PROPERTY (CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTIES Q— Whatare the immovable properties enumerated by law? ANS, Thefollowingare immovable properties: a Land, buildings, roads and constructions ofall kinds adhered tothe sil Trees, plats, and growing fruits, while they are atached to the and or form an integral part ofan immovable, & Bverything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in such a way that ft cannot be separated therefrom without breaking the material. or deceroration oft ings oF other object for use or ornamentation, placed ovale in such a manner may be caried on in a iecly to meet the needs of ‘the sad industry or works; {L_Animal houses, igeon-houses, beehives, fish ponds or breeding places of ‘similar nature fn case thelr owner has placed them or preserves them with the intention to have them permanently attached tothe land and forming 2 permanent part oft the anlmalsin these places are inchuded; piece of and; le the matter thereof forms pat ofthe gare intended by their nature and object to remain ata fixe p ver lake, oF coast ind servitudes and other real rights over immovable property. (Art. 415, CC). Q— Whatare the requisites in order that machinery may be considered an ‘immovable property? ANS: They are: ‘The machinery must have been placed by the owner or an agent of the on in the building or Ind meet the needs of the industry or '. Anindastry oF works must ‘6 The machinery mast tend 44. The machinery rust be essential and principal to the pursuance of the business ofthe owner, and not merely incidental Q— A-and B entered Into a contract of lease over a parcel of land or a building. The lessee placed a machinery for the use of his sawmill business on the land or buildings belonging to the lessor. How do you ip een ie se areneraaanartones ony tearm eee Yes it is obvious that in Ne ding 5: Yes if there isa stipulation as when it is used as secu lassfy the machinery? Why? S: ‘The machinery is a movable property since it was placed bythe tenant not by the owner. immobilization by destination cannot be made by one who is not ‘the ower ofthe land (Davao Sawals Co. vs-Castil, 61 Pll-705)- Is there any exception to the rule stated in Davao Sawmills Co. ¥s. (castillo? ied to leave the machinery onthe tenement at Yes, when the tenant e acts as an agent ofthe owner of the and, (Walder vs Central Al Isa building an immovable property? Why? the enumeration of immovable properties in’Art 415, ned independently ofthe land. By this there f no dings by itself an immovable property. (Lopez ¥s. May a building be considered a personal property? ayment ofan obligation where a chattel mortgage is executed over ‘SCRA 631), Itmay also be considered personal if the for purposes of demolishing the same. In this case, from the demolition are being bought. X built a barong-barong on a parcel of land belonging to him. Cam the structure be dassified as an immovable property? Why? No, because the structure must be more or less permanent in nature inorder it may be classified as an immovable property. If the same is a mere imposition on the land, Uke the barong-barong, the same is not an {immovable property. ‘Aowns house and lot. Tae house is made of concrete materials. A sold ‘w Bor purposes of demolition. How do you classify the house? Why? Iris movable or personal In Bicerra vs. Teneza, 116218, Nov. 29, 41962, the Supreme Court said that a building sold to be demolished may be ‘onsiered personal property because the true object ofthe sale would be the materials. X owns a lot with a building constructed thereon. Can he mortgage the ‘building independently of the tand? Explain. Yes. While a mortgage of a parcel of land necessary includes the improvements thereon in the absence of a stipulation on the improvement thereon ikea building stil a building by Itself may be mortgaged apart fom‘he land on which it has mortgage would still be areal estate ‘be considered immovable even if dealt (Leung Ye vs Strong Machinery Co, immovable? Why? ANS: No, itis movable due to the lack of invent to attach it permanently Q— Manila Petroleum Co. owned and operated a petroleum operation facility ff the coast of Manila. The facility was located on a floating platform ‘made of wood and metal, upon which was permanently attached the heavy equipment for the petroleum operations and living quarters of the crew. The floating platform likewise contained 2 garden area, where ‘trees, plants and flowers were planted. The platform was tethered to a ‘hip, the MV 101, which was anchored to seabed. (0) Is the platform movable or immovable property? Ab) Are the equipment and living quarters movable or immovable property? ‘§p) Are the trees, plants and flowers immovable or movable property? Brefly give the reason for your answer. ‘The platform is immovable by destination. Article 415(a), NCC provides ‘docks and structures which, though flaating are intended by their nature fixed place on a river, lake or coast, are considered as erty. Thus, power barges are categorized 23 trmovable corporation (Fels Energy ne. vs Province of Batangas ta (6) The tres, plans and flowers plat j an itegral part ofan immoral. The gadenfvit-an neal part of an immovable, the petroleum operation city. (Pe Energy, nc Ys Proviso Batangas cal a Q— A portion of the town plaza of a municipality was leased to ABC ‘Enterprises. I the contractvalid? Why? ANS: No, because it forms part of erties for publicuse of provinces cites, or municipalities. The town plaza is outside the commerce of men. (Villanueva vs. ‘Castaieda, L-61311, Sept 21,1987). Q— Whatis the Regalian Doctrine? ANS: tis the doctrine which reserves to the State the fll ownership of all natural resources or natural wealth that may be found inthe bowels ofthe earth Q— May the Roponggl property in Japan be sok? Why? No, because the said propery isa property ofthe Sta ble service. (Art. 420, NCC; Laurel vs. Garcia, 1990) Q—_ isthe doctrine of self-help in the aw on property recognized? Ifso, under ‘what circumstance? Explain, German Mgt and Services, Inc. vs. CA et al, GR. Nos. 76216, ipa Trial Court and the Regional Trial asic ation of bulldozing and destroying ‘the basis of the doctrine of salhelp invoke the aid ofthe competent cour, thing” ‘Ais the owner ofa parcel of land consisting of ten hectares. What rights docs A have on the same? ANS: Aisa the over ofthe surface and everything under it. (Art 437, NCC). He ‘ean make constructions, works, plantations, and excavations. Q— _Istheright ofA in the problem above absolute? Why? ‘ANS: No, because i is sibject to certain restrictions or limitations lke servitudes,Hidden special laws, ordinances, requirements of arial navigation, and the principles ‘of human relations (Art. 437, NCC), Docs it mean that if the owner of the land is the owner of everything under it hes the owner of the minerals found inthe land? Why? ‘No, because ownership of minerals s reserved In favor ofthe State even ifthe land isa private land. In fact, he has no eight to extract the minerals without the permission of the State. (Atok-Big Wedge Mining Co. vs. CA, April 15, 1988), ‘Whats ahidden treasure? By hidden 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, (Art. 439, NCC). ‘Who ownsa hidden treasure? elongs to the owner ofthe land, building, oF other property i conwhich | X found a hdiden treasure inside the land of Y. How will the treasure be divided ifXis a usufructuary of the land; lesse; farmer; laborer hired to ook fori” Reason. 1X isa usuiructuary, or lessee, or farmer, he is entided to 1/2 ofthe hidden ‘treasure because they are considered as strangers tothe land, 1X sa laborer intended or bred to look for it e Is entitled to his wage oF salary only. ‘Suppose X in the problem above has an instrument to look for a hidden ‘treasure, can he sill be considered a finder by chance? Why? Yes, Spanish commentators on te Civil Code tend to tell us that “by chance" ‘means there should be no purpose or intention to loo fort ‘Thebetter rule, however, is thatby chance” means “good was a deliberate search or not for the treasure, but no itis tobe divided. One who intentionally looks ‘fhe does notask for permission be isa trespasser. ‘Accession X builta house on the land of ¥ in good faith. What are the rights of the parties? Explain, (a) The rights ofthe owner ofthe land are: No, because the value of the land is cons 1 He can appropriate the house upon payment of indemnity. The phrase “upon payment of indemnity" means that Xhas the right to retain the house {or aslongas Yhasnot yet pad the indemnity; or 2, He has the righ to sell the land to the builder in ‘the builder to buy the and, unless the value of| ‘more than the vale ofthe building fo, then the 448,NCC), (8) The right ofthe builder isto ask for indemnity if the landowner opts to appropriate the house. (Art. 449, NCC). The reason fo appropriation without compensation would amount to Anyway, Xs tn god faith. He Weise have the right of retention ‘Who has the right to