POSSESSION - fact of possession and the right to such possession
are found in the same person.
Possession - is the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a
right.
ELEMENTS OF POSSESSION (OAT-IP)
1. There must be occupancy, apprehension or taking
2. There must be intent to possess (animus possidendi)
Animus Possidendi may be contradicted and rebutted
by evidence which tends to prove that the person under
whose power or control the thing in question appears to
be, does not in fact exercise the power or control and
does not intend to do so.
PEOPLE VS TIRA
Held surveillance operations for drug activities @ house of
Amadeo & Connie.
Police found a number of drug which was hidden under the
bed where Amadeo was sleeping.
Convicted the spouses for possession of illegal drugs.
Crime is mala prohibita where criminal intent is not an
essential element thus the INTENT TO POSSESS must be
proved.
Amadeo’s defense:
- said that the house the police searched was rented
by his nephew but belied by Connie’s testimony
that the room was occupied by boarders.
SC decsion:
Gave emphasis to the concept of CONTROL and
DOMINION over a thing.
Possession includes actual & constructive possession.
Constructive Possession exists when the drug is under the
dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right
to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is
found.
They had actual and exclusive possession and control and
dominion over the house, including the room where the
drugs were found.
DEGREES OF POSSESSION
1. Without any title or right (Ex: Thief)
2. With a juridical title or right, but not in the concept
of owner (Ex: Lessee)
3. With a just title but not from the true owner (Ex:
Buyer in good faith)
4. With a just title from the true owner.
CLASSIFICATION OF POSSESSION UNDER THE
CIVIL CODE
1. In one’s own name and In the name of another.
2. In the concept of an owner and In the concept of a
holder.
3. In good faith and In bad faith.
Possession in one’s own name
- possession anchored on a juridical title or right
- Ex: By the owner himself, by a lessee or by a
usufructuary.
Possession in the name of another
- possession by a person without any right of his
own and one which is strictly of an agent or merely
an instrument in the exercise of such possession.
- right to the possession is in one person while the
fact of possession is in another.
- it is not necessary that the owner of a parcel of land
should himself occupy the property.
- Ex: Possession by a Caretaker.
SANTOS V MANALILI
Topic: Possession in One’s Own Name
Tract of land known as "Furukawa Plantation" distributed
among war veterans and deserving civilians.
Manalili filed an application to purchase a property in the
Fukuwara plantation; and application was favorably acted
upon.
Manalilis left for Manila in 1972 but they appointed an
administrator to oversee the land.
In 1981 Rodolfo Santos wrote a protest against Manalilis
application; filed a case for Reconveyance and Annulment of
Title against Manalili.
SC decision:
Circumstance that after the sale, the Manalilis resided in
Manila and Pangasinan is of no moment.
It is not necessary that the owner or holder of the thing
exercise personally the rights of possession.
Rights of possession may be exercised through agents or an
administrator.
REYES VS CA
Topic: Possession in One’s Own Name & Prescriptive
period for Constructive Trust
Reyes sold ½ land to Raymundo.
In 1969 Reyes sold the remaining ½ land Raymundo. New
title issued to Raymundo.
However, Reyes leased in 1967 the house standing on the
property to the Palacios.
In 1987 Raymundo claimed ownership over the whole
property.
In 1987 Reyes filed for Cancellation of Title &
Reconveyance.
Reyes alleged that the 1969 sale was simulated (no
consideration) and their true agreement embodied in private
writing in 1970.
SC decision:
NB: Action for Reconveyance based on implied or
constructive trust prescribes in 10 years from the date of
registration, the point of reference being the date of
registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the
certificate of title over the property.
But plaintiff or the person enforcing the trust must not be in
possession of the property, otherwise it does not prescribe
w/c in effect is an Action to Quiet Title.
1st : It is not necessary that the owner of a parcel of land
should himself occupy the property as someone in his name
may perform the act.
The owner has possession either when he himself is
personally in occupation or when another person, who
recognizes his rights as owner, is in such occupancy
(Possession in One’s Own Name.)
Reyes was in actual possession of the property through the
Palacios.
nd
2 : The action for reconveyance filed has not prescribed.
3rd : The 2nd DOD was simulated
It is true that as between a public document and a private
document, the former prevails but the intention of the parties
still is and always will be the primary consideration in
determining the true nature of a contract
4th : The act of securing title in the name of Raymundo did
not operate to vest ownership.
Torrens system does not create or vest title. It only
confirms and records title already existing.
Art. 525. The possession of things or rights may be had in
one of two concepts: either in the concept of owner, or in
that of the holder of the thing or right to keep or enjoy it, the
ownership pertaining to another person
Possession in the concept of an owner:
- A possessor in the concept of an owner may be the
owner himself or one who claims to be so.
- But possession in the concept of owner does not
refer to the belief of the possessor or his intention. It
refers to the opinion or belief of the neighbors and
the rest of the world and not that of the possessor.
- Even if the possessor is aware that there is a flaw in
his title resulting in its invalidation, so long as he
claims ownership of the property and does not
acknowledge in another a superior right , he is still
considered a possessor in the concept of an owner.
Possession in the concept of a holder:
- Acknowledges in another a superior right which he
believes to be ownership, whether this belief be
right or wrong.
A lessee is considered as a possessor in the concept of a
holder with respect to the thing itself.
But he is considered as possessor in the concept of an
owner with respect to their right over the property.
CARLOS VS REPUBLIC
Topic: Possession in the concept of a holder.
Carlos filed an application for registration of land claiming
to be in OCEN possession for over 50 yrs. Application was
granted.
Republic appeal; decision was reversed because at the time
of his application property had been sold by her mother to a
corporation; such was admitted by Carlos.
Possession and occupation was in the corporation at the time
of his application.
SC decision:
Carlos acknowledges the sale of the property to the
corporation; thus, it cannot be said that her possession since
1996 was under a bona fide claim of ownership.
By reason of the sale, Carlos was no longer in possession in
the concept of owner; she was in possession in the concept
of a holder.
Only he who possesses the property under a bona fide claim
of ownership is entitled to confirmation of title.
BUKIDNON DOCTORS’ HOSPITAL INC. v MBTC
Topic: Issuance of Writ of Possession
BDC obtained a loan from MBTC with land mortgage as
security.
Land was extrajudicially foreclosed and sold to MBTC.
BDC rent the land to continue its operation but was asked to
vacate thereafter; BDC refused to leave.
MBTC filed Ex Parte Motion for a Writ of Possession. RTC
granted.
DBC filed before the SC if WON a writ of possession is the
proper remedy for evicting a mortgagor who became a lessee
of the mortgaged properties after the mortgagee has
consolidated ownership over the properties and was issued
new certificates of title
SC decision:
Trial court’s issuance of a writ of possession is not only
superfluous, but improper under the law.
The rationale for the ministerial issuance of a writ of
possession is to put the foreclosure buyer in possession of
the property sold without delay.
But MBTC is already in material possession of the property .
By material occupation of a thing, it is not necessary that the
person in possession should be the occupant of the property;
the occupancy can be held by another in his name.
Where a lease agreement, whether express or implied, is
subsequently entered into by the mortgagor and the
mortgagee after the expiration of the redemption period and
the consolidation of title in the name of the latter, a case for
ejectment or unlawful detainer, not a motion for a writ of
possession, is the proper remedy in order to evict from the
questioned premises a mortgagor-turned-lessee.
What applies is no longer the law on extrajudicial
foreclosure, but the law on lease.
POSSESSOR IN GOOD FAITH
He is deemed a possessor in good faith who is not aware that
there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which
invalidates it.
The essence of good faith lies in an honest belief in the
validity of one’s right, ignorance of a superior claim, and
absence of intention to overreach another.
A person who has no title or mode of acquisition but whose
occupation of the land of another is by reason of the latter’s
tolerance or permission cannot be considered a possessor or
builder in good faith.
Requisites for Possession in Good Faith:
1. Possessor has a title or mode of acquisition;
