Reviewer PROPERTY T LC

Art 415- see codal also

Art 428 Ownership- see codal
429 and 430 see codal- right to exclude and right to enclose
435 Just compensation
437 Surface rights
438 Hidden Treasure
440 Accessions
Principle of Self-Help
Reqs: 1. Actual or threatened physical invasion or usurpation 2. Invasion is
unlawful; 3. Owner or lawful professor of one defending property 4. Reasonably
necessary force to repel the invasion or usurpation 5. Exercised at the time of an actual
or threatened dispossession or IMMEDIATELTY after dispossession
Disputable Presumption of Ownership ART 433
Tan Yap vs Patricio June 2019
Respondent judge's reliance on Article 42912 of the Civil Code is misplaced. The
doctrine of "self-help" enunciated in this article applies only when the person against
whom the owner has the right to use force (in order to exclude the former from the
latter's property) is really an "aggressor."13 In this case, Sheriff Alvarez was not an
aggressor, as indeed he could not have been one, because as an officer or agent of the
court, he was simply carrying out his official duty to implement the writ of execution
covering Lot Nos. 703 and 706. The OCA was correct in saying that respondent judge
effectively took the law into his own hands, when he stopped the implementation of the
writ of execution using threats and intimidation. Needless to say, he also clearly failed to
accord due respect to legal processes. While it may be true that respondent judge did
not employ actual force in its literal sense when he stopped the implementation of the
writ of execution, the threats he uttered (that something untoward might happen if the
wrh of execution were carried out) effectively prevented or stopped the carrying out of
the writ of execution. It has been held that: "Such threat of violence is absolutely
unbecoming [ of] a judge who is expected to display proper decorum.
Hidden Treasure- 439
Codal
Spouses Benitez vs CA
The option is to sell and not to buy the land and the choice belongs to the landowner.
There is no pre-emptive right to buy even as a compromise and no compulsion to sell
on the part of the landowner.
Spouses Alviola vs CA
For article 448 NCC to apply, the construction must be of permanent character,
attached to the soil with an idea of perpetuity. If transitory, no accession and the builder
in must remove the construction.
Verona Pada-kilario vs CA
Mere Promise to donate the land cannot convert the builder into one of good faith. At
the time the improvement was built on the land, there was mere expectancy of
ownership which may or may not be realized. The occupancy of petitioner was merely
tolerated, hence ownership cannot be in gf
Josefa vs San Buenaventura
Lessees are not builders in gf. They came into possession of the lot by virtue of contract
entered into with the lessor. They are estopped to deny their landlord’s title or to assert
a better title not only in themselves but also in some 3rd person while they remain in
possession of the leased premises and until they surrender possession to the landlord.
1678- lessee shall have the right to ½ of useful improvement if lessor
appropriates. If not, such is removed.
Dept of Education vs Casibang et al
Mayor Caronan requested Cepeda to allow DEPED to construct and operate a
school on his property. Cepeda allowed it. Casibang also tolerated when Cepeda
died. They occupied a portion of the lot In the school. Forcible entry was filed
against them. The school said that the lot was bought by Civic minded Solana
residents (the school) and property has been occupied as a concept of an owner
Who has the better right?
The OCT is best proof of ownership of Cepeda. Trial court ruled that Deped is a builder
in GF. He must be unaware of any flaw or defect in such possession. Despite being a
possessor by mere tolerance, deped is in gf since Cepeda permitted the construction of
building and the improvements to conduct classes on his property. Art 448 shall be
applied.
Sps Julian Sr vs Conrado and Erola
Conrado and Marilyn are the owners of the lot. Cecilia was sister of Conrado.
Cecilia and Julian were allowed to make use of land of Marilyn. The two planted
bamboos etc. Marilyn demanded them to vacate therefore unlawful detainer was
filed
Issue: WON Petitioners are of good faith?
The builders are not in GF as they never constructed the bamboos in concept of an
owner. Thus, no right to retian possession of property under Art 448. However, in his
case, landowner was also in BF as the act done by the siblings are with their
knowledge. Thus, Art 448 is applicable.
ALLUVIUM AVULSION etc-codal
Daclison vs Baytio- Land came about by man made creation and not exclusive results
from the current.