makea choice? Why? %: The landowner can make a cholce, The reason for the rule is based on the principle of accession thatthe accessory follows the principal and not the other way around. He must choose only one, (Ochoa VE. pit, tal, GR No 146258, September 13,2007) In the problem above, can ¥ file a suit for ojectment and pray for demolition upon knowing that X built his house om his land? Why? No, he has yet to make a choice tt he has nat yet done so, he cannot ask forthe cjectment of X Bu fhe opted to sel the land where the value of the same is ‘ot considerably more than the value of the house, and the bulder does not pay the land, then X can be ected. (Ignacio vs Hilario, 6 Phi. 605). IF he ld not be alowed to continue using the land. (Tayag vs Yuseco, April 16,1959). Xowns a parcel of land. Y built a house on it. The land is worth P1M. The hhouse is worth P300,000.00. Visa builder in good falth. Can X compel ¥ to buy the land? Why? ‘more than the vale ofthe (Art 448, NCC). building In this case, the remedy isa reed Ifthe landowner chooses to appropriate the building, can the builder ask tthe owmer ofthe land to sell itinstead? Why? : No, because the option to appropriate the buildin or sell he land belongs to the landowner: The only right of the builder in good faith isthe right to reimbursement, not to compel the owner of the land to sell (Quemuel vs Olaes, 1 SCRA 1159). The option isnot to buy but to sell. The option i given to the landowner because his right is older; and because of the principle of accession, hei ented t the thing attached to his land, (Se also Sps. Benitez ¥.CA, etal, 77 SCAD 793, 266 SCRA 242 [1997)},‘Explain the application of Article 448 ofthe Civil Code. By ts clear language, Article 448 refers to a land whose owmershp is daimed some works or sown of planted Code shall be applied in deterenining whether a builer, ower, or planter had, acted in good faith. [Article 448 doesnot apply toa case where the owner ofthe land isthe builder, ‘ower, or planter who then laer loses ownership of the land by sale or donation. The Supreme Court, in Cleongco vs. Regalado and Mort, 92 Phi. 387 sai: "article 361 of the old Civil Coe is not applicable in this case for Regalado constructed the house on his own land before he sold sald land to Coleongca. Article 364 applies only in cases where a person ‘constructs a building on the land of another in good or in bad faith a5 ‘the case maybe. It apply toa case where a person constructs a bullding on his Tor then there can be no question as to {god or bad faith onthe partof the builder” Where the true owner himself is the builder of works on his own land, the {sue of good faith or bad faith is entirely relevant. ‘The primary intent of Article 448 Is to avoid a state of forced co-ownership and thatthe parties induding te two courts below, in the main agree that “Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code are applicable and indemnity for the ‘improvements may be paid akhough they diffe Indemnity, (Peoson vs. CA, tal, GR No. 115814, May 26, ‘What amount shouldbe paid to a builder tn good faith i the owner ofthe land appropriate the improvement? Explain. Teshould be the value ofthe improvement at the time of payment. not bes Guided by thi ‘value ofthe improvements which should be made the basis of reimbursement. A contrary ruling would unjustly enrich the private respondents wo would “otherwise be alowed to acquire a highly valued income yielding four-unit apartment building for a measly amount. Consequently, the parties should ‘therefore be allowed to adduce evidence on the present marcet value ofthe apartment building upon which the trial court should base its finding as to the ANS: ee amount of reimbursement tobe paid by the landowner. (Pecson vs. CA, eal, GR No. 15814, May 26, 1995, 61 SCAD 388), Pedro Pecson was the owner of a parcel of land with improvements thereon. He failed to pay his taxes, hence, the lot was sold at public anction by the Gity Treasurer, Quezon City, to a certain Mamerto Nepomuceno, who likewise sold it to the Spouses Nuguid. Pecson «questioned the sale, but a final and executory judgment was rendered declaring the buyers 26 the owners. The Spouses Noguld moved for the delivery of possession ofthe lot and the Improvement. It was granted wit the condition that they should reimburse Pees the value of the ‘improvements. Is Peeson entitled to reimbursements? Why? Yes, he is entitled ta reimbursement ofthe value of the improvement since the same was built when he was still the owner. When the Nuguds became the uncontested owners of the lot due to a judgment, the improvement was already existing. Hence their rights are governed by Articles 448 and S46, Nec. Under 448, the landowner is given the option either to appropriate the {in good falth is entitled to full reimbursement forall the necessary and useful expenses incurred: it also gives him right of retention ‘uni fll reimbursements made, Since the owners (Nuguids) opted to appropriate the improvement for themselves when they applied for a writ of execution despite knowledge that the auction sale didnot include the apartment building, they could from the lot's improvement, until they reimbursed th improver in fll, based ‘on the enrrent market valu of the property (Sps. Nuguidws.CA, etal, GR.No. 151815, February 23,2005) [At the time the builder constructed his house on 2 parcel of land the ‘same was stil in the name of is parents. The construction was with the knowledge of is brothers, sisters and parents. Yes, he fs a uilder in good faith The owner ofthe land on which anything has been bul, sowa.. Maye lessee be abuilderin god faith? Explain. No In Frederico Geminiano, etal ¥s. CA, et al, GR. No. 120303, July 24,1996, it was held that lessees are not builders in good faith, They came into possession ofthe lot by virtue ofa contract of lease executed by petitioner's vor. They are then estopped to deny thei landlord’ tle, or ‘not only in themselves, but also in some third person possession of the leased premises and until they ion to the landlord (Munar vs. CA, 56 SCAD 787, 230 SCRAANS: 372) Tis estoppel applies even though the lessor had no title atthe time. The Being mere lessees, they knew that their occupation of the premises would continne ony forthe life ofthe lease. Plainly, they cannot be considered as possessor nor buldersin good fth (Racaza vs. Susur Realy, ne, 18SCRA 1172; Vd de Bean vs Laguna, 54 SCRA 243; Santos ws CA, 221 SCRA 42; Garbito vs CA, GR. No 77576, November 24, 1969), ‘When may the owner of the and remove the encroachment on his land? Why? Since removal s notone ofthe remedies bestowed upon him by aw ft would appropriating the encroaching portion of petitioner's building after pa of proper indemnity, or (2) obliging the latter to buy the lot occupied by the structure, He cannot exercise a remedy of hi ovm liking (Tecnogas Phils. Mfg. Corp. vs. CA etal, GR No, 108694, Feb. 10, 1997, 79 SCAD 290} Rodolfo & Lily Resales bought parcel of land denominated as Loto. 17, Itwas registered under their names. Miguel Castelort likewise bought 2 parcel of land denominated as Lat No. 16 in the same place. Before Miguel constructed his house the surveyor pointed to Lot No. 17 asthe Jot of Miguel. The Rosaleses filed a complaint to recover the let, but Miguel contended that he was a builder in good fait. Is his contention correct? Explain. Yes, because he merely relied on the expertise of the land surveyor who was ‘more equipped or experienced in the fled ofland surveying. Although under the Torrens system of land registration, Miguel is presumed to Ihave knowledge ofthe metes and bounds of the property with which he is dealing, he however, considering that he is a layman not versed in the twehnicl description of his property, cannot be faulted in his reliance onthe survey plan that was delivered to him by the intervenor and the stone ‘monaments that were placed in the encroached propery. ‘A builder in good faith is ove who builds withthe belief that the land he is bullding on is his, or that some tide one has the right to bud thereon, and is ‘ignorant of any defect or flaw in his ttle. (Macasaet vs. Macasuet, 439 SCRA 1625 (2004), ANS: ‘Since Miguel isa builder in good faith, what are the rights ofthe parties, the landowner and the builder? Explain. ‘The landowner can choose between appropriating the building by paying the ‘proper indemnity or obliging the builder to pay the price of the land, unless its value is considerably more than that of the structures, in which case the builder in good faith shal pay reasonable rent. Ifthe partes cannot come to terms over the conditions ofthe lease, the court must fx the terms there, ‘The choice belongs tothe owner of the land. a rue that accords withthe principle of acesion, ie, thatthe acessory flows th principal and not the ‘owner of the building to remove i from the land, (Rosales, etal. vs. Castelfort, etal, GR No. 157044, October 5, 2005, citing Technogas