1
POSSESION
POSSESSION IS THE HOLDING OF A THING OR THE ENJOYMENT OF A
RIGHT.
It is acquired by the material occupation of a thing or the exercise of a
right, or by the fact that it is subject to the action of our will, or by the
proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right
(Article 531)
Acquired by Whom: Possession may be acquired by the same person
who is to enjoy it, by his legal representative, by his agent, or by any
person without any power whatever but in the last case, the possession
shall not be considered as acquired until the person in whose name the act
of possession was executed has ratified the same, without prejudice to the
juridical consequences of negotiorum gestio in a proper case (Art. 532).
Only things and rights which are susceptible of being appropriated may be the
object of possession.(530)
Possession of hereditary property is deemed transmitted to the heir without
interruption and from the moment of the death of the decedent, in case the
inheritance is accepted (533) One who validly renounces an inheritance is deemed
never to have possessed the same
One who succeeds by hereditary title shall not suffer the consequence of the
wrongful possession of the decedent ,if it is not shown that he was aware of the
flaws affecting it but the effects of possession in good faith shall not benefit him
except from the date of death of decedent. (534)
Minors and incapacitated persons may acquire the possession of things, but they
need the assistance of their legal rep in order to exercise the rights which from the
possession arise in their favor (535)
In no case may possession be acquired through force or intimidation as long as there
is a possessor who objects thereto. He who believes that he has an action or a right
to deprive another of holding of a thing must invoke the aid of the competent court,
if the holder should refuse to deliver the thing (536)
Different from 429 which is the doctrine of self-help (The owner or lawful
possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and
disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably
necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or
usurpation of his property) since 536 don’t use force or intimidation ,but instead
go to court and that the scenario is that A’s land is occupied by X while in 429,
there is use of force or intimidation and the scenario is that X enters A’s land.
IMPROVEMENTS & DETERIORATION:
Art. 551. Improvements caused by nature or time shall always insure to the benefit of the
person who has succeeded in recovering possession.
Art. 552. A possessor in good faith shall not be liable for the deterioration or loss of the
thing possessed, except in cases in which it is proved that he has acted with fraudulent
intent or negligence, after the judicial summons.
A possessor in bad faith shall be liable for deterioration or loss in every case, even if
caused by a fortuitous event.
Art. 553. One who recovers possession shall not be obliged to pay for improvements
which have ceased to exist at the time he takes possession of the thing.
Art. 538. Possession as a fact cannot be recognized at the same time in two different
personalities except in the cases of co-possession. Should a question arise regarding
the fact of possession:
-the present possessor shall be preferred;
-if there are two possessors, the one longer in possession;
-if the dates of the possession are the same, the one who presents a title;
-and if all these conditions are equal, the thing shall be placed in judicial deposit
pending determination of its possession or ownership through proper proceedings.
Art. 554. A present possessor who shows his possession at some previous time, is
presumed to have held possession also during the intermediate period, in the
absence of proof to the contrary.
LOSS OF POSSESSION
1. By abandonment (Article 555 (1))
a. Permanent-There is no need for the prescriptive period to run.
b. Temporary-Prescription will run.(Art. 1125. Any express or tacit recognition
which the possessor may make of the owner's right also interrupts possession.)
2.By assignment made to another either by onerous or gratuitous title (Article 555
(2))-Disposition
3. By destruction or total loss of the thing, or it goes out of commerce
Art. 1189. When the conditions have been imposed with the intention of
suspending the efficacy of an obligation to give, the following rules shall be
observed in case of the improvement, loss or deterioration of the thing during the
pendency of the condition:
(1) If the thing is lost without the fault of the debtor, the obligation shall be
extinguished;
(2) If the thing is lost through the fault of the debtor, he shall be obliged to pay
damages; it is understood that the thing is lost when it perishes, or goes out of
commerce, or disappears in such a way that its existence is unknown or it cannot be
recovered;
4. By possession of another subject to the provisions of Art. 537 (it means that
toleratied acts ,clandestine or violence does not affect possession), if the new possession
has lasted longer than 1 year. But the real right of possession is not lost till after the
lapse of 10 years (Article 555 (4))
The complaint for forcible entry must be filed within 1 year from the forcible entry.
Accion publiciana must be filed after the lapse of 1 year from the forcible entry but
before the lapse of 10 years.
-In this case, possession is not really lost until the end of the 10 th year.
5. By accion reinvindicatoria
Art. 1120. Possession is interrupted for the purposes of prescription, naturally or
civilly.
Art. 1121. Possession is naturally interrupted when through any cause it should
cease for more than one year. The old possession is not revived if a new possession
should be exercised by the same adverse claimant.
Art. 1122. If the natural interruption is for only one year or less, the time elapsed
shall be counted in favor of the prescription.
Art. 1123. Civil interruption is produced by judicial summons to the possessor.
Art. 1124. Judicial summons shall be deemed not to have been issued and shall not
give rise to interruption:
(1) If it should be void for lack of legal solemnities;
(2) If the plaintiff should desist from the complaint or should allow the proceedings
to lapse;
(3) If the possessor should be absolved from the complaint.
In all these cases, the period of the interruption shall be counted for the
prescription.
6. By eminent domain (not included in the codal provision, but very important to
take note for the bar –4blue 95)
Art. 556. The possession of MOVABLES is not deemed lost so long as they remain
under the control of the possessor, even though for the time being he may not know
their whereabouts.
Art. 557. The possession of IMMOVABLES and of real rights is not deemed lost, or
transferred for purposes of prescription to the prejudice of third persons, except in
accordance with the provisions of the Mortgage Law and the Land Registration
laws.
 2