2. There is a flaw or defect in the title or mode of
acquisition which invalidates it;
3. Possessor is unaware of the flaw or defect, or he
believes that the thing belongs to him.
Possessors in the concept of a holder cannot be possessors
in good faith
- Such as mere tenant, agent or usufructuary
- A lessee cannot be a possessor in good faith as he
has no pretension to be an owner.
- Lessee knows that his occupation of the premises
will continue only for the life of the lease.
FLORENTINO V SUPERVALUE
Topic: Lessee cannot be a possessor in good faith; No
reimbursement.
Supervalue lessor, Florentino lessse.
Supervalue refused to renew its Contracts of Lease with
Florentino.
Supervalue took possession of the store space and
confiscated Florentino’s equipment and personal belongings
found therein after the expiration of the lease contract.
SC decision:
Full reimbursement of useful improvements and retention of
the premises until reimbursement is made, applies only to a
possessor in good faith, i.e., one who builds on land with
the belief that he is the owner thereof.
As a lessee, cannot be considered a builder in good faith;
Supervalue may appropriate the improvements introduced on
the leased premises without any obligation to reimburse the
Florentino.
PERSHING TAN CUETO V CA
Spouses Restituta and Juan.
The disputed lot allegedly acquired by Restituta either thru
donation or sale (was not clear); transaction took place
during her mother’s lifetime
After marriage, Juan was pronounced as owner of the lot
after application.
In 1949 Lease contract between Pershing Tan & Restituta
(w/ consent of her husband).
In 1960 after lease expiration, Restituta sued Pershing Tan
for unlawful detainer.
However, In 1962 Jaun & Pershing Tan entered into a barter
over the disputed lot.
Pershing Tan, constructed on the bartered land a concrete
building, without any objection on the part of Restituta.
Meanwhile, Restituta lost in the earlier ejectment suit;
Restituta sued both Juan and Tan Queto for reconveyance,
for annulment of the barter, and for recovery of the land.
Tan Queto insists he is a builder in GF and entitled to
reimbursement.
SC decision:
1st: The land is conjugal, not paraphernal.
Ownership was acquired by the spouses because of the
contract of sale.
Allegation of Restituta that it was a donation was not given
validity by the court.
 Oral donation of the lot cannot be a valid Donation
Inter-vivos.
 Cannot be a valid Donation Mortis Causa for the
formalities of a will were not complied with.
Allegation that transfer was a conveyance to Restituta of her
hereditary share not sustained because transmission of future
inheritance is generally prohibited.
2nd: Tan Queto may be said to be the OWNER-
POSSESSOR of the lot.
He is a builder-possessor because he is the OWNER
himself.
If the flaw or defect does not result in the invalidation of the
title, he is not merely a possessor in good faith but the owner
thereof.
There is no such flaw or defect because it is he himself (not
somebody else) who is the owner of the property.
RIVERA V TRINIDAD
Land owned by Dolores. Maximo Trinidad constructed a
building with Dolores’ consent.
Thereafter, Dolores filed an unlawful detainer against
Maximo.
Some advised Dolores to sell the land to some other person
who will exercise the power of terminating the lease.
Land was sold to Rivera.
Issue: Whether the court had jurisdiction of an action in
which a purchaser seeks to oust a tenant under the conditions
existing in this case.
SC decision:
Lower court had jurisdiction
Plaintiff is entitled to judgment; declared to be entitled to
possession of the lot.
Rivera, being the new owner of the property, is entitled to
possession; Maximo, as lessee, merely possesses the
property as a holder.
Presumption Of Good Faith
- Good faith is always presumed.
- Possession in good faith ceases from the moment
defects in the title are made know to the
possessors , by extraneous evidence or by suit for
recovery of the property by the true owner.
WONG VS CA
Topic: When Good Faith ceases.
In 1972 Manuel purchased land from William Giger by
virtue DOS with right to repurchase.
He knew that laborers of Wong were in the land as early as
Aug 1976; he did not do anything to stop them.
Before July 1976, Wong bought the land from William, not
knowing that Manuel was in possession thereof.
In Nov 1976 Wong received a copy of Manuel's complaint
for forcible entry with summons to answer.
SC decision:
1st: The sale to Wong failed to pass the possession of the
property because there is an impediment — the possession
exercised by Manuel.
Execution of a sale thru a public instrument shall be
equivalent to the delivery of the thing. However, if the
purchaser cannot have the enjoyment and material tenancy of
the thing because such tenancy and enjoyment are opposed
by another, then delivery has not been effected.
On appeal Wong argued that there is no legal or factual basis
for the payment of monthly rentals because bad faith on his
part was never proved.
2nd: Wong’s good faith ceased at the time he received
Manuel's complaint for forcible entry with summons.
A possessor in good faith is entitled to the fruits only so long
as his possession is not legally interrupted, and such
interruption takes place upon service of judicial summons.
MODES OF ACQUIRING POSSESSION
(ME-S-PA)
1. By material occupation of a thing or the exercise of
a right;
2. By subjecting the thing or right to the action of our
will; and
3. By the proper acts and legal formalities established
for the acquisition of such right.
REQUISITES FOR ACQUISITION OF POSSESSION
(ME-AP)
1. Corpus or Material holding of the thing or Exercise
of the right.
2. Animus Possidendi– the intent to possess a thing or
right.
Note: Possession is not acquired in the absence of
intent to possess, even if there is a physical holding
of the thing.
DOCTRINE OF CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION - the
actual possession of part of the property is deemed to extend
to the whole because possession in the eyes of the law does
not mean that a man has to have his feet on every square
meter of ground before it can be said that he is in possession.
For this doctrine to apply, the following must be present:
a. The alleged possessor must be in actual possession
of a portion of the property;
b. He is claiming ownership of the whole area;
c. The remainder of the area must not be in the
adverse possession of another;
d. The area claimed must be reasonable.
The application of the doctrine of constructive possession
shall depend on the size of the tract in controversy, with
reference to the portion actually in possession of the
claimant.
Material occupation referred to in Art. 531 involves only
corporeal objects and not to acquisition of possession over a
right.
Art. 531 includes two forms of constructive delivery:
 TRADICION BREVI MANU - like when a lessee
of a private property ultimately becomes its owner
 TRADICION CONSTITUTUM
POSSESSORIUM - seller transfers ownership and
retains a usufruct.
Subjecting the thing to the Action Of Our Will; two
forms of Constructive Delivery:
 TRADICION SYMBOLICA takes place through
the delivery of symbols or some object to represent
those to be delivered, thus placing the thing under
the control of the transferee.
 TRADICION LONGA MANU is effected by the
transferor pointing out to the transferee the things
which are being transferred.
MANGASER V UGAY
Mangaser, registered owner and possessor of land covered
by OCT.
In 2006 Ugay occupied a portion of his property without his
consent by constructing a residential house.
Mangaser filed for Forcible Entry.
Ugay’s defense: he has been a resident of the area since
birth.
Ugay alleged that Manager was never in actual possession of
the property and it was only on Oct 2006 when he discovered
the alleged intrusion.
Issue: Whether Mangaser was able to established prior
possession over the subject property
SC decision:
1st: Mangaser acquired possession by Juridical Act: Issuance If no evidence is presented proving bad faith the
of a Free Patent & Its subsequent Registration covered by presumption of good faith remains.
OCT.
Its effects must be suffered only by the person who acted
Possession can be acquired not only by material in bad faith.
occupation, but also by the fact that a thing is subject to the
action of one’s will or by the proper acts and legal
formalities established for acquiring such right. INSTANCES WHERE POSSESSION IS NOT
The issuance of an OCT to Mangaser evidences ownership ACQUIRED (FI-T-CU)
and from it, a right to the possession of the property flows. 1. Use of Force or Intimidation
His claim of possession is coupled with tax declarations. 2. Acts merely Tolerated
While tax declarations are not conclusive proof of possession 3. Clandestine And Unknown Acts
of a parcel of land, they are good indicia of possession in the Use of Force or Intimidation
concept of an owner.
- A person in possession cannot be ejected by force,
ACQUISITION OF POSSESSION OVER RIGHTS not even by the owner.
(ESP)
HEIRS OF LAURORA V STERLING
1) to exercise such right
2) by subjecting it to the action of our will Topic: Force or Intimidation
3) by proper actions and legal formalities.
Sps Laurora was forcibly ejected by Sterling Technopark;
TRANSFER OF POSSESSION THROUGH bulldozed and with the use of armed men and by means of
SUCCESSION threats and intimidation.

