are presumed
made by the owner and at his expense, unless the
contrary is proved. [Art. 446, CC]
● The incorporation must be done in such a manner
that to separate the principal from the accessory
would result in injury to both principal and
accessory.
● The party in bad faith is always liable for
damages.
● When both parties are in bad faith, they are
considered to be in good faith.
● The owner of the principal thing owns the natural,
industrial and civil fruits, except when the following
persons exist:
a. Possessor in Good Faith
b. Usufructuary
c. Lessee
d. Antichretic creditor
Bad Faith
On the part of the landowner
Whenever the building, planting or sowing was
done with his knowledge and without opposition on
his part. [Art. 453(2), CC]
On the part of the owner of materials
Allows the use of his materials without protest. On
the part of the builder, planter and sower One who
has knowledge of any flaw or defect in his title or
mode of acquisition [Art. 526, CC]
He is a possessor in bad faith at the time of BPS if
he knows that:
a. He does not have title to the land, and
thus, has no right to build thereon; or
b. He has no permission to build, plant, or
sow on the land which he possesses but does not
own.
Note: Bad faith leads to liability for damages
and the loss of the works or the improvement
without right to indemnity. [Art. 449, CC] If both
parties are in bad faith, then treat them as if they are
both in good faith. [Art. 453(1), CC]
As A Rule, Art. 448 Cannot Apply To A
Co-Owner
The co-owner is not a third person under the
circumstances, and the situation is governed by the
rules of co-ownership. However, when the co-
ownership is terminated by a partition and it appears
that the house of an erstwhile co-owner has
encroached upon a portion pertaining to another co-
owner which was however made in good faith, then
the provisions of Article 448 should apply to
determine the respective rights of the parties.
Ordinarily, Article 448 does not apply to a case
where the owner of the land is the builder, sower or
planter who then later loses ownership of the land
by sale or donation, for then there can be no
question as to good or bad faith on the part of the
builder. In the case of Pecson v. Court of Appeals,
however, the Court applied by analogy the
provision of Article 448 on indemnity to a builder
who loses ownership of his land when the same was
auctioned off by a local government unit for failure
of the landowner to pay the real estate taxes.
Legal Effects Where Both Parties Are In Good
Faith
What then are the legal effects of a situation where
both the landowner and the builder, planter or sower
(who is at the same time the owner of the materials)
acted in good faith? Article 448 governs such a
situation. Under Article 448, the landowner, as
owner of the principal thing, is given two alternative
rights: (1) to appropriate as his own the works,
sowing or planting after payment to the builder,
planter or sower of the necessary and useful
expenses, and in the proper cases, expenses for pure
luxury or mere pleasure, incurred by the latter; or
(2) to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the
price of the land, if the value of the land is not
considerably more than that of the building or trees,
and the one who sowed, the proper rent.
Option Is Given To the Landowner
Under Article 448, the right to choose between
appropriating the improvement or selling the land
on which the improvement of the builder, planter or
sower stands, is given to the owner of the land.
The only right given to the builder in good faith is
the right to reimbursement for the improvements;
the builder cannot compel the owner of the land to
sell such land to the former.
Landowner Cannot Refuse to Exercise Either
Option
Hence, the landowner cannot refuse to exercise
either option and compel instead the owner of the
building or improvement to remove it from the land.
In a situation where the landowner is refusing to
exercise any of the options granted him under
Article 448, the builder in good faith can, under the
same Article, compel the landowner to make a
choice between appropriating the building by
paying the proper indemnity or obliging the builder
to pay the price of the land.
Pending Reimbursement, Builder Has Right of
Retention
In addition to the right of the builder in good faith to
be paid the value of his improvement, Article 546 of
the New Civil Code gives him the corollary right of
retention of the property until he is indemnified by
the owner of the land.
Option To Sell the Land
If the landowner elected to compel the builder or
planter to pay the price of the land, then said builder
or planter must do so, unless the value of land is
considerably more than that of the building or trees,
in which case, the builder or planter must pay
reasonable rent if the landowner does not choose to
appropriate the building or trees.
Remedy If Builder or Planter Refuses To Pay
There is nothing in the language of these two
articles, 448 and 546, which would justify the
conclusion of appellants that, upon the failure of the
builder to pay the value of the land, when such is
demanded by the landowner, the latter becomes
automatically the owner of the improvement xxx.
The parties may agree to assume the relation of
lessor and lessee — but they must do so