Phils. Mfg. Corp. vs. (CA, 268 SCRA 5 (1997). Whats the reason for Article 4487 Explain, ‘The raison dere for the law is that, where the builder, planter or sower has acted in good fh a conflict of rights arises between the owners, and it becomes necessary to protect the owner ofthe improvements without causing injustice to the owner of In view ofthe impractcabiliy of erating 2 ‘state of forced co-owner law has provided aust solution by giving the ‘owner ofthe land the option to acquire the improvements after payment of, ‘the proper indemnity, orto oblige the builder or planter to pay forthe tnd and the sower the pruper rent. He cannot refuse to exercise the option, because his right ind because, by the principle of accession, he Is entitled to the ownership of the accessory thing. (Rosales, eal vs, Castefort, etal, GR No, 157044, October 5, 2005 citing Depra vs. Dualao, 136 SCRA 475 (1985), In this case, on August 21, 1995, Rosales notified Miguel that he owned ‘the lot where he constructed his house, If Rosales would appropriate his ‘house, how much should he pay Miguel? Explain. He should pay ony the value ofthe improvement of Migue onthe questioned. property atthe time good faith stil existed or ntl August 21,1995. This sso ‘because Miguel was a passessor in good faith. Possession in good fith does not lose this character except in the case and from the moment facts exist ‘which show that the possessor Is not unaware that he possesses the thing Improperly or wrongfully. (Art. $28, NCC) The good faith ceases ori legally interrupted from the moment defects in the tile are made known to the possessor, by extraneous evidence or by suit for recovery ofthe property by (Rosales, eta. vs Castelfort, eta, GR. No. 157044, October 5, the true 2005 citing Technogas Phils fg, Corp. s. CA, 268 SCRA 5; Ori vs. Rayanan, ‘92 SCRA 146 (1979), Since Miguel was notified on August 21,1995, he losthis status a5 a possessor in good falt, hence, payment of the improvement should‘be up to that date If there is any improvement thereafter, there is no need for Rosales to pay, since Miguel was already in bed faith when he introduced the improvement. Mf the value of the land is considerably more than the value of the improvement, rent shall be paid. When shall it start and when shall it end? Explain. 1x shall start on August 21, 1995 until such ime that the possession of the property is delivered to Resales, subject tothe reimbursement of expenses if Rosales opts to appropriate the improvement. Generally, Artie 448 of the Civil Code provides that the payment of bbe made only up tothe jowner serves notice time the owner of over the disputed property, the payment of reasonable rent should accordingly commence at the tine since he can no longee aval of the rights provided under the lw for builders in good faith. tdoners is compulsory sale, however, the payment ‘tthe actual transfer of ownership. (Rosales ws. expenses 452, NCC). The reason fr tis rule is, after all, the owner would have borne the same expenses of preservation ofthe and. ‘What are the rights ofthe ower ofthe land in case there is a builder in bad faith? They are: 4, To appropriate the In this case the ball f 2, Hecan demand ofthe house pls damages: 3. Hecan compel the buy the land even If the value is considerably ‘more than the vale of the biilding plus damages. (Art, 450 and 451, ANS: Nec, A, im bad faith, constructed a house on B's land without his objection. ‘ater its completion, B wanted to have the house demolished together with damages, contending that A was in bad faith. Is B's contention correct? Why? ‘A promised to donate a property to B,hence, B constructed his house thereon before the donation, Suppose the property was not donated to him, can Bbe considered a possessor in good faith? Explain. ANS: In.a contract of lease over a parcel of and, there isa pomise to sel Ifthe Iessee insproves the land, can he claim tobe a builder in good faith on the basis ofthe promise to sell? Why? 1 lessor promised to sel it would not make the lessee possessor or good faith so as tobe covered by the provisions of Article 448 of the fe. The latter camo ere expectancy of ownership ofthe Tot because th alleged promise to sll was not filled nor its existence even proven, ‘The possession by petitioners of: oftand was merely tolerated. In fact, they were permitted to bi ra dryer on the land. When they 449, NCC applicable? Why? article (Art. 448), the construction must to the soll with an Idea of perpetuity: ‘ris transferable, there isno accession, and of theee ANS: ANS: ‘May a builder in good faith retain possession ofthe and and the building incase the landowner appropriates the bullding but has uot yet paid its value? How about f the but Iessee? Why? builder in good faith can retain possession of the land and the ifthe landowner as not yet paid the vale ofthe improvement. This use ofhis being a builder in good faith then, the right of retention is not available because he is nota good fit. Ths is true even if he has not been reimbursed the the improvements by the lescar who fa, CA,GR No. 83545, Aug 1, 1989; Laureano vs. Adil, 72 SCRA 148). ‘When X was still courting ¥, he was the favorite of Y's mother, He was even allowed to build a residential house on a lot in Paraiaque when X ‘and ¥ were about to get married, A house was then constractet! ata cost ‘of P40,000.00. X later found out that the land dié not belong to Y's moter, but to Z, who sold it to S.S later sued X for ejectment, but he Iinterpased the defense that he would vacate only if his expenses in constructing the house was refunded. S did not want to buy the house, ‘she did vot also want to sell the land, $ merely wanted X to vacate. Was S ‘correct? Why? No, The facts show that X was a builder in good faith, becat ‘the house oF to sell he land, but she cannot refuse both. (Sarmiento vs. Agana, r29scRA12), Xand V are co-owners ofa parcel of land. They decided to partition the land, hence, a survey was conducted which resulted in the finding that the house of X encroached upon the portion awarded to Y. He asked that the portion be removed, but X contended that he is a builder in good faith, hence, he is entitled to reimbursement. ¥ contended that the right of relmbursement applies only if the Improvement was introduced on ‘the land of another. Is the contention correct? Why? No, because the rules regarding a there was co-ownership. Und house that encroached upon hiss value ofthe land is nat considerably more than the value ofthe Improvement the latter were the case, thn, there would bea forced lease. (Art +48, NCC; Del Ocampo vs. Abesis, 160 SCRA379). ae ANS: Plaintiff and defendant purchased two (2) adjacent parcels of and from different vendors. Portions ofthe buildings and wall bought by plalaif, ‘were occupying a portion of defendants land; hence, upon learning of the same, i offered to buy the land, but defendant sued the plaintiff in ‘connection with the encroachment or occupation by plains building ‘and wall ofa portion ofhis land. 1) What aw governs the right of the parties? 2} Can the plaintiff insist on the removal ofthe improvement? Why? 3}. Suppose the landowner opted to appropriate the improvement, but there is no transfer yet, whats the duty ofthe builder? Explain, 4). What benefit does the builder acquire under Art. 448 of the Civil (Code? Can he invoke such benefit? Explain, (1) The provisions of Art. 448, NCC would govern the rights of the partis. In ‘the earller case of Depa 0, 136 SCRA 475, it was sald that where the in good faith, a confct of rights arises yes necessary to protect the owner ofthe the over of the land wh rized to exercise the option, because is right solder, and because, by the principle of accession, he is entitled to the ‘ovmership ofthe acessory thing, (Tecnogas Phils. Mfg. Corp. vs.CA, et a, GR. No, 108894, Feb, 10, 197,79 SCAD 290, citing 3 Manresa 213; Bemardo vs. Bataclan, 37 0, 1382; Co Tao vs. Chan Chico, GR. No. 49167, April 30,1949, Cabral vs. tbatiez, 52 (2) No. The insistence ofthe plain to remove the improvements not ane of the remedies bestowed upon him by law. It would be avilable only if and indempity, er (2) obligng the He cannot exercise the remedy of his own liking, (Tecnogus Phils. Mig, Cor. vs CA etl, supro; see also Grana and Torralba¥s CA, etal, 109 Phil 260), the rent ofthe land occupied by the building but only served notice of its option to appropriate the encroaching such event, the defendant would have the right of retention which negates the obligation to pay the rent. (Grana and Torralba vs. CA, etal, supra), The rent should, however, continue if the option chosen is compulsory sale, but only up to the actual transfer of ownership. (Tecnogas Phils. Mig-Corp.vs.CA,et al supra). (4) The obvioas benefit tothe builder under Ar. 448, NCC fs that, instead of(Agustin vs IAC, GR. Nos. 66075-76, July 5, 1990), Q— Ifthe riparian owner has a ttle to the land, does that cover the alluvial deposit? Why? ANS: No, because there Isa