- without need of physical or material holding of the SC decision:

property
Even if the heirs are mere usurpers of the land owned by
- such possession is deemed transmitted to the heir
Sterling, still they are entitled to remain on it until they are
without interruption from the moment of death of
lawfully ejected therefrom
the decedent if the heir accepts the inheritance
- this rule will apply even if the heir is not in actual
physical possession of the property.
- if the heir validly renounces the inheritance, he will Acts merely Tolerated
be deemed never to have possessed the property
- Acts merely tolerated do not affect possession
even if he is in actual possession of the same.
- Persons who occupy the land of another at the
CONSEQUENCES OF WRONGFUL POSSESSION latter’s tolerance, without any contract between
them, are necessarily bound by an implied promise
- The existence of bad faith on the part of one that they will vacate the same upon demand.
possessor does not prejudice his successors in - Mere permissive use cannot be made the basis of
interest. acquisitive prescription, no matter how long the
- Bad faith is not transmissible. possession may be.
- Bad faith is personal; its effects must be suffered
only by the person who acted in bad faith. His heir RESUENA V CA
should not be saddled with such consequences.
Topics: Acts merely tolerated

Borromeo is a co-owner of undivided property. Filed an

ESCRITOR V IAC ejectment case against Resuena.

Topic: Bad Faith is not transmissible
Escritor’s application for land titling was approved on May
1958; it took possession of the property.
Simon filed on Aug 1958 a petition for review contending
fraud in Escritor’s application
Escritor died; his heirs took possession of the property.
In 1971 (13 years later), Simon’s petition was granted
ordering the heirs to vacate.
In 1975, filed another case for Recovery of Damages for the
fruits of the land which was allegedly possessed by the heirs
unlawfully in bad faith.
SC decision:
Heirs of Escritor not liable for damages.
Bad faith is not transmissible from one person to another, not
even to an heir.
Resuena occupying a portion of property upon permission of
other co-owners.
Resuena’s defense: Borromeo waived in favor of his co-
owners the portion that she is presently occupying. He is
now estopped from claiming the portion.
SC decision:
No evidence presented by Resuena on right to occupy, such
as no lease contract that would vest the right to stay on the
property.
1st: The absence of any document or any occupancy right of
Resueno is a negation of their claim that they were allowed
to construct their houses thereon and to stay thereon until
further notice.
2nd: Persons who occupy the land of another at the latter's
tolerance or permission, without any contract between them,
are necessarily bound by an implied promise that they will
vacate the same upon demand, failing in which a summary
action for ejectment is the proper remedy against them.
- 3rd: Estoppel is effective only as between the
parties thereto or their successors in interest. A
stranger to a transaction is neither bound by, nor in
a position to take advantage of an estoppel arising
therefrom.
Clandestine or Unknown Acts
- Acts which are executed clandestinely and without
the knowledge of the possessor do not affect
possession.
- The legal possessor’s possession is not deemed
interrupted
- Done clandestinely if the same is done in secret,
hidden or concealed.
- Note: If the act is done publicly, even without the
knowledge of the possessor, his possession will be
affected.
- On the part of the actual possessor, his possession
acquired through clandestine acts not known to the
legal possessor will not ripen into ownership
through prescription because one of the
requirements thereof – that the possession be
public in character- is not present.
REYES VS PRIETO
Topic: Clandestine or Unknown Acts
Prieto owner of land, alleging Reyes without his knowledge
built a hut.
In 1952, Reyes refused to vacate alleging having bought the
lot from Dominador in Dec. 1948.
Prieto learned only of Reyes’ house in 1952.
Reyes alleged that MTC did not have jurisdiction over the
for forcible entry because she had been in possession of the
property since Dec 1948 and the action was started only in
1952.
Issue: Reyes alleged that it was error for the court to start the
counting of the initiation of the summary action only from
the time the owner learned of her encroachment.
SC decision:
Reyes contention is unmeritorious.
The owner of the land could not be expected to enforce his
right to it's possession against the illegal occupant and sue
the latter before learning of the clandestine intrusion
SANTIAGO V MWSS
Topic: Clandestine or Unknown Acts
MWSS filed an application for registration of title of land;
claiming OCEN possession since 1945.
Heirs of Manahan filed an opposition alleging ownership.
SC decision:
st
1 : MWSS presented tax declarations to buttress its
ownership of the land.
Tax declarations can be strong evidence of ownership when
accompanied by possession for a period sufficient for
prescription.
2nd: MWSS acquired ownership by prescription; MWSS
possessed the land in the concept of owner for more than
thirty years preceding the application.
By placing the pipelines under the land, there was material
occupation of the land subjecting the land to its will and
control.
3rd: Possession is “open”; the existence of the pipes was
indicated above the ground by "pilapils.”
Since they were not able to prove that possession was
clandestine, continuous possession by MWSS was
established.
Conflict Over Possession De Facto
- The law does not recognize the possibility that
possession de facto may reside at the same time in
two different personalities unless they are co-
possessors.
Rules of preference:
a) The present possessor shall be preferred;
b) If there are two possessors, the one longer in
possession is preferred;
c) It the dates of possession are the same, the one
who presents a title is preferred.
Note: If all of the foregoing are equal, the thing shall be
placed in judicial depsit pending determination of its
possession or ownership through proper proceeding.
YU V PACLEB
In 1992, Javier executed a contract of sale of land in favor of
Yu
Javier acquired it from Rebecca, who in turn acquired it from
Baltazar Pacleb. However, title remained with Baltazar (who
was in US).
Lot was also occupied by Ramon Pacleb, son of Baltazar
Pacleb, as tenants.
In 1992, Ramon and his wife allegedly surrendered
possession of their portion to Yu, who appointed Ramon as
their trustee over the subject lot.
Yu possessed the land from 1992 to 1995.
Baltazar returned in 1995 & entered the property.
Baltazar refused to vacate despite demand from Yu.
Yu filed forcible entry against Baltazar.
CA ruled that the possession of Pacleb ante-dated that of
Yu.
SC decision:
1st: The occupancy can be held by another in this name as in
this case where the son of Pacleb was in possession of the
property, in the name of his father.
Possession always includes the idea of occupation. It is not
necessary that the person in possession should himself be the
occupant.
nd
2 : Yu failed to convince the court of their actual occupancy
of the subject land
 First, Yu acknowledged that Ramon occupied
part of the land as tenants of Baltazar.
 Second, there was no clear proof in the records
of the appointment of Ramon as Yu’s trustee
save their self-serving statements to this effect
3rd: Tax declarations and receipts in 1994 and 1995 were in
the name of Pacleb established their possession of the
property.
The payment of real estate tax is one of the most persuasive
and positive indications showing the will of a person to
possess or with claim of ownership.
Possession in the eyes of the law does not mean that a man
has to have his feet on every square meter of the ground
before he is deemed in possession
4th: In view of the evidence establishing Pacleb’s continuing
possession of the subject property, Yu’s allegation that
Pacleb deprived them of actual possession by means of force
was clearly untenable.
Possession as a fact cannot be recognized at the same time in
two different personalities except in the cases of co-