voluntarily.
Owner of the land is entitled to have the
improvement removed when after having chosen
to sell his land to the other party, i.e., the builder
in good faith, fails to pay for the same. Right
under Art 546 is lost.
Basis in Determining Price of the Land In Ballatan
v. Court of Appeals, it was ruled that in the event
the landowner elects to sell the land to the builder in
good faith, the price must be fixed at the prevailing
market value at the time of payment. Right under
Art 546 is lost.
Landowner In Good Faith; Builder In Bad Faith
Legal Consequences; Alternative Rights of the
Landowner
The landowner can exercise any of the following
three rights and/ or remedies under Articles 449,
450 and 451:
1. Right to Appropriate – owner
appropritates
2. Right of Remotion – demolish plus
damages
3. Right To Compel Payment of the Price of
the Land - compel the builder or planter
to pay the price of the land, and the sower
the proper rent,
Limited Rights of Builder, Planter or Sower in
Bad Faith
Builder in BF - Reimbursement for the necessary
expenses of preservation of the land
Both Acted In Bad Faith
One basic principle of accesion continua is that the
bad faith of one person neutralizes the bad faith of
another and both should be considered as having
acted in good faith.
Landowner In Bad Faith; Builder In Good Faith
(1) to demand the value of his materials, plus
damages; or
(2) to demand the return of his materials in any
event, plus damages.
If the Owner of the Materials Acted In Bad Faith
He Loses His Materials Without Indemnity
- he loses his materials without any right
whatsoever
Rights of the Landowner
- the landowner can claim what has been
built, planted or sown on his land
without any obligation to indemnify the
owner of the materials
Rights of the Builder, Planter or Sower
Acted in good faith. He may claim from the
landowner a reasonable compensation for his labor.
This is based on the principle that no person should
be unjustly enriched at the expense of another
Acted in bad faith. He had no right to the land,
then he is not entitled to anything. He may instead
be made to pay damages to the landowner.
Quieting of Title
Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the
removal of any cloud upon or doubt or uncertainty
with respect to title to real property.
Requisites of Action to Quiet Title
For an action to quiet title to prosper, the following
indispensable requisites must concur, namely:
(1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an
equitable title to or interest in the real property
subject of the action;
(2) there is a cloud on title to real property or any
interest therein; and
(3) the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding
claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be
shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its
prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.
Legal or Equitable Title
It is not necessary, therefore, that the person seeking
to quiet his title be the registered owner of the
property in question.404 When Article 477 speaks
of “title” to property, it does not necessarily denote
a certificate of title issued in favor of the person fi
ling the suit. It can connote acquisitive prescription
by possession in the concept of an owner thereof.
“Cloud” on Title
As defined, a “cloud on title is a semblance of title
which appears in some legal form, but which is in
fact unfounded.”
In fi ne, to avail of the remedy of quieting of title, a
plaintiff must show that there is an instrument,
record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which
constitutes or casts a cloud, doubt, question or
shadow upon the owner’s title to or interest in real
property.
Prescription
Action is imprescriptible when in possession
Not in possession -10 years
CO-OWNERSHIP
Co-ownership as the right of common dominion
which two or more persons have in a spiritual part
of a thing, not materially or physically divided.
Requisites of Co-ownership
There is co-ownership whenever the ownership of
an undivided thing or right belongs to different
persons. Hence, in order that a coownership may
exist the following requisites must concur:
1. Plurality of Subjects
2. Unity of the Object
3. Recognition of Ideal Share
Action Available Even Against A Co-Owner
The only purpose of the action is to obtain
recognition of the co-ownership
Such being the case, the court cannot, in the action
fi led by a co-owner against another co-owner under
Article 487, proceed with the actual partitioning of
the co-owned property. Judicial or extra-judicial
partition is still necessary to effect such physical
division.
Effect of Judgment Upon the Other Co-Owners
any adverse judgment cannot prejudice the rights of
the unimpleaded co-owners. However, any
judgment of the court in favor of the co- owner will
benefit the others.
Alienation of Entire Co-owned Property
As a mere part owner, a co-owner cannot alienate
the shares of the other co-owners.
However, even if a co-owner sells the whole
property as his, the sale will affect only his own
share but not those of the other co-owners who did
not consent to the sale.
Since a co-owner is entitled to sell his undivided
share, a sale of the entire property by one co-owner
without the consent of the other co-owners is not