specific technical description ofthe land, There must first lependent application for registration ofthe land, (Grande vs. CA, Q— Gloria Ferrer filed a complaint to quiet ttle to real property against Mariano Balanag and Magdalena Domondon, She based her action on the fact that she isthe owner of a parcel of land by virtue of accretion she being the owner of Lot 20, covered by TCT No. 3280, On the other hand, Balonag and Domondon claimed to be the owners on account of long ‘occupation and by virtue of Cerificate of Title No. P-168 pursuant to a Free Patent. The case was dismissed on the ground thatthe zetion was collateral attack on the Free Patent and the OCT under the name of the defendants, Before the Supreme Court, the following issues were raised: Who is the owner of the accretion, considering that a Patent was issued by the Director of Lands over the same in favor of the defendants? Why? ANS: The accretion belongs to Ferrer. Under the law, to the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the acretion which they gradvally receive from the effects of the current of the waters. (Article 457, NCO), Since Ferrers ‘the lawful ovmer ofthe land which adjoins the alluvial propery, undoubtedly, she s the owner ofthe accretion. (Tuason vs. CA, 147 SCRA 37; Cureg vs. IAG, ‘177 SCRA 313; Ferrer vs. Bautista, 231 SCRA 257). Q— What is the rationale behind the rule that the owner of the alluvial - property isthe owner of the accretion? ‘ANS: The rationale for the rule is to provide some kind of compensation to the ‘owners of the land continually exposed tothe destructive force of water and subjected to various easements, (Agustin vs. IAG 187 SCRA 210; Binalay vs. Manalo, 195 SCRA374; Ferervs, Bautista supra). Q— May the Director of Lands grant a free patent to one who has possessed the accretion even ie Is not the owner of the alluvial property? Why? ANS: No. The Director has no authority to granta free patent over theland since itis, private property and now subject to private ownership. Any title thus issued or conveyed by him would be null and void (Tuason vs. CA, 147 SCRA 37) The ‘owned. (Aene vs. Director of Lands, 181 SCRA 793) They therefore, acquired no right or ite over the property by virtue ofthe free patent since atthe ime ‘twas issued, twas already a private property aa not part ofthe disposable land ofthe publle domain. (Ferrer vs. Bautists, supra) Has the tile become incontrovertible since one (1) year has already fapsed sine its issoance? Why? No, because it has always been void Ordinarlly, a title becomes Incontroveruble one (1) year after it is issued pursuant toa public grant. The rule doesnot apply when such issuance is mull and void. An action to declare ‘he nullity ofthat vod title does not preseribe. (Agne vs Director of Lands)-In fact, is susceptible to direct, as well as to collateral attack. (Estoesta vs. CA, 479 SCRA203; Ferrer vs. Bautista, supra). It was contesided that the action for reconveyance has already prescribed considering that the action was brought after ten (10) years ‘from the issuance ofthe tite? Is the contention correct” Why? assuming without admitting that a constructive trust did arse, the runaing of ‘the prescriptive period is to be deemed interrupted when an action was fled in court (Article 1155, NCC) of, wien one Is already pending, (Ferrer vs Bautista, supra) Can Domondon and Balauag contend that they have acquired the land by prescription? Why? ‘No, Ownership and other rea rights over Immovable property are acquired by ordinary prescription thru possession for ten (10) years if the adverse possession is with a just title andthe possession isin good faith. Ownership and other real rights over immovable also prescribe through uninterrupted (30) yeas this te without need of tile ‘The applicable period inthis case thirty ‘thoy were in adverse possession of the when the free patent was obtained or even at the leged possession in 1954, that possession for purposes of acy ion was deemed interrupted upon receipt of summons (Amie 1123, NCC) in 1965 and in 1976, The prescriptive period of prescription may not be held wo commence anew during the pendency of the ‘wo cases that were filed. (Ferrer vs. Bautista, supra),a= ANS: Note: A sudden and forceful zeton like that of flooding is aot the alluvial process contemplated by Article 457, NCC. vs, Manalo, 195 SCRA 374), X bought the land of ¥ on iastallment basis payable in ive (5) years. Suppose theres an alluvial depost, who owns the sue? Why? because he need not completely pay the land. Equitable and beneficial ttle {senough. (Director of Lands ws Rizal, Dec 29, 950), ‘The northeastern portion ofthe and of X is bounded by the Manila Bay. If there isan accretion formed, who owns the accretion? Why? ‘The accretion belongs to the State, becuse itis an accretion on a sea bank, Manila Bay being an inlet or an arm ofthe sea, Under Art. 4 ofthe Spanish Law of Waters of August 3, 1866: “Lands added tothe shores by acretions and alluvial deposits caused by the ‘action of the sea form part ofthe public domain. When they are no longer ‘washed out by the waters of the sea and are not necessary for purposes of public tility, or for the establishment of special industries, or forthe coast guard service, the Government shall declare them to be the property ofthe ‘owners ofthe estates adjacent thereto and as increment thereof.” 1 the ight ofthe fete vintage but stil aid lew, unequivocal isthe public nature ofthe disputed land in this controversy, the same being an aceretion on a sea bank whic, forall legal purposes isthe foreshore of Manila Bay As part ‘ofthe public domain, the herein disputed lands intended forthe public and is reserved for public uses itis na eapabe of being appropriated by any private Person, except through express authorization granted in due form by a competent authority. Only the executive, and possibly, the legSlatve departments have the right andthe power to make the declaration thatthe lands so gained by action of the sea is no longer necessary fr purposes of publiculty or forthe cause of establishment of spol industries ar for coast fra serves. (Heirs of rmiano Navarro ws IAG, ea CA No. 68166, Feb. 12, 1997, 79 SCAD 38, cng Joveny Monteverde vs. Di of Lands, 93 Phi 134), How about if the land adjoins the Lagusa de Bay? Who owns the accretion? I bslongs to th owner fh and ann IRs Laguna de Bayi 2 ¥s.CA,GR No, 62220, July 14,1995, 62 SCAD 660), ANS: GR No, 69166, Feb. 12,1997, Who ovns a lnown portion ofa parcel of land segregated from the land of another? How abouta tree? (2) Whenever the current ofa tier, creek or torent segregates from an estate fn its bank a known portion of land and transfers it to another estate, the owner of the land to which the segregated portion belonged retains the ‘ownership oft, provided, that he removes the same within two (2) year. (Art. 459, NCC). (b) Trees uprooted and carried away by the current ofthe waters belong to the owmer ofthe land upon which they may be cast ifthe owners donot claim ‘them within six months. IF such owners caim them, they stall pay the expenses incurred in gathering them or puting them in ste place (Ar. 460, NCO). ‘Who owns an abandoned river bed? How about an island formed on a river? 2 (a) River beds which ae abendoned through the natural change inthe course ofthe waters ipso facto belong tothe owners whse lands ae occupied by the course in proportion to thearea lost (Art. 461, NCC), ‘on which the land is formed is navigable, the island belongs to NCO}. If the river is non navigable, the island belongs tothe riparian owner, nearer the island IF the said island ts formed exacty atthe middle ofthe ivr, shall be divided longitudinally in halves between the two riparian overs. (Art. 465,NCO), Under Art. 461 ofthe Civil Code, a siver bed abandoned through natural changes ipo facto belongs tothe owmers of lands through which the new river traverses. Suppose the change was man-made, is the rule applicable? Why? ‘Yes, oven ifthe change was man-made, the rule in Art. 461 stil applies. The Supreme Court in Baes, et ab vs. CA, ef al, GR. No, 108065, uly 6, 1993, 43 SCAD 384, said that ifthe riparian owner is entitled tooo damage to or lass of his property due to natural causes, there reason to compensate him when the change tn the course a tose thre atl means. The as to the petoners ofthe Tadcovered by the canal was the et fa deliberate at onthe . rate aon th pat ofthe fovernment when sought improve he fw of the Trp de Gln eee stereo gated compen tonnes forthe ass ‘What is adjunction and give the kinds of adjunction? It isa process by virtue of which two movables belonging tothe diferent ‘owmers are united in such away that they form a single object. ‘The kinds of adjunction are: (a) engraftment au Tends anon re (0) egret 8) atachen() wening (@) ‘Whats mixture and state its kinds? Mixtures combination or union of materials where the respective identities ofthe component elements ae ost, ‘The kinds of mitureare: 3) Commixion whichis mixture of solids. 