Avulsion
Syjuco vs Bonifacio
SPS DE DIOS RANOLA
Both requisites for quieting of title is wanting. The petitioners do not have certificate of
title. No equitable title also as there is no beneficial ownership. Claim merely rested on
tax declaration. Thus, they may only claim forcible entry but not quieting title.
CO-OWNERSHIP
Pidlaoon vs Pidlaoan
Mere construction of the house on another’s land does not create co-ownership
regardless of the value of the house
SPOUSES SI vs CA*
There is no co-ownership when different portions owned by different people are already
concretely determined and separately identifiable, even if not technically described. In
this case there will no other be legal redemption over the property by the former co-
owners.
RIGHTS OF EACH CO-OWNER-codal
Gloria vs Builders Savings Loan
Juan and Conchita were married. Juan died. Conchita and Lourdes filed a complaint
against BSLA for cancellation of REM, TCT and damages. BSLA said Lourdes should
still obtain proper declaration of heirship because she is an “ampon”. Is the contention
correct?
No. There is evidence of Certification of Live Birth. Being daughter, she is co-owner. No
need prior declaration of heirship before heirs may commence an action arising from
such co-ownership.
TABASONDRA v Constantino
There are 3 co-owners of a lot- all of them died intestate. Cornelio had 2
marriages had children of 1st and second marriage. Tarsillas and Sebastian
wanted to contest the equal distribution because one of the former co-owners
Valentina and Valerian already gave them the property. Did CA correctly ordered
partition with respect to Cornelio’s share only.
Yes. The two only sold undivided portion of their property even without knowledge of all
co-oowners.
May a co-owner be ejected from the co-ownership. No. Being co-owners of property,
they are also owner of the improvement. Each person may use and enjoy the property
as their own. Partition should be the proper remedy.
Rural Bank of Cabadbaran vs melecio Yap
If the entire property subject of co-ownership was mortgaged by the co-owner
using a forged SPA, is the mortgage valid voidable or void.
The mortgage is valid with respect to Erna’s share but with respect to other co-owners
is VOID. The partition of property is the remedy.
Arambulo vs Nolasco
Rosita de Arambulo died with 7 children plus Iraida who is being represented by
husband and other children. Rosita together with 8 children are co-owners.
Rosita wanted to sell the entire property. Genaro is withholding his consent with
the others. May a co-owner be compelled to give consent to a sale of his share?
No. Under Art 493 each co-ownership has full ownership of his share. Their vendees
shall be co-owners of respondents as he cannot be compelled to sell such property.
SPS ABAD vs CA
Can a co-owner sell a particular or a definite portion? No, there must be a partition
SPS BENNY vs RACHO
The original lot owned by Loreto was subdivided excluding Isabel who was a co-
owner which property came from Loreto. Did CA correctly rule the conveyance of
Lots to spouses Roi as null and void except to a certain portion pertaining to
Fausto, chita and maria?
Yes, the deed of sale are null and void as forgery as it is impossible for Loreto to
execute such document. As for the EJSS, CA correctly declared the same to be null and
void as it is without the knowledge of such EJS. The three cannot sell a definite portion
of an undivided property. But the one half of inchoate interest which is part of their
undivided interest is valid to Roi. To Allan, the donation is not valid as not made based
on pubic instrument.
Cabrera vs Ysaac
The co-owner did not agree to partition their property, the wife and the husband when
the husband was in other country. Thus, the contract to sell is null and void.
Torres vs Lapinid
The vendee steps into the shoes of the vendor as co-owner and acquires a
proportionate abstract share on property held in common.
Consent of co-wners-codal
Adlawan vs Adlawan
Any one of the co-owners may bring an action for ejectment. This can be done even
without joining all other co-owners as it is presumed for the benefit of all. If it is for a
benefit of one as a sole owner, it should be dismissed. SC held it was proper for
dismissal as Armelito was filing for his own behalf stating there was no more co-
ownership.
ART 494 Acquisition by Prescription
1. Gen rule, no co-owner can acquire the whole thing except by repudiation
a. He must definitely repudiates
b. Give letters by mail or personal service as evidence of repudiation
c. OCENPO for such period of time, prescription starts
Heirs of Reyes vs Reyes.