null and void. However, only the rights of the co-
owner-seller are transferred, thereby making the
buyer a co-owner of the property.
Since the sale is not null and void, the proper action
in cases like this is not for the nullifi cation of the
sale. And since such sale had the effect of making
the buyer a co-owner of the property, an action for
the recovery of possession of the thing owned in
common from the buyer who substituted the co-
owner or co-owners who alienated their shares is
likewise not proper since the possession by the
buyer, being a new co-owner, will not be regarded
as adverse to the other coowners but is, in fact,
benefi cial to all of them. It is now settled that the
appropriate recourse of co-owners in cases where
their consent were not secured in a sale of the entire
property as well as in a sale merely of the undivided
shares of some of the co-owners is an action for
partition under Rule 69 of the Revised Rules of
Court.
It is clear, however, that when the purchaser knew
of, could have known, the existence of the co-
ownership and yet did not seek the consent or
authorization of the other co-owners in the sale of
the entire property, he may not be considered a
purchaser in good faith.
Extinguishment of Co-ownership
Causes of Extinguishment of Co-ownership.
Co-ownership may be extinguished or terminated
by any of the following causes: (1) By the merger
in one person of all the interest of the coownership;
(2) By prescription of the thing or right in favor
of third persons or a co-owner;
(3) By destruction of the thing or loss of the right
which is owned in common; and
(4) By partition of the property owned in
common.
Prescription
“no prescription shall lie in favor of a co-owner or
co-heirs as long as he expressly or impliedly
recognizes the co-ownership.”
Exception: When Co-Ownership Is Repudiated
In a co-ownership, the act of one benefi ts all the
other co-owners, unless the former repudiates the
co-ownership.
Partition
Note, however, that an action for partition implies
that the thing is still owned in common
Article 494 has been interpreted to mean that the
action for partition is imprescriptible or cannot be
barred by laches.
Period of Prescription When a co-owner has
effectively repudiated the co-ownership, two
possibilities may arise: (1) such co-owner may
acquire the entire property by virtue of acquisitive
prescription if his possession meets all the
requirements of the law, and after the expiration of
the prescriptive period; or (2) the other co-owners
who were deprived of their share may lose their
right to seek a declaration of the existence of the co-
ownership and of their rights thereunder because the
same may already be barred under the statute of
limitations (or extinctive prescription).
Acquisitive Prescription
Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires
possession of things in good faith and with just title
for a period of ten years. Without good faith and
just title, acquisitive prescription can only be
extraordinary in character which requires
uninterrupted adverse possession for thirty years.
Action For Partition, Explained
First, there is the issue of whether the plaintiff is
indeed a co-owner of the property sought to be
partitioned. Second, assuming that the plaintiff
successfully hurdles the fi rst issue, there is the
secondary issue of how the property is to be divided
between plaintiff and defendant(s) — i.e., what
portion should go to which co-owner
proceedings, the following are the legal effects
thereof:
1. The co-ownership is terminated292 and each
co-owner becomes the absolute and
exclusive owner of the share allotted to him.
2. It shall not prejudice the rights of third
persons, who shall retain the rights of
mortgage, servitude, or any other real rights
belonging to them before the division was
made.
3. Personal rights pertaining to third persons
against the ownership shall also remain in
force.
4. Mutual accounting shall be rendered by the
co-owners to each other with regard to
benefi ts and expenses and each co-owner
shall pay for damages caused by reason of
his negligence or fraud.
5. Every co-owner shall be liable for defects of
title and quality of the portion assigned to
each of the other co-owners.

Should the trial court find that the defendants do not

dispute the status of the plaintiff as co-owner, the
court can forthwith proceed to the actual
partitioning of the property involved.

When Partition Not Available

The action for partition will not be available in the

following instances:
(1) When there is an agreement among the
owners to keep the thing undivided.
However, such agreement must not exceed
ten years.
(2) When the donor or testator prohibits
partition for a period which shall not exceed
twenty (20) years.
(3) When the law prohibits partition such as
when the origin or juridical nature of co-
ownership prevents partition.
(4) When partition would render the thing
unserviceable for the use for which it is
intended.

When thing is essentially indivisible

Whenever the thing is essentially indivisible and the

co-owners cannot agree that it be allotted to one of
them who shall indemnify the others, it shall be sold
and its proceeds distributed.

Legal Effects of Partition

Once a partition has been made, whether by

agreement among the co-owners or by judicial