1) Confusion which isa minture of liquids. ‘State the roles on mixture, 3: Therules ie mixture may be stated this way: res caused by one ovmer in good faith, or by will of both owners, ince, or by common agent, o-ownership results. yet me by one over ina ith te be oss ‘another and he ts liable for damages. ae Whatis specification? Soin the ping of nw fm to anther str application of labor where labor becomes the principal. fea ‘State the rales in specification. The rules in specification can be stated in this manner: ifthe in gud ith, 3) heaps the ew hing te mist nde he owner af ati te ae sore pecs hn he 4 owner of the material has the option: z eaeetae 22) togetthe nw thing the hast pay othe workor 1) demand indanniyforte mater ° 2. Ifthe worker sin bad faith the ower ofthe material has the option: 4) to appropriate the work without payingfor the labor, oF ‘)to demand indemnity forthe materials with damages. “The option to appropriate, however, oes nat apply ifthe value ofthe resultant _workis more valuable for artisticorscientiicressons. State the distinctions among adjunction, specification and rixture. S:LAdjuction involves at least two things Minture involves atleast two things. Specification may involve only one thing but the form is changed 2.1m adjunction and specification, accessory follows the principal re, co-owmership results. 3. |adjunction, the things joined retain their nature. re, he things mixed or confused, retain orlase thet respective nature. ture ofthe original 1m specification, the new object retain or preserves th object. ‘What are the tests in determining which of two things is the principal and the accessory? The tests are (1) intention; (2) value; (3) volume; and (4) mets rules, that to which a thing i attached isthe Under the test of attached tothe things the accessory. principal; and that ‘Bxample: A ring anda dlamond. Based onthe test of intention, the rings the principal an the diamond isthe accessory. 's more valuables the principal that which Under the zst of rae, hat {sess valuable isthe accessory. In the case of the ring, if the diamond is more valuable, the later {s the principal and the ringisthe accessory. Under the test of volume, that which is bigger isthe principal; that which is smaller is the accessory. ‘ince the rng is bigger than the diamond, the ring is the principal and the diamond isthe accessory. “The est ofreritsis a combination of tity and wohume.ANS: he can compel the landowner t make a utrighlyeeced from appropiate the building by paying the remove i from the and. (Tecnogas Phi. Mfg, Corp. 1 ctng Ignacio vs. Hilario, 76 Phil. 605; Sarmiento vs. Agana, 129 ScRA122), ‘The benefit aforementioned can be Invoked by a buyer of property where the structure encroached on the land belonging to another because he was not sale. Furthermore, since it sold including the right to compel the other party to exercise either of the wo ‘options in Art. 448, (Tecnogas Phils. Mi Corp. vs. CA, etal, pra). Between the builder in good faith and the owner of the Land, who has the ‘option to sell the land? Why? not to buy, Jandowmer's choice. Not even a deck ‘builder, planter, ot sower’s bad flth shifts this option to him. the Gel Code, Tas adage Ale M@ sacred the lnowner se his right is older, and because by the principle of accession, he is entitled to the ownership ofthe acessory thing (Depra vs. Damlzo, supra}. There can be no pre-emptive right to buy even as 2 compromise, as this [prerogative belongs solely tothe landowner. No compulsion can be legally forcdon him (Sr roan Sp Magn, GR No, 170505 Feary 18, What requisites must be complied with ia order that the owner of the land ajoeing te bank ofa river may become the owner ofan accretion ‘They are the following: 1. The deposit must be gradual or inpercepttle or impervious; 2, Temmust be caused by the curentofariver; 3. The current must be that ofa river; 5. The increase must be compara ‘Note: I the increases through artifical means, the law doesnot apply. Accretion was formed a result ofthe dumping of sawdust by the San Valley Lambe Co consequent to ts sawnil operations, somewhere at an area near Balacanas Crock aid Cagayan ive. The question wat ‘Whether the land is private or public. Decide. iit ANS; Itis part ofthe public domain. Article 457 ofthe Civil Code provides: "To the ‘owmers of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion which they acrretion asa mode of acquiring property under Ar 4 the deposit of solo sediment be gradual ands tbe the result ofthe accion ofthe waters ofthe i 1 land where acretion takes place is adjacent tothe banks of rivers (orth seacoast), “These are called the rules on aluvion which if present in a case, give to the ‘owners of lands adjoining the tanks of rivers or streams any accretion gradually reeelved from the effects ofthe curent of waters. this Court ruled thatthe requirement that the deposit should be due to the ensable. This exchudes from Art. 457 dilferently,alluvion must be the exclusive work of nature. Thus, in Tiongco v5. Director of Lands, et al, 16 CA. Rep. 2L1, where the land was not formed solely by the natural effect ofthe water current of the river bordering said land but i also the consequence of the direct and deliberate intervention of, man, it was deemed a man-made accretion and, as such, part ofthe public ‘domain, (Vda, DeNazareno, eral vs. CA, etal, GR. No, 98405, June 26, 1996). 1s t required for the riparian owner to perform an act of possession to became the owner ofthe alluvial deposit? Explain. Nomore. The law automatically vests the ownership of the alluvial depast on ‘the riparian owner. (Maximo Jagualing vs. CA, GR. No. 94283, March 4, 1991). ‘Why does the law vest automatically the ownership of the accretion to ‘the riparian owner? “The reason for this rule is because iflands bordering on streams are exposed * to loods and other damages duc tothe destructive force ofthe waters, and if by virtue of law they are subject to encumbrances and various Kinds of ‘easements, it is only just that such risks or dangers as may prejudice the ‘owners thereof should in some way be compensated by the right ofacreton.”Quicting of Title ‘When may an ation to quiet tite prosper? ‘When the following requisites are present: 1 Existence of an instrument or record o claim ot encumbrance or proceeding: 2. The document appears tobe valid or effective; 3 But the document is in truth and infact, invalid ineffective, voidable or ‘The purpose of the action isto remove the cloud on his tite, (Sp. Azana vs. Lambo, etal, GR. No, 157593, March 22,2007]. Does an action to quiet ttle prescribe? ied and attacked before taking stops to vindicate his right. (Sapto vs Fabiana, 103 Phil, 683; Rodolfo Coronel vs. IAC, property who fs in possession thereof may wait unt his possession is invaded or his tide is attacked before taking step to vindicate his right person daiming tite to real property, but notin possession thereof, ‘must act affirmatively and within the time provided by law. Possession isa Continuing right as isthe right to defend such possession x x x" (See Coronel 1. IAG 158 SCRA 270; Soll State Multi-Products Corp. vs. CA, 196 SCRA 630 USS Rags wi 2006; DBT Mar-Bay GRNo. 31, 2009; Brito J. v5. A parcel of land was sold in 1930 for P3,000.00 with the agreement that the seller would repurchase it within six (6) months; otherwise, the sale would become absolute and irrevocable. The seller a retro failed to repurchase. The purchaser sold it to another person who asked the original awner to execute a deed of sale so that he could acquire a title. ‘The original owner reused, Was the refusal correet? Why? 5: No. When the saller a retro failed to redeem the land within the stipulated ANS: period, its ownership became consolidated inthe name of the purchaser who can subsequently transfer ownership thereof, While the successive sale was in ‘a private instrument twas valid one. ‘The subsequent purchaser ofthe land may bring an action to compel the prior owner to execute a deed of conveyance ina public instrument to quiet the ttle ofthe prior owner and to prevent any forther cloud from being cast upon it. (Gallavs. Hasan, 20 SCRA 185) ‘Areal property was used as a property bond to secure the release of an caused, who failed to appear later, hence, there was forfeiture of the bond. A writ of execution was issued, hence there was levy on the property. Itwas soldat a public auction with the Republic as the highest bidder, A sheriffs cortcate of sale was issued on September 24, 1982, and registered on October 5, 1982 giving the petitioners one (1) year to redeem but they never did, They fited 2 complaint for quieting of ttle claiming that they are the owners for falure of the Republic to secure a Certificate of Final Sale, execute an Affidavit of Consolidation of ‘Ownership and to obtain 2 wrt of possession wit was perfected when the petitioners failed to redeem it within one (1) ‘year from the registration