possession.
CEQUENA V BOLANTE
Land originally declared for taxation purposes in the name of
Sinforoso Mendoza.
Sinforoso died in 1930.
His brother, Margarito took possession & cultivated the land
with his son Cequena.
Also, Bolante (Son of Sinforoso) and his mother continued
residing on the land. Paid RPT from 1932-1948.
In 1953 Margarito declared the land for taxation purposes.
Paid RPT from 1952. Margarito died & survived by his
Cequena.
In 1985 Cequena was physically ousted by Bolante, thus
Cequena contended that Bolante came into possession
through force.
SC decision:
1st: Cequena did not lose legal possession because
possession cannot be acquired by force. However, possession
by Cequena does not prevail over that of Bolante.
2nd: While Cequena was in possession before 1985. such
possession was not exclusive, as Bolante also acquired
possession of the land before 1985
SC favored Bolante; has been in possession for a longer
period, benefitting from her father’s tax declaration of the
land since 1926.
Bolante’ possession was not disturbed until 1953, when the
father of Cequena claimed the land. Cequena’s father
acquired joint possession only in 1952.
Possession of Bolante, which was public, peaceful and
uninterrupted, already ripened into ownership.
3rd: Bolante herself, after her father’s death, declared and
paid realty taxes for the disputed land
Tax receipts and declarations of ownership for taxation,
when coupled with proof of actual possession of the
property, can be the basis of a claim for ownership through
prescription.
NOTE: Because Cequena farmed a portion of the land for
more than 30 years, can claim ownership over the portion
that they actually farmed.
The following are effects of possession in the concept of
owner:
1. It raises a disputable presumption of ownership.
2. It creates a disputable presumption that the
possessor has just title and he cannot be obliged to
show it.
3. It can ripen into ownership through acquisitive
prescription, subject to additional requirements
under Art. 1118 of the Civil Code.
Art. 1118. Possession has to be in the concept of an owner,
public, peaceful and uninterrupted.
MODES OF LOSING POSSESSION (AA-D0-PO)
1. Abandonment of the thing
2. Assigning the thing to another, either by onerous or
gratuitous title
3. Destruction to total loss of the thing or because is
goes Out of commerce
4. The Possession of Another, subject to the
provisions of Art. 537, if the new possession has
lasted more than one year. But the real right of
possession is not lost till after the lapse of ten years.
Art. 537 Acts merely tolerated, and those executed
clandestinely and without the knowledge of the possessor of
a thing, or by violence, do not affect possession.
POSSESSION OF MOVABLES
DOCTRINE OF IRREVINDICABILITY - Possession of
movables acquired in good faith does not only create a
presumption of ownership but it is already equivalent to title.
It is valid even against the true owner, except upon proof of
loss or illegal deprivation.
For possession of a movable to be considered equivalent to
title, the following requisites must be present:
1. Good Faith;
2. Possesison in the concept of an Owner.
Exceptions to the rule on Irrevindicability:
1. When the thing was lost;
2. When the owner has been unlawfully deprived
thereof.
Owner has a right to recover the thing, not only from the
finder, thief or robber, but also from a third person who may
have acquired it in good faith.
If acquired in GF at a public sale, , the owner can recover it
only upon reimbursement of the price paid by the possessor.
PALERO-TAN v. URDANETA
Tan is a Court Stenographer who lost her pieces of jewelry in
her drawer at the office.
Urdaneta, utility worker, confessed that he found Tan’s
jewels in the court's premises.
SC decision:
Urdaneta had the intention to appropriate the jewelry to
himself had these not been discovered by his wife.
When a person finds a thing that has been lost or misplaced
by the owner, and takes the thing into his hands, he acquires
physical custody only and does not become vested with
legal possession.
Whoever finds a movable, which is not treasure, must return
it to its previous possessor.
If the latter is unknown, the finder shall immediately
deposit it with the mayor of the city or municipality
where the finding has taken place.
CRUZ V PAHATI
Car owned by Nothern Motors. Sold to Chinaman, then sold
to Belizo, then sold to Cruz (car COR is missing).
Belizo, a car dealer offered to sell the car to prospective
buyer. Cruz gave the car to Belizo with authorization letter.
Belizo was able to secure registration of the car in his name
thru falsification.
Belizo sold it to Pahati.
Cruz filed for Replevin against Pahati.
Who between Cruz and Pahati has a better right over the
car?
Cruz has better right.
Cruz therefore can still recover the possession of the car
even if Pahati acquired it in good faith.
It cannot be disputed that Cruz had been illegally deprived
thereof because of the ingenious scheme utilized by Belizo
to enable him to dispose of it as if he were the owner thereof.
EDCA v. SANTOS
EDCA sold 406 books to Prof. Jose Cruz, who ordered thru
phone, payable COD.
Books were delivered and paid thru check.
Cruz sold 120 books to Santos.
Cruz ordered again even before his check could be cleared.
EDCA had the police capture Cruz & seize the books from
Santos. Santos demanded the return of the books.
Should the books be returned to Santos?
Defense of EDCA that Santos have not established her
ownership absent presentation of receipt of purchase.
1st: Such proof is not necessary because possession of
movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to a
title.
2nd: EDCA was less than cautious. It did not verify the
buyer’s identity although it was easy enough to do this. It did
not wait to clear the check of this unknown drawer.
3rd: It indicated in the sales invoice issued to him, by the
printed terms thereon, that the books had been paid for on
delivery, thereby vesting ownership in the buyer.
EDCA’s defense: There was a failure of consideration that
nullified the contract of sale between it and Cruz.
But a contract of sale is consensual and is perfected once
agreement is reached between the parties on the subject
matter and the consideration. Ownership of the thing sold
shall be transferred to the vendee upon actual or constructive
delivery thereof
The SC found no justice in transferring EDCA's loss to the
Santos who had acted in good faith, and with proper care.
EASEMENT
The one which provides the easement is called the servient
estate.
The immovable in favor of which the easement is established
is called the dominant estate.
Easement is real right
- An encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for
the benefit of another immovable belonging to a
different owner. An easement can also be
established for the benefit of a community
- it is constituted on the thing itself and not upon the
owner or its occupant.
- right of easement is always enjoyed over an
immovable property.
- constituted over another’s property.
- serves as a limitation on the title of the owner of the
servient estate, specifically with regards to his right
to use the property.
- the owner of the servient estate retains the
ownership of the portion on which the easement is
established.
An easement can exist only when the servient and the
dominant estate belong to different owners.
As such, when there is a merger in the same person of the
ownership of the dominant and servient estates, the
easement is extinguished.
DICHOSO V MARCOS
Dichoso asked for easement of ROW from Marcos
contending that the latter’s lot is the shortest.
Marcos maintained that that there is an existing easement of
right of way available
SC decision:
Mere convenience for the dominant estate is not what is
required by law as the basis of setting up a compulsory
easement.
There must be real, not fictitious or artificial, necessity for it
When there is already an existing adequate outlet from the
dominant estate to a public highway, even when the said
outlet, be inconvenient, the need to open up another
servitude is entirely unjustified.
KINDS OF EASEMENT:
1. As to the recipient of the benefit:
a. real
b. personal
2. As to its source:
a. legal (established by law)
i. public legal easement
ii. private legal easement
b. voluntary (established by the will of the
owners)
3. As to its exercise: (CAP)
a. continuous or discontinuous
b. apparent or non-apparent
c. positive or negative
Real Easement - encumbrance is imposed upon an
immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging
to a different owner. The right over the easement resides in
the estate itself and not in the physical person who
successively occupies or enjoys it. It is imposed upon the
servient estate, for the enjoyment of the dominant estate.
Personal Easement - encumbrance imposed upon an
immovable for the benefit of a community or of one or more
persons to whom the encumbered estate does not belong.
There is no owner of the dominant estate to speak of.
SOLID MANILA CORP. v. BIO HONG TRADING CO.
Fact of easement annotated in the TCT of Bio Hong even
prior to its purchase.
“portion thereof have been converted into a private
alley for the benefit of neighboring estates”
Thereafter it constructed a gate that hampered the use of the
alley.
Solid Manila filed an injunction suit against Bio Hong to
have gates removed.
Bio Hong contended that easement had been extinguished by
merger in the same person of the dominant and servient
estates upon its purchase of the property from its former
owner.
SC decision:
No merger.
A merger exists when ownership of the dominant and
servient estates are consolidated in the same person.
The servitude is a personal servitude constituted for the
benefit of the community.
A personal easement is imposed upon an immovable for the
benefit of a community or of one or more persons.
The easement being a personal easement, there is no owner
of a dominant tenement to speak of. It was constituted in
favor of the public at large.
Hence, defense of Bio Hong was not valid.
Legal or compulsory easements are those which can be
enforced by force of law and may be established even
against the will of the owner of the servient estate.
Voluntary easement is constituted by will or agreement of
the parties or by reason of the will of the servient owner.
Continuous easement – those without the intervention of
any act of man (Ex: Drainage).
Discontinuous easement - if it is used at intervals and
depends on the act of man (Ex: ROW)
ABELLANA V CA
Abellana, together with other, asked that the construction of
high concrete wall of a subdivision be removed and that the
road be opened to them.
Abellana’s assumption that an easement of ROW is
continuous and apparent and may be acquired by
prescription.
SC decision:
The use of a footpath or road may be apparent but it is not
a continuous easement because its use is at intervals and
depends upon the acts of man.
Hence, a right of way is not acquired by prescription.
Apparent easement - which are made known and are
continually kept in view by external signs (Ex: ROW).
Non-apparent easement - show no external indication of
their existence (Ex: easement of not building beyond a
certain height).
Positive easement - imposes upon the owner of the servient
estate the obligation of allowing something to be done on his
property (Ex: ROW).
Negative easement - prohibits the owner of the servient
estate form doing something which he could lawfully do if
the easement did not exist (Ex: not to build higher).
CHARACTERISTICS OF EASEMENT
1. Inherence or Inseparability
2. Indivisibility
SOLID MANILA V BIO HONG
Solid Manila contention that alley pertaining to the easement
of right of way, was not included in the sale to Bio Hong.
Easements are inseparable from the estate to which they
actively or passively belong. Servitudes are accessories to
the tenements of which they form part.
MODES OF ACQUIRING EASEMENT (TP-DFA)
1. By title
2. By prescription of ten years – for continuous and apparent
easements
3. By deed of recognition (Art. 623)
4. By final judgment (Art. 623)
5. By apparent sign established by the owner of two
adjoining estates. (Art. 624)
By prescription
- regardless of GF or BF
- possession must be adverse (public & contuous).
- If positive, commences at the date of enjoyment of
easement.
- If negative, from the day the instrument
acknowledged before a notary public.
Note: If the owner of the servient estate denies the
existence of the easement or refuses to executed the deed
of recognition, the existence of the easement may be
established in a judicial proceeding through
preponderance of evidence.
CORTES VS YU-TIBO
Cortes filed an action to restrain Yu-Tibo from his plan in his
house that will cover ½ of the window of Cortes, depriving
the latter of air & light.
Cortes contention that it was positive easement, which
allowed him to acquire by prescription (use of his window
for 59 years) an easement of light in his favor and as a
servitude against Yu-Tibo.
Yu-Tibo’s contention that it was negative easement.
SC decision:
Opening a window in his building does not, by such act,
establish any easement, because the property is used by its
owner in the exercise of dominion or ownership.
Easement is a negative.
Cortes not having executed any notarized, formal act of
opposition to the right Yu-Tibo to build higher, the running
of the prescriptive period has not commenced.
LIWAG VS. HAPPY GLEN LOOP
Liwag demanded the removal of the water tank of the
subdivision built in his lot. Homeowners refused to comply;
they filed a case against Liwag.
Issue: Whether an easement of Water facility existed in the
said lot.
An easement of water facility was acquired by the
homeowners through prescription.
The water facility is an encumbrance on the lot for the
benefit of the community.
Because for more than 30 years, the facility was
continuously used by the residents.
UNISOURCE VS CHUNG
Sandico’s property contains memorandum of encumbrance
of a voluntary easement in favor of Francisco M. Hidalgo.
Said property was transferred to several owners and such
was consistently annotated. Unisource took such property.
Hidalgo’s property was transferred to Chung. Unisource filed
for the cancellation of the voluntary easement of ROW after
it found that the dominant estate has no more use for the
easement since it has another adequate outlet to a public
road.
SC decision:
Unisource itself admitted that a voluntary easement of right
of way exists in favor Chung.
It cannot now claim that what exists is a legal easement and
that the same should be cancelled since the dominant estate
is not anymore an enclosed estate as it has an adequate
access to a public road.
A voluntary easement of right of way, like any other
contract, could be extinguished only by mutual agreement or
by renunciation of the owner of the dominant estate.
Although the easement does not appear in the title of Chung,
the easement subsists.
Registration of the dominant estate under the Torrens
system without the annotation of the voluntary easement in
its favor does not extinguish the easement.
It is the registration of the servient estate as free, that is,
without the annotation of the voluntary easement, which
extinguishes the easement.
The fact that Chung subdivided the property into different
owners does not extinguish the easement. Easements are
indivisible.
MENDOZA V ROSEL
Topic: Easement’s Existence Known To Owner Of
Servient Estate Equivalent To Registration.
Rosel sued Mendoza to forbid Mendoza from closing an
easement of ROW.
Mendoza insisted that their TCT do not mention any lien or
encumbrance on their lots, they are purchasers in good faith
and for value, and as such have the right to demand from
Rosel some payment for the use of the alley.
SC decision:
It was found that the existence of the easement of ROW was
known to Mendoza, who must respect the same, in spite of
the fact that their TCT do not mention any burden or
easement.
Knowledge is as binding as registration.
EASEMENT BY APPARENT SIGN
(ART. 624)
1. That there exists an apparent sign of servitude
between the two estates.
2. That at the time of the establishment of such sign,
the ownership of the two estates resided in one
person.
3. That the sign of the easement was established by
the owner of both estates;
4. That the ownership over the two estates is later