Their must be repudiation for adverse right to occur. The fact of payment of taxes does
not constitute unequivocal act of repudiation.
ART 494 Partition-codal
Mayuga vs Atienza
Issue: Whether a person may legally partition his estate during his lifetime
SC said yes. 1080 of NCC, should a person make a partition of his estate by an act inter
vivos or by will, such partition shall be respected as it does not prejudice the legitime. It
is with the legitime compulsory heirs who is required to proof legitime is impaired.
Quintos v Nicholas
May partition be barred by res judicata since 1 st case for partition was dismissed
for failure to prosecute?
No, a procedural law shall not amend a substantive law.
SPS MARCOS v BANGI
Is an oral partition of land valid?
Yes, partition is the separation, division and assignment of the thing held in common
among those to whom it may belong. Oral partition is effective if parties consummated
it by taking of possession and exercise of ownership of the respective portions.
Termination of co-ownership codal
Paulmitan vs CA
The redemption of the land made by Fanesa did not terminate the co-ownership nor
give her title to the entire land subject of the co-ownership. She however acquired the
right to be reimbursed for half of the redemption she paid. There was still a co-
ownership between Juliana Fanesa and the legitimate children.
ART5 523 POSSESSION
Subic Bay vs Bernard Fernandez
Ludwig and Deoven played casino and had their chips encashed by the cashier.
The Legenda’s security officers interrogated the brothers; they were ordered to
return because it was owned by Bernard Fernandez.
SC said, applying art 559, respondent Bernard fernanez has legal presumption of
ownership based on respondent’s admission during trial that the chips represented
payment by a Chinese customer services he rendered in his car shop. Thus, the two are
possessors in good faith and for value and with presumptive title derived from
respondent.
Are they legal tender? No. it is still the peso and centavos. However, they can still be
traded.
Doctrine of Constructive Possession
Possession does not mean that a man must set his feet on such land as long as such is
already under a person’s legal control.
USUFRUCT- has the naked owner and the equitable owner:Usufructuary
Obligations of USUFRUCTUARY
CODAL
Easement-Codal
Mercades Jr vs Bardilas
Right of way only acquired by virtue of a title. But the phrase with Existing Right of way
is not one of the mode. It must be a juridical act.
De Guzman vs Filinvest Dev
The ROW constituting the easement consists of network of existing roads. Thus, the
needs of the dominant estate was not considered. SC said that the 10m width for 10 M
is iniquitous as the needs of dominant estate only 3M width right of way. Thus indemnity
is only reduced to such.
Cristobal vs CA
Q Who has the burden of proving entitlement to a legal easement of right of way?
A: It is incumbent upon the dominant estate owner by clear and convincing evidence
Alicia Reyes vs Sps Ramos
Spouses Ramos state that the servient estate is not the least onerous. Also, there was
a bridge but muddy. SC said such Ramos estate was not the least prejudicial as.
Convenience is not tha gauge in ROW. The construction of the bridge can be the least
prejudicial
Helen Calimoso vs Axel Roullo
Three options were available to Roullo. Through 2 vacant lots with 43 meters; to
construct a bridge over Sipac Creek and ask ROW for MR. Basa’s and the other is a
distance of 14m from Axel to Helen’s property.
SC said that the 14 meters will destroy the house of petitioner, thus it is the least
prejuidicial

Dichoso vs Marcos
May petitioners who were already granted a ROW by another land owner stiil
compel respondent an alternative route? NO, convenience is not the gauge but
necessity.
Chan vs Chan- the owner of a lot who built a concrete fence on the southern portion of
her property to separate it from her neighbors and closed the 28 inch clearance which
was her means to reach national highway is not entitled to right of way.
Unisource vs Chung.
Doctrine: The opening of an adequate outlet to a highway can extinguish only legal or
compulsory easements but not voluntary easements. A voluntary one can be
extinguished by mutual agreement.
SPS. Salimbagon vs SPS Tan
QQ What is the effect if the servient estate owners in an easement later become
owners? Easement is extinguished by operation of law.
Easement of Lateral and Subjacent Support
Castro vs Monsod
Does the easement of lateral and subjacent support exist on the subject adjacent
properties and if it does, can the same be annotated at the back of the title of the
servient estate?