of the Sheriffs Sale. Whose contention is correct? Explain. correct The action fr quieting oft should ‘The contention of the Re; jones’ predecessors ivinerest fale to redeem ‘not prosper. When the ‘the property within ane (1) year, they lost any interest Its failure to execute the acts within 10 years from the registration ofthe Certificate of Sale did not ‘operate to restore to them ownership over the property. The reason is that prescription does not lie against the government. It cannot be bound or estopped by the negligence or mistakes ofits officals and employees. Section 38, Rule 39 ofthe 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly provides that “upon the expiration of the right of redemption, the purchaser or redemptioner shall be substituted to and acquire all the rights, te, interest ‘and claim of the judgment obligor tothe property as of thet of the levy” yar redemption period “Moreover, with the rule thatthe expiration purchaser. (Manuel vs. Philippine National Bank, 968; Calacala, et al, vs Republic etal, GR No. 154415, July28, 2005),‘What are the requirements for an action to quict ttle to prosper? Explaia. There are two requirements for an action to quite title to prosper: (1) the plain had a legal sight or an equitable ide to or intrest n the real propery subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding claimed to be costing doubi/cloud on his tte must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of valiity or legal efficacy (Calacala etal. vs. Rep, eta, GR No, 154415, July28, 2005). State the nature ofan acton for quieting of tte. Explain. %: _Anacton for quieting of title i essentially acommon law remedy grounded on ‘equity. In Baricuata, J. ws. CA, 382 P 0), ie was sald that i is a disturb the other, but also fr the benefit o both, so that he who has the right would see every cloud of doubt over the property dissipated, and he could afterwards without fear introduce the improvements he may desire, to use, ‘and evento abuse the property as he deems best (Calacala etal vs. Rep. etl, GR No. 154415, July 28,2005). 'm a case, there was a complaint for a writ of demolition filed by the ‘owners of a property alleging that they discovered that thelr lot was encrosched noon by the structures built by the adjacent owner without their imowledge and eonsext. Such encroachment was confirmed by the relocation survey of the property. Despite demands, the other party refused to remove the structures hence, the complaint was fled. The ‘ial court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff directing the removal ofthe structures. The CA reversed holding that = complaint for recovery of possession should bave been filed, The writof demolition can bbe granted only as an effect ofa fina! judgment or order hence, dismissed the same. the dismissal correct? Why? No, While inaccurately captioned as an action fora “Writ of Demelition with Damages" isin reality an action to recover a parcc! of land or an accion ‘evindicatori under Article 434 of the Civil Code which provides thatin an property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely is tile and not on the weakness of the defendant's court. Acionrevindicatoriais an action whereby plaintif alleges ownership cover a parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full possession (Javier ¥, Veridiano I, GR No. 48050, 10 October 1994, 237 SCRA 56S; Sps. Elegio and Dolia Catezo v. ps. Bautista, GR.No.170189, September 1,2010)), Co-ownership ‘State the characteristics of co-ownership. Theyare: 1. There mustbe more than one subject or owner; Plysical whole, each co-owner must respect eachother in ejoymentor preservation ofthe physical whole; Share, each co-owner holds almost absolute control 7. Aewouneris a sensea trustee forthe other co-owners. What is the nature of the possession of a co-owner over the property subject of co-ownership? Explain. “The possession ofa co-owner slike that ofa trustee and shall not be regarded ‘to the other co-owners but infact as beneficial to all of them. Acts may be considered adverse to strangers may not be considered adverse ‘co-owners are concerned. A mere silent possession by a co-owner, ‘and fences, andthe planting of trees thereon, and the payment of land taxes, eannot serve 2s proof of excusive ownership itis nat borne out by clear and convincing evidence that he exercised acts of possession which tanequivocably constituted an ouster or deprivation ofthe rights af the other ‘covowmers. (Aguire, et al vs. CA, eta, Gi January 29, 2004 ‘ting Salvadar vs. CA, 243 SCRA 239; Carme Fangonl etl, GR. No, 169359, Angust 28,2007). ‘Cite certain distinction between co-ownership and partnership. ‘The distinctions are: 1. Co-ownership has no legal personality; while partnership has a legal or crated by ett, 3M por a eam sor prof 4 Reagent of «comers ex for tn (10) eas pers there terme 5, Mere no tal erection n ébownesi inparmerstp, i "resid by death or capacy of crower wile ports dst by desk rnp fa pane,Ans: a ee 7. A co-owner can dispose of his share without the consent ofthe others; partner cannot substitute another in his place partnership, profits may be tiplatedby the partners. State the distinctions between conjugal partnership and co-ownership. They are: 1. Conjugal partnership arises only because ofa marriage contract, wile co- 2, The parties ina conjugal parmership must bea male and a female; while the co-owner may be more than two; ‘4. In conjugal partnership, the profits are divided equally, unless there is 2 ‘contrary stipulation in the marriage settlement; while in co-owmnership, ‘profits are proportional to their respective shares; 5, Death of either party in conjugal partnership dissolves it; wile death of ‘one in co-ownership doesnot dissolve X, ¥,and Z are the co-owners of a house being rented by A. May X alone sue for efectment? Why? Yes, because anyone ofthe co-owners may bring an action in ejectment. The reason for the rue is that an action instituted by one Is really In behalf of ll (are.487, NCC). Dominator & Garciasa were married. Dominador died, survived by his wife and Ds children. A child who averred to be Domisador's acknowledged natural child alleged that be was the sole lieir of Dominador and executed an affidavit of selF-adjudication of his father's property. Can ke filean action for ejectment alone against the possessors ‘ofthe property? Why? Na, Under the law, anyone ofthe co-owners may bring an action for ejectment (Are 487, NCC), This can be done without joining all other co-owners because the suit s presumed to have been filed to benefit is co-owners. B [s for the benefit ofthe plaintifelone who claims to be the sole petition for the co-owner to cfect the other co-owners. Decide. rs may bring an action in ejectment which the action Is brought by the oocupants been ruled that persons who occupy the land etal, GR No, 128338, March 28,2005). ‘When is the pessession of aco-owmer deemed adverse? Explain, January 29, 2004) May a possessor by tolerance be entitled to reimbursement ofthe value ‘of his improvement? Why? ‘Thus, they have no right to get reimbursed for the expenses they i crecting their houses thereon. (Resuena, et al. vs. CA et al, GR. No, 128338, March 28, 2008). ‘A,B,and Care co-owners of an agricultural land. Afs the administrator of the property. He wants to canvertit toa subdivision, What requirement fs necessary before he can do so and before he can recover expenses? Explain.ANS: 5: Imorder that A can make alterations, there must be unanimous consent af all to recover expenses expres cansent mst be given. vier vs fave, 6 Pil 493), ‘What are the rights ofthe co-owners? co-owner has 1. Rallye fhe par.d share of rts or bei . See aie cone can his share; TN tobe tern seme cept when : Liem egraen Eicon to clenpt hina fom neesary epenses ot ‘enaungpertisioreln deena (Ae HEREC) Explain the juridical conceptofco-ownership. The juridical concept of co-ownership is unity ofthe object or property and plurality of subjects. Each co-owner, jointly withthe other co as by prescription thereof by a co-owner. (Gacapan, etal. vs. Omi : al vs. Omipet, GR. No, 148943, August 15,2002 citing Consignado vs. CA, 207 on Spe arte GR No. 141083 Meh 206) A ‘The hers ofA Inherited from him bulls a building which he constructed durin Us ifetine. Whats te entent ofthe right of the hes ine sania a ights ofthe heirs over the buding law that before a property owned in common is he co-owner has (sa ideal or abstract quota or tire property. A co-owner has no right to demand anideal portion (Villanueva vs Florendo, 139 SCRA 329). As sch the ony ef of nation rough by ac-owner apanstaco-omer Swot opto eco owner emt ced a specific portion of the property because as a co-owner he has a right to ‘Possess and the plaintiff cannot recover any material or determinate part of Ihe propery Earesn dle GR Na 148727 Ap, 203). X.Yand Zare enavmers ofa parcel ofan. Xsls is sels aliquot partor te isk pry wa essa eer te a Ns: ‘The remedy