divided, either by alienation or partition
 5. That at the time of the division of ownership,
nothing is stated in the document that is contrary to
the easement, nor is the sign of the easement
removed before the execution of the document
Art. 624 provides for acquisition of easement by title
through the operation of law.
Contemplates of a situation where an estate belonged
previously to one person. If one of the estates was alienated,
resulting in the division of the property, but prior to the
division, an apparent sign of an easement was present, an
easement is created by way of title upon the division of
the two estates, unless at the time of the division of the
ownership, the contrary should be provided in the title of
conveyance; or the apparent sign should be removed before
the execution of the deed.
Art. 624. The existence of an apparent sign of
easement between two estates, established or
maintained by the owner of both, shall be
considered, should either of them be alienated, as a
title in order that the easement may continue
actively and passively, unless, at the time the
ownership of the two estates is divided, the contrary
should be provided in the title of conveyance of
either of them, or the sign aforesaid should be
removed before the execution of the deed. This
provision shall also apply in case of the division of
a thing owned in common by two or more persons.
GARGATOS VS TAN YANON
Topic: Art. 624 Easement By Apparent Sign
Sanz owned a lot, subdivided it and was acquired by Tan
Yanon & Gargantos.
Tan Yanon filed an action to restrain Gargantos from
constructing a building that would prevent him from
receiving light and enjoying the view through the window of
his house.
He will withdraw his objection if the building is erected at a
distance of not less than three meters from the boundary line
between their lots.
Issue: Has Tan Yanon acquired an easement of light and
view against the property of Gargantos?
Yes.
The existence of an apparent sign of easement between two
estates, established by the proprietor of both, shall be
considered, if one of them is alienated, as a title so that the
easement will continue actively and passively, unless at the
time the ownership of the two estate is divided, the contrary
is stated in the deed of alienation of either of them, or the
sign is made to disappear before the instrument is executed.
The deed sale did not provide that the easement of light
and view would not be established.
The existence of the doors and windows on the Tan Yanon,
is equivalent to a title, for the visible and permanent sign
of an easement is the title that characterizes its existence.
AMOR VS FLORENTINO
Topic: Art. 624 Easement By Apparent Sign & Innocent
Purchaser for Value
Maria Florentino owned a House & Warehouse. The will of
Maria provides that the House will go to Gabriel Florentino
while the Warehouse will go to Maria Encarnacion
Florentino.
Maria sold the warehouse to Severo Amor. The latter
destroyed it and started to build a 2-storey building.
Florentino filed an action to prohibit Amor from building
which would shut off the light and air from their windows.
SC decision:
The existence of the apparent sign, to wit, the four
windows under consideration, had the same character
and effect as a title of acquisition of the easement of light
and view by Florentino upon the death of the original owner.
The existence of the apparent sign is equivalent to a title,
when nothing to the contrary is said or done by the two
owners.
There is an implied contract created between them that the
easements in question should be constituted.
When Amor bought this lot from the original coheir, the
windows on Florentino’s house were visible..
Amor was not an innocent purchaser, as he was in duty
bound to inquire into the significance of the windows.
INNOCENT PURCHASER FOR VALUE - is one who
buys the property of another without notice that some other
person has a right to or interest in it, and who pays a full and
fair price at the time of the purchase or before receiving any
notice of another person’s claim.
VALDERRAMA VS NORTH NEGROS SUGAR
CENTRAL
Hacienda owners entered into a milling contract with Osorio.
Hacienda owners provided land to Osorio for the
construction of a railroad for the transport of sugarcane.
Noth Negros acquired the rights of Osorio. It entered into
milling contracts with other when Hacienda owners could
not provide.
Hacienda owners filed complaint , alleging that the easement
of way, was only for the transport of the sugarcane of the
landowners where the railroad passed.
Issue: Does North Negros have the right to transport
sugarcane on the tracks owned by the hacienda owners?
Yes. because the easement was created for the benefit of
Osorio.
Since the easement was created for the benefit of the
central, it may cause wagons to pass through it as many
times as it may deem fit, according to the needs of the
central.
In the milling contract between the parties, there was no
prohibition from entering into milling contracts with other
planters which would allow the central to cover its capacity.
Issue: Does the transport of sugar cane from other planters
alter the easement and make it more burdensome?
Hacienda owners insist that by extending use of the road to
accommodate the other planters. It would occupy greater
area of land of the servient estate --- untenable.
The railroad will continue to occupy the same area.
The dominant owner alone has the obligation to shoulder the
expenses of the necessary works. The servient estate will be
obliged to contribute only if he will make use of the
easement in any manner.
MODES OF EXTINGUISHMENT OF EASEMENT:
(MNI-ERR)
1. By merger
In a real easement, there should two distinct immovables
belonging to different owners. If there is a merger in the
same person of the ownership of the dominant and servient
estate, the easement is extinguished.
A personal easement established for the benefit of a
particular person is also extinguished if the holder of the
easement acquires ownership of the servient estate. But if
the personal easement is established for the benefit of a
community, the fact that one of the members of the
community acquires ownership of the servient estate will not
result in a genuine merger that will terminate the personal
easement. (Solid Manila v Bio Hong)
2. By non-user for 10 years
3. By impossibility of use
4. By expiration of the term or fulfillment of the
resolutory condition
5. By renunciation
6. By redemption
Note: The circumstance which renders the use of the
easement impossible must not be in the nature of a
fortuitous event. If it is due to a fortuitous event, the
easement is merely suspended.
An easement of right of way may be acquired ONLY by
virtue of a title, either
voluntarily or compulsorily.
A voluntary easement of ROW is constituted by covenant.
In such a situation, it is not required that the dominant
estate be isolated and without an adequate outlet to a public
highway.
But if an estate is isolated, the grant of easement of ROW is
compulsory and hence, legally demandable, subject to
indemnity and must be with the concurrence of the
conditions enumerated in Art. 649 and 650.
Art. 649. The owner, or any person who by virtue
of a real right may cultivate or use any immovable,
which is surrounded by other immovables
pertaining to other persons and without adequate
outlet to a public highway, is entitled to demand a
right of way through the neighboring estates, after
payment of the proper indemnity.
Should this easement be established in such a
manner that its use may be continuous for all the
needs of the dominant estate, establishing a
permanent passage, the indemnity shall consist of
the value of the land occupied and the amount of
the damage caused to the servient estate.
In case the right of way is limited to the necessary
passage for the cultivation of the estate surrounded
by others and for the gathering of its crops through
the servient estate without a permanent way, the
indemnity shall consist in the payment of the
damage caused by such encumbrance.
This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of
the immovable is due to the proprietor's own acts.