An annotation of the existence of lateral and subjacent support is no longer necessary.
A judicial recognition of the same binds the property and its owner, including
successors-in-interest.
Easement of Light and View 667-673
SPS Garcia vs Loreta Winston
The building of Sps Santos is higher than Sps Garcia. Sps. Garcia said that the
construction became dark. Is there Light and View.
Yes, such is negative. It cannot be acquired by prescription except after 10 years lapse
from notarial prohibition. Such can also be acquired through title. It refers to a juridical
act or law. Art 624 can be applied as there arises of an easement of light of view even in
the absence of any formal act undertaken by the owner if this is an apparent visible
sign. Hence in accordance with Art 624, from the time Sps Santos transferred the
subject property to SPS Garcia, there arose a burden by title an easement of light
and view.
NUISANCE-Codal
Cruz vs Pandacan
Q. IS the basketball ring a nusance per se that can be summarily abated?
No, not per se but a per accidens as it does not pose an immediate effect upon safety
on persons.
Knights of Rizal vs DMCI Homes
There is no law prohibiting construction of Torre de Manila. In this case, there is no
allegation that it is contrary to morals, customs and public order but such was not
proven. It is not nuisance per se. The question if it is a nuisance per accidens shall be
with the RTC as there must be notice and hearing.
Perez vs sps Madrona
Q: May owners of a H and L who constructed a concrete fence on their property
be ordered by the chief demolition office to demolish said fence as it encroaches
sidewalk?
Not a per se. By its nature it is not injurious to health and comfort.
Aquino vs Malay Aklan
The hotel is not per se. Had it not been constructed in the no build zone, such can be
valid. Howver, under LGC, the mayor can demolish it as it has no necessary permits
Doctine of Attractive nuisance
One who maintains in his premises dangerous instrumentalities to attract children to
play who fails to exercise dogfoaf is liable even if child is a trespasser. Such is not
applied to bodies of water, artificial or natural.

DONATION
Reyes vs Asuncion
A remuneratory donation as it was based on the service done to the woman. However
there was a charge or burden as it is a profit sharing agreement. Therefore, it is not
required to be notarized as it is govern by law on contracts.
Balikan Inter vivos vs M causa
Villanueva vs SPS Branoco
Alvegia Rodrigo owner of a lot, there was a DOS in favor of Casimiro vere (1970)
and another with Eufracia- deed of donation (1975). Petitioner traces property
from Vere. Sps Branoco from Rodriguez 1983, as from a ddeed of sale. Villanueva
stated he has better right because the DOS is earlier than SPS Branoco. From
Eufracio Rodriguez, upon knowledge of Rodrigo of acceptance, there was
transfer of ownership. Is it inter vivos or mortis causa?
The dod includes word devise a lot and said ownership shall be vested with the
done upon demise of donor. Also, it sattes that if done predeceases donor, lot
shall not be reverted to donor but to heirs. The done accepted and will give ½ of
produce to donor.
This is a donation inter vivos. It signal the irrevocability to heirs. It waives the donor’s
right to reclaim it upon acceptance as such underscores an essence of a gift.
Sps Sicad vs CA
Donation mortis causa as it shall take effect 10 yrs after death of donor. During lifetime
of the donor, it is still with donor.
Del Rosario vs ferrer
Leopolod and Guadalupe had three children. They executed a D Mortis Causa.
After death of Guadalupe, Leopoldo gave a deed of assignment to Asuncion
giving all property to Asuncion. Jarabini, a son of a child of the spouses brought
the will mortis causa and said such should govern.
I”t is our will that this Donation Mortis Causa shall be irrevocable and shall be
respected by the surviving spouse.

It is our will that Jarabini Gonzales-del Rosario and Emiliano Gonzales will
continue to occupy the portions now occupied by them.

It is further our will that this DONATION MORTIS CAUSA shall not in any way
affect any other distribution of other properties belonging to any of us donors
whether testate or intestate and where ever situated.

It is our further will that any one surviving spouse reserves the right, ownership,
possession and administration of this property herein donated and accepted and
this Disposition and Donation shall be operative and effective upon the death of
the DONORS.”