isto ask for partition, not to ask for Yes, tis valid, because the right of alienation is one of his tights over the ideal shares in the co-ownersip. With respect to the whole property, the sales valid only insofar as his share is ‘concerned. A person cannot sell hat which he does not own. (Halli vs Lore, '30.0.6.2493; Punsalan vs. Boon Lat, #4 Phil.320) fa co-owner sells the whole property subject of a co-ownership, is the ‘sale valid? Explain his shares concerned co-owner sells the whole property as his, the sale the other co-owmers who did not Welt-setledis there ‘wilafeconlyhisown share but norhose of cansentto these “The sale or other dipostion affects only the seller's share pro indivi, and the TTonsferee gets only what corresponds to his grantor's share inthe partion of the property owner in common. Since a co-owner i ented to sell is undivided share, a sale ofthe entre property by one co-owner withoxt the ther covers is not aull and void oly the rights ofthe co- ‘re earsered thereby making the buyer a co-owner of the sapere (Aguirre eal. CA, etal, GR. No. 12224, amary28, 2008. fa co-owner sells the whole property subject ofthe co-ownership, what {s the remedy ofthe other co-owners? Explain. the nullity ofthe sale, since the seller transmitted only his undivided share to the buyer, thus, the buyer ind the other owners became co-owners. (Aguirre etal. vs.CA, etal, GR No. 122249, january 29,2004) May an heir sobs share ofa property under administration? Yes, an heir may sell whatever right, interest oF participation he may have in the property under admiistration (Vda, de Git ws. Cancio, 14 SORA 796 [1ndsp. Ths rules so because atthe time of sale, he already the owner. One ofthe rights ofan owner isthe right t dispose. What is the basts ofthe right of an heir to sell his share in a property under administration? It is based on the rule that possession of hereditary property is deemed transmited to the heir without interruption and from the moment of the death of the decedent, in case the inheritance is accepted. (Art. $33, NCC: ‘Resbedo, etal vs- Hon, Abesamis,et a, GR No. 102380, Jan. 18, 1993)ANS: ANS: A, Band Care co-owners ofa property If one of them sells his undivided share anoter co-owner, dons the ight of lp redemption est? : Na. Asarule, the ight to redeem i granted not only tothe orginal co-owners, ‘but also to all those who subsequent acquire thir respective shares while ‘the community subsists. However, this right of redemption is avallble only when part ofthe co-owned property is sold to a third person. Otherwise put, She af een eed on Atl 1621, NEC apes ay wen 3 id to a non-co-owmer. A third person, within the meaning of ta co-owner. (Femnandea vs Sps. Tarun, GR. ‘The co-owner of ral property entered nto a. Deed of Bera a dca Partlfon and Exchange of Shares excladng one of them. The Deed wat executed on November 4, 1969, Whats the tect ofthe execution of uch Deed a far asthe oer cosiener i concerned who was wot part heDeed? Bai, The execution ofthe Des deemed to bea ote ohm ofthese 4 notice ta him of healed tthe Exchange of Shares. Te aw des not rete any Specie ‘notice to the redemptioner, ae fa Heat Jrisprudence affirms the need for notice, but its form has been the subject of| varying interpretations. Conejero vs. CA held that a written notice was still required, even ifthe redemptioner has actual prior knowledge of the sale. However, in Distrito vs. CA, the Court ruled that written notice was not necessary, if the co-owner was actually aware of the sale. While the law requires that the notice must bein writing it does not prescribe any particular form, so long asthe reasons fora written notice are satisfied otherwise, Ths, sna civil case for collection ofa share in the rental byan alleged buyer of aco ‘owned property, the receipt ofa summons by a co-owner has been held to ‘constitute actial Imowledge of the sale. On that basis, the co-owner may ‘exercise the right of redemption within 30 days from the finality of the ‘decision. (Fernandez vs.Sps. Tarun, G.R No, 143868, November 14,2002), ‘4, B, and C are the co-owners of a property. A acts as trustes A acts a5 traste, with the property repistered in his name alone. He sells the whole property to X. ‘Willan action to annul the sale by Band C prosper? Why? It not proper bec Xan anceps fr va oc tr va and in fat ect beblame or eng one One eed oo go eon he ‘eto orton (Gr ob is Abul Fal 50, May prescion runs against oer? re thee exceptions? No Preseripton ae does on pat owners and co-owners and corsa ‘as the co-ownership is expressly or impliedly recognized. ad islet ANS: ‘The exception is when there is repudiation, provided that the following requistesare present. {LHe must make Imown tothe others that hes repudiating the co-ownership ‘and claiming complete ownership of te entre property. (Trinidad vs. CA, ‘etal, GR No, 18904, April 20,1998, 93 SCAD 610). 2. Bridence of repudiation and knowledge of others fs clear and convincing ‘3. There is open, continuous, peaceful, public and adverse possession for a period of time required under the law, (Santos vs. Heirs of risostomo, 41 Phil. 342; Heirs of Jose Reyes, et al. vs. Amanda Reyes, etal, GR. No. 1158377, August 4, 2010) Note: Mere receiving of rents or profits, payment of taxes, or construction of a fence oF building would not be suficent proof of exclusive or adverse possession because anyone in the co-ownership may doi Tepudlation 15 necessary. (Laguna vs. Levantino, 71 Phil. $66). ‘adjudication and registration ofthe property subject ofthe co-owner ‘hot repudiation. Property remains the subject of co-ownership. (Galvez, eta ¥5.CA,etal, GR No. 157594, March 26, 2006). In a co-owmership, under what circumstances may a co-owner not ‘demand partition? ‘They are the following: +L, When thereis an agreement, but the period should not exceed ten years; 2. When the testator prohibits it, but the pertod stall be limited to centy 3. Won 1 prohibited iy aw (An con prtersip or able onmaniy of property exepin case separation); 4. Whenparion renders the bet unser, $ Wen he lettre ofthe propery oes not allow the prtn of he objec es party wal (As 4 and 98 NCC) Can a co-owner sell a particular portion of the co-awmership before partition? Why? settled that a co-owner fas ao right to sella divided part by «bounds, ofthe real estate owned in common (Lopez vs. lustre, 5 This doctrine was reiterated in Mercado vs. iwanag (114429, June 30, 1962), where it was held that 2 co-owner may not convey a physical portion of the land owned in common. Applying the foregoing principles, 2 rere co-owner could not have validly sold a specific part ofthe land he owned {ncommon with his co-owners and two others as described inthe Dee of Sale ‘executed by him in favor ofthe vendes. Vendees, therefore, cannot caim tle to that definite portion of the land owed in common. (See Sps. Abad vs. CA, et ‘al GR No. 84908, Dec. 4, 1989; Heirs of Pedro Escanlar, eta vs.Cly etal, GR. No. 119777; Holgado, etal. vs. CA, et al, GR. No. 120690, Oct. 10, 1987, 88, SCAD 537), A co-owner can only dispose of his undivided share. (Sps.ANS: ‘Alexander and Adelaida Cruz vs Eleuterio Leis, etl, supra). Xand Vare the co-owners ofa two-storey house. The lower portion Is for ‘ent, while the upper portion is for dwelling purposes. X uses one room ‘apstars. Discuss the rights of the co-owners. Explain, No rent can be demanded from X because he is exercising his right of co- ‘ownership ¥ can use apart of the upper floor aso. (Pardll vs. Bartolome, 23 Phil 450), Under the law, ezch co-owner may use the thing owned in comman provided that: does son accordance with the purpose itis intended for; oes not injure the intention ofthe co-ownership; (6 He does not prevent other co-owners from using it according to their rights. (Are. 486, NCC). Xs a co-owner of areal property with Y and Z. The said property was sold to A with a right to repurchase. Only X exercised the right to ined a tide over the property. Did his act of the co-ownership? Why? terminate the co-ownership. It did the co-ownershp. (Paulmitan, et ). The right of repurchase may be share. When he acquired the to be reimbursed forthe amount equivalent tothe shares of ¥ and Z. vs CA, 157 SCRA 455; Guinto vs, Lim Bonfing, 48 Phil 884), X,Y, and Z are co-owners of a parcel of land. X was able to register the land under his name. What is the effect of the registration under his ‘name? Explain. He does not acquire exclusive ownership over the property. In Ceniza,et a. vs. (A, eta, 1-46345, Jan 30, 1990, the Supreme Court sald that registration ofa parcel of land subject of co-ownership in the name of one co-owner is not ‘epudiation of co-ownership for purposes of prescription. Under Art 494(5), ‘expressly or impliedly recognizes the c-ownership. The registration merely created a trust favor of his co-owner. (Art: 1452, NCC). ‘A property was the subject of co-ownership. it was contended that with the execution of an Altidavit of Self-Adjadication by one of the heirs, is registration before the Register of Deeds of La Union and the issuance of| 4 new tax declaration, there existed an implied trust. Is the contention correct? Why? No, because there was no repudiation. The act of executing the affidavit of self: adjudication did not constitute suicent act ofrepudtzton, tn fact there was eo ANS: co-helr In feigning sole ownership of the property to the other co-heirs. He camot profit fom it to the detriment of 1m order that prescription may lie against a co-owner, what requisite must be complied with? Explain. inating a relation of co-ownership, must have the co-ownership). The act of repudiation in tum, Is subject to ce (1) a co-owner repudiates the co- ‘ownership; (2) such an act of repudiation is clearly made known tothe other co-owners, (3) the evidence thereon is clear and conclusive; an has continuous, excusi possession of the property GR No, 157954, March 24, ‘Enumerate someacts of repudiation. “The following may constitute acts of repudiation: 1 Filing by a trustee ofan ation in court against the trustor to quict title to property, or for recovery of ownership thereo! possession by the former, may constitute an act of repudiation ofthe trust reposed om him by thelatter. 