Art. 650. The easement of right of way shall be
established at the point least prejudicial to the
servient estate, and, insofar as consistent with this
rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to
a public highway may be the shortest.
Requisites for the grant of a compulsory easement of
right of way:
1. That the dominant estate is surrounded by other
immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public
highway.
2. After payment of proper indemnity
3. That the isolation was not due to acts of the
proprietor of the dominant estate
4. That the right of way claimed is at the point least
prejudicial to the servient estate; and insofar as
consistent with this rule, where the distance from
the dominant estate to a public highway may be the
shortest.
COSTABELLA V CA
Topic: Art. 649 & 650
Costabella constructed a resort. Aurora filed an action for
injunction against Costabella, assailing the closure of the
original passageway, which Aurora claimed was an “ancient
road right of way."
Costabella also alleged that the group of Aurora were not
entirely dependent on the subject passageway as they had
another existing and adequate access to the public road
through other properties.
SC decision:
Complaint was dismissed.
Convenience of the dominant estate was never a gauge for
the grant of compulsory right of way. There must be a real
necessity and not mere convenience for the dominant estate
to acquire such easement .
The isolation of the dominant estate is also dependent on the
particular need of the dominant owner, and the estate itself
need not be totally landlocked. What is important to consider
is whether or not a right of way is necessary to fill a
reasonable need therefor by the owner.
Easement of ROW is a discontinuous one which may only
be acquired by virtue of a title and not by prescription
(not in judge’s ppt)
But while a right of way is legally demandable, the owner
of the dominant estate is not at liberty to impose one based
on arbitrary choice. Under Article 650 of the Code, it shall
be established upon two criteria: (1) at the point least
prejudicial to the servient state; and (2) where the distance
to a public highway may be the shortest.
"Least prejudice" prevails over "shortest distance.”
Yet, each case must be weighed according to its individual
merits. A longer way may be established to avoid injury to
the servient tenement.
FRANCISCO V IAC
Topic: Art. 649 & 650
Ramos was granted access to the public road through Lot B
but he gave up that right of access by walling-off his
property from the passageway,
If lot B could no longer be used, it was because he himself
have closed it off by erecting a stone wall on his lot. It seems
that what Ramos wanted was to have a right of passage
through Francisco's land, as it was more convenient to him.
SC decision:
An owner cannot by his own act, isolate his property from a
public highway and then claim an easement of way through
an adjacent estate.
The convenience of the dominant estate has never been the
gauge for the grant of compulsory right of way. The true
standard for the grant is adequacy.
Hence, when there is already an existing adequate outlet
from the dominant estate to the public highway, even if that
outlet is inconvenient, the need to open another easement
will be considered unjustified.
CALIMOSO V ROULLO
Topic: At the Point Least Prejudicial
In Roullo’s Complaint for the grant of an Easement of Right
of Way, he alleged that his lot is isolated by several
surrounding estates, including the land owned by Calimoso,
He needs a right of way in order to have access to a public
road; and that the shortest and most convenient access to the
nearest public road passes through the Calimoso property.
Calimoso pointed out that Roullo has other ROW
alternatives and easement would cause substantial damage to
the two houses already standing on their property.
CA adopted the first option, because it offered the shortest
distance to the Road and the ROW would only affect the
"nipa hut" standing on Calimoso’s property.
SC decision:
All the requisites for the valid establishment of an easement
of ROW are not present
3 options were then available to Roullo for the demanded
ROW.
Although this ROW has the shortest distance to a public
road, it is not the least prejudicial considering the
destruction pointed out, and that an option to traverse two
vacant lots without causing any damage, albeit longer, is
available.
Mere convenience for the dominant estate is not what is
required by law and that a longer way may be adopted to
avoid injury to the servient estate, such as when there are
constructions or walls which can be avoided by a roundabout
way.
Article 650 of the Civil Code provides that the easement of
ROW shall be established at the point least prejudicial to
the servient estate, and, where the distance from the
dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest. If
these two criteria do not concur in a single tenement, the
least prejudice criterion must prevail over the shortest
distance criterion.
WOODRIDGE VS ARB
Topic: Payment of Indemnity
Woodridge School filed a complaint to enjoin ARB from
depriving them of the use of the subject subdivision road.
ARB fenced the perimeter of the road fronting the properties
of Woodridge, thus, effectively cutting off the latter's access
to and from the public highway.
CA decision:
Road is private property; hence, ARB can exclude
Woodridge from the use thereof.
Compulsory ROW exists in favor of Woodridge and awarded
P500,000.00 indemnity to ARB for the use of the road lot.
SC decision:
Affirmed the grant of ROW.
CA was wrong in arbitrarily awarding indemnity for the use
of the road lot.
With respect to the indemnity awarded, the Court said in the
case of a legal easement, Article 649 of the Civil Code
prescribes the parameters by which the proper indemnity
may be fixed.
“the indemnity shall consist of the value of the land
occupied and the amount of the damage caused to
the servient estate.”
To award the indemnity using factors different from that
given by the law is a complete disregard of these clear
statutory provisions and is evidently arbitrary.
Since the metes and bounds of the property covered by the
easement were not yet defined, Court remanded the case to
the trial court for the determination of the same and of the
corresponding indemnity, hinting that the trial court may
take into consideration the fact that the affected road lot is
being used by the general public in mitigating the amount of
damage that the servient estate is entitled to.
DE GUZMAN VS FILINVEST
Topic: Width of the Easement
De Guzman and the other petitioners is to establish a
permanent passage through the subdivision roads of the
servient estate.
The ROW constituting the easement in this case consists of
existing and developed network of roads.
The construction of the road by Filinvest, the needs of de
Guzman was not taken into consideration precisely because
they were constructed prior to the grant of the right of way.
The width of the affected roads constructed by Filinvest is 10
meters.
SC decision:
Iniquitous to compute the proper indemnity based on the 10-
meter width of the existing roads because it is the needs of
the dominant estate which determines the width of the
passage.
A 3-meter wide right of way can already sufficiently meet
petitioners' need for vehicular access.
The width of the easement of right of way shall be that
which is sufficient for the needs of the dominant estate,
and may accordingly be changed from time to time
2nd issue: De Guzman argues that it is unfair to require them
to pay the value of the affected road lots since the same is
tantamount to buying the property without them being issued
titles.
SC said argument is untenable.
Positive Easement
- considered positive if made through a party wall,
or even if made on one’s own wall, if the window is
on a balcony or projection extending over the
adjoining property.
- an apparent and continuous easement is created
from the time of such opening.
- the adjoining owner can order the window closed
within ten years from the time of the opening of the
window in order for it not to be acquired by
prescription.