Inter vivos as it is irrevocable. It becomes even clearer that the surviving donor must
respect his own donation
Gestapo vs CA
Inter vivos, as the property was passed during lifetime of the donor. The only condition
is that the donor shall be reserved of usufruct over the property.
Void donations art 739
1. Between persons guilty of adultery or concubinage
2. Same found guilty of same criminal offense
3. Made to a public officer or wife, des, ascendants by reason of office
4. Bet sps during marriage except moderate gifts from family rejoicing
Arcaba vs Tabancura
“In consideration of the faitful services rendered to me by Cirila Arcaba for over
10 years, I donate lot with house erected thereon” They said it was void as it was
based on common law relationship as they sleep together in one room. Cirila will
give therapeutic massage.
SC said that they were under 1 roof. Their public conduct was theirs is not just caregiver
and patient but exclusive partners thus void.
Carinan vs SPS Cueto
Roberta and Jose entered into a contract to sell in the name of gsIS. Jose died so
Esperanza failed to pay. Esperanza had a brother Gavino. SPS Cueto paid the
monthly amortizations. TCT was issued to Esperanza and Cueto demanded
payment. Esperanza said payment was a donation. Is this a donation?
No, there was no compliance with valid donation. There was no document in court to
present such donation.
Homeowners Association vs JM Tuason
Donation not embodied in a public document as provided in NCC. Also, since donation
is perfected only when donor is apprised of such acceptance, lack of it is donation void.
Absent a deed of donation, no donation shall be presumed.
You may attached details but better include in the donation
Tan Queto vs Pombuena
Oral donation of land not valid. Not in public instrument and not under formalities of a
will
Quilala vs Alcantara
Valid because the instrument was treated in its entirety. The fact that it was
acknowledge before a notary public converts the deed into a public document.
Grounds for Revocation
ART760
De luna vs Abrigo
Condition to comply with condition 70 percent within 3 years finish improvements
and all finished after 5 years. Failure to comply with any of the conditions will
mean automatic reversion.
In case at bar, the phrase failure to comply… It would give automatic reversion. No
need to go to court for reconveyance. Also, it is an onerous donation and such burden is
much more than the value of property donated or equal to thing donated. Such is
govern by law on contracts. Under such law, there must be liberty, autonomy and
freedom to contacts. Thus because of the condition, property returns to the alleged
donor.
Roman Catholic vs CA
Donation of a parcel of land is subject to a condition that such shall not be sold
for 100 yrs from DOD violation would render it ipos facto.
The restriction cannot be allowed as it is only for extent of 20 years. To that extent,
condition is valid.
Sec of Education vs Heirs of Dulay- onerous also
TCT transferred 1983. On eof the husband died 1994. The heirs of Dulay found
that the land where they donated is still barren but such should have been built
for a school. According to Dulay it was not made for such purpose. DECS said,
they are using the land as home economics laboratory
SC, recovery is valid as they did not heed the condition.
Clemente vs Republic
In DOD, the property shall only be for govt hospital. The construction was never
completed. After 41 yrs from DOD, Socorro as heir filed for Revocation and
recovery.Q: Can it be revoked?
Yes. Revocation of donation and reconveyance is valid. The condition is a resolutory
condition, until such is revoked, it is valid. The condition has 2 parts- construct and use
it. A foundation of such is not compliance. Thus, it is clear that done has no intention of
fulfilling as they stated they have no budget. Also a gov hospital was built in another
barangay.
Acts of ingratitude- 765
Calanasan vs Dolorito
SC said, donor has no factual orlegal basis for revocation as the ungrateful acts were nt
committed by the done but the husband of done also, the ungrateful act was not against
donor, it was to sister and not a descendant.
Grounds for Reduction
1. Failure of donor to reserve sufficient means to support himself and
dependent relatives
2. To reserve debts within 4 yrs from donation
3. Inofficiousness- within 5 yrs from death
4. Birth, adoption, re-appearance of 1st child 4 yrs from such
Tamayo vs Tamayo
SPS Tamayo donated 2 lots to their 4 children
April 15 1978- TCT transferred
Tamayo died
June 13 1996, ill children filed a revocation of donation as they were preterited
The period to file for inofficiousness is from 5 yrs from death, in the case at abr, there
was already 6 years. Thus, cannot file anymore.