2, The issuance ofthe certificate of tle would constitute an open and clear repudiation of any trust, and the lapse of more than 20 years, open and ‘adverse possession as owmer would certainly suffice to vest tie by prescription. ‘An action forthe reconveyance of land based on implied or constructive trust prescribes within 10 years. And it from the date of the issuance of Such title thatthe effecve assertion of adverse title for purposes of the ‘statute of limitation is counted. 4. There is clear repudiation of a trust when one who is an apparent ic the administrator of propery causes the cancellation ofthe tte thereto ln the fname ofthe apparent beneficiaries and gets anew cerbifcate of tein his ‘own name,ANS: ANS: to run for the purposes of the action instinited by the later seeking a declaration of the exstence of the co-ownership and of their rights thereunder (Galvez vs. CA, etal, GR No. 57954, March 24,2006). May the co-owners of property agree thatthe co-ownership shal be for ‘mn indefinite period? Why? contrary to public policy to sanction ca-ownership beyond the period set by lay. Otherwise, the 0-year limitation would be rendered meaningless. Whenever the thing is essentially indivisible and the co-owners cannot ‘agree that itbe alloted to one of them who shall indemnify the others, it shal be sold and its proceeds accordingly distributed. When Is this scheme resorted to? The aforesaid scheme fs resorted to: (a) when the right to partition, the property i invoked by any ofthe co-owners but because ofits nature, it ‘cannot be subdivided or its subdvsion would prejudice the fatress of the co-owners and () the c-ownersare notin agreements to who among thems shall be alloted or assigned the ete property upon proper reimbursement of the cower. (Agr Ws CA, GR. No. 76851, Oct 2, 1983, 45 SCAD S64; Reyes vs. Concepcion, 190 SCRA 171 X, Vand Z are co-owners ofa real property which was mortgaged t0 A.X redeemed it during the period of redemption with his personal funds. Bux becomethesole owner the propery therehy termiag tec No, because the redemption dd not vest in X the sole ownership over the said property but inured to the benefit of all co-owners. Redempti ‘of terminating co-ownership, (Mariano vs.CA, etal, GR No. 1993,41 SCAD 927). {san existing mortgage abar tothe partition of property? Why? Tio, because the latter does not operate to extinguish the mortgage. A ‘mortgage is inseparable from the property. Under Art 2126, NCC, a mortgage sirecly and immediately subjects the property upon which itis imposed, whoever the possessor may be, to the fulllment of the obligation for whose security it was constituted. (Sps. ailano vs. CA, etal, GR. No. 99333, June 2, niin: qe atte ANS, 1993, 42 SCAD 735). Furthermore, Art. 494, NCC provides that no co-owner hall be obliged to remain inthe co-owmership. Each co-owner may demand at “any time the partition ofthe thing owed in common, insofar as his share 5 concerned. ‘What does it mean when the law provides that each co-owner may demand at anytime the partition of the common property? Explain. {means that an action to demand partition is impresciptible or cannot be reve, be 303). Parties lived together 2s husband and wife without the benefit of marriage despite the fact that respondent was legally married. During their eoverture, they were able to organize a manpower services company where petitioner owned 333%. Five (5) properties were Sequired by them and registered under their mames ostensibly 2 Jrusbend and wife, Bot the relztionshlp did not last long, hence, they ‘agreed to divide the properties, Petitioner demanded for some mare, but Teepondent refused, hence, an action for partition was filed Respondent ‘Contended that the properties were acquired out of his personal funds. the income ofthe manpo respondent was the sole owner. On appeal, pre indiviso owner of one-half ofthe properties and that the court's cision subjected the certificates of tide to collateral attack, Ste further contended that itis improper to thresh out the issue om ownership in an action for partition. Decide. ‘contended that she was 2 ‘The contentions are not correc. The determination as to the existence of co- Cwmership is necessaryin the resolution ofan action | for partition. (Municipality of Bian v. Gari GR. No, 6260, December 2, 1989, 180 SCRASTS). properties based on the transfer cortiicates of iblect properties. Respondent maintains otherwise. Indubitably, therefore, tun and unless this issue of co-ownership is definitely and finally resoived, It ‘would be premature to effect partition ofthe disputed properties. (Fabrics. (CA, 146 SCRA 250 (1986). More important, the complaint wil not even le‘he claimant, or petitioner ia his case doesnot even have: e doesnot even have ay ght interest ont ie opr (atin CA GR Ne 10002, vende 2, 1085, 254 SRA EB, ety Lahey Bay Samy, GR Ne 1S, How may co-ownership be extinguished? Co-owmershipis extinguished by: 1. Judicial partition; 2 Extahiia prion, en by prescription, one co-owner c roperty When presi one omer hat aque the whol propery by 4 When a strange 5. Mergerin one t 6 Loss or destruction of the thing: 1. By expropriation. Possession Give the concept of possession; possessor in good faith. (1) Possession isthe holding ofa or is the holding fa thing or the enjoyment of a right (Art 523, (ern hate ot et an Sih it te Ne Mam Reyes c8 eA SERA ES) Watare the reise ofpssesin Terese ofeteson ae 1 oe hrs in mnt ig 2: Ar senior inet toposes te thigh Distinguish occupation from possession. Occupation and possession are distinguished, as follows: J, ocapatonisa mode fag one omer we yosseson 0 2 acpatoniven pert omelet poseon not . nea rise to ownership (II Tolentino, Civil Code, 1992 ed, p. 489). corporeal ing ete ej of caption, wre et al ‘5. Occupation can take place only with respect to property without an owner; a while possession can refer toll kinds of property, whether with or without ‘an ovmer {Ul Tolentino, Civ Code, 1992, ed, p. 48%; Rep. v. Heirs of Doroteo Montoja,GR No, 195137, June 23,2012) ‘What are the degrees of possession? 5; The degrees of possession ar: 4. Possession without any title whatsoever in violation of the right ofthe true ‘owner, 2. Possession with urdical tie, but notin the concept ofan owner; 3. Possession ‘with Just tile, or tide which ts sufficient to transfer ‘ownership, butnotfrom the true owner; and 4, Possession witha just tle from the true owner, What are the classes of possession? The asses of possession are: 1. Possession in one’s name or possession in the mae of another; 2 Possession in the concept of an owner or possession in the concept af holder, and 3, Possession in good faith o bad flth. Is good faith presomed? ‘Yes, good uth i always presumed and upon hm who alleges bad faith on the part ofa possessor ress the burden of proof. (Art 527, NCC} How is possession acquired? (4) the material occupation of a thing oF the the fact that its subject to the action of our wil exercise ofa right or by the proper acts and legal formals established for aequring such fig (Art. $33, NCC, ting Pharma Ind Tne. vs. Pajarlaga, 100 SCRA 339) ‘Possession of land can be acquired upon the execution of the deed of sale by the vendor. Actual or physical occupation is not always neoessary. (SPs Benitez vs. CA etl, GA No, 104828, Jan. 16, 1997, 77 SCAD 793). X is the heir of ¥ who died on December 10, 1992. He accepted his jnheritance from is father op June 21, 1993. From what time should his possession be reckoned with? It should be computed from the moment of the doath of Y, because the possession of hereditary property is deemed transmitted othe helrwithoat nerruption and from the moment ofthe death ofthe decedent, incase the inheritance is accepted. (Art. 533,NCQ),