Payment of the value of the land for permanent use of the
easement does not mean an alienation of the land
occupied.
In fact, the value of the property received by the servient
estate by way of indemnity shall be returned in full to the
dominant estate.
Negative Easement
- if the window is made through a wall on the
dominant estate.
- The ten-year period of prescription commences
from the time of the formal prohibition upon the
adjoining owner (Acknowledge before a notary
public).

ENCARNACION V CA

Topic: Width of the Easement

Encarnacion and De Sagun are owners of two adjacent lots.

De Sagun constructed a fence around their property but it

also created about 1 meter wide to provide access to
highway.

Encarnacion started a plant nursery business and he would

use said pathway as passage to the highway for his family
and for his customers. Then he buy a jeep in transporting his
plants.

However his jeep could not pass through, thus he requested

De Sagun to sell to him 1 ½ meters of his lot.

SC decision:

Encarnacion is entitled to an additional easement of ROW,

after payment of proper indemnity

With the inherent disadvantages of the river bed which make

passage difficult, if not impossible, it is as if there were no
outlet at all.

Art 651 provides that width of the easement of right of

way shall be that which is sufficient for the needs of the
dominant estate, and may accordingly be changed from
time to time.

But the business grew and with it the need for the use of
modern means of conveyance or transport.

Who may demand for compulsory right of way?

A usufructuary is entitled to demand a right of way but a

mere lessee does not enjoy the same right

Extinguishment of right of way

But the opening of an adequate outlet to a highway can

extinguish only legal or compulsory easements, not
voluntary easements.

A voluntary easement of right of way can be extinguished

only by mutual agreement or by renunciation of the owner of
the dominant estate.

Prescriptive period for acquisition of easement of light

and view