POSSESSION IN BAD FAITH EFFECTS OF GOOD FAITH

i. AS TO THE FRUITS
The possessor in bad faith shall reimburse the fruits receive and those which the
legitimate possessor could have received AS TO THE FRUITS
As to pending fruits, he has no rights at all and is liable for damages.
The possessor in bad faith has a right of reimbursement for necessary expenses for
the production, gathering and preservation of the fruits. 1. Fruits already received (Article 544, ¶1)

ii.AS TO EXPENSES Entitled to all the fruits until possession is legally interrupted (before summons and
not filing of complaint or final declaration that good faith ceases.)
Necessary Expenses:

The possessor in bad faith is entitled to a refund of necessary expenses. The
possessor in bad faith has no right to retain/remove the thing until he is
reimbursed for necessary expenses.
Useful Expenses:
The possessor in bad faith is not entitled to a refund,remove and retain of useful
expenses.
Ornamental Expenses:
The possessor in bad faith is not entitled to a refund/retain of ornamental
expenses
The possessor in bad faith is entitled to remove the ornamental improves only if:
i. Removal can be accomplished without damaging the principal thing and
ii. The lawful possessor does not prefer to retain the ornamental
improvements by paying the value thereof at the time he enters into
possession
2. Fruits still pending (Article 545—connected to 448 w/ regards the sower)
Art. 545. If at the time the good faith ceases, there should be any natural or
industrial fruits, the possessor shall have a right to a part of the expenses of
cultivation, and to a part of the net harvest, both in proportion to the time of
the possession.
The charges shall be divided on the same basis by the two possessors.
The owner of the thing may, should he so desire, give the possessor in good
faith the right to finish the cultivation and gathering of the growing fruits, as
an indemnity for his part of the expenses of cultivation and the net proceeds;
the possessor in good faith who for any reason whatever should refuse to
accept this concession, shall lose the right to be indemnified in any other
manner.
Entitled to pro-rate the fruits already growing when his possession is legally
interruptedFor example, possessor planted crops. It takes the crops 4 months to
grow. On the beginning of the 4th month, summons is served. At the end of the 4th
month, the crops are harvested. Under Article 545, the possessor is entitled to ¾ of
the crops since the possessor was in possession for 3 months. However, he also
pays ¾ of the expenses.

2022 notes: Date that rent accrue is important (as long as it accrues before
iii. AS TO PRESCRIPTION summons) even if rent is received afterwards.
1. MOVABLES – 8 YEARS Illustration: A possessed in good faith a parcel of land. At time he received judicial
2. IMMOVABLES – 30 YEARS summons to answer a complaint filed by B, crops still growing and had been there
for 2 months. Harvest was only made after 4 months. How should said crops be
divided between A and B?
iv. AS TO LIABILITY FOR DETERIORATION OR LOSS 2 for A; 4 for B.

The possessor in bad faith becomes an insurer of the property. He is liable even if If fruits less than expenses—reimburse A and B for their respective expenses not at
the thing is destroyed, loss or deteriorates due to a fortuitous event (applicable time of possession but to the amount of expenses. 545 don’t apply for there is no
before and after judicial summons) Net harvest. And since reimbursement must come from value of fruits, it follows
that each bears a pro-rata loss.
2022 notes: Acquisitive prescription does not apply when the acts of possessor was
merely tolerated by owner(dahil naawa ang owner, pina-stay na lang si M sa lupa
for 30 years). No matter how long tolerated possession is continued, it does not
start the running of the prescriptive period. (Larena v Mapili)
AS TO LIABILITY FOR DETERIORATION OR LOSS

Art. 552. A possessor in good faith shall not be liable for the deterioration or loss of
the thing possessed, except in cases in which it is proved that he has acted with
fraudulent intent or negligence after the judicial summons.
POSSESSION IN GOOD FAITH

IT IS ALWAYS PRESUMED, ONE WHO ALLEGES BAD FAITH RESTS THE AS TO EXPENSES
BURDEN OF PROOF

As to NECESSARY EXPENSES

REFUND/RETAIN: Art. 546, ¶1. Necessary expenses shall be refunded to

every possessor; but only the possessor in good faith may retain the thing
REQUISITES OF GOOD FAITH until he has been reimbursed therefor.

REMOVE: Not Applicable

1.Ostensible title or mode of acquisition-If its not an ostensible title but a real
title, then its ownership.

2.Vice or defect in the title

-If there was no vice or defect in the title, then its ownership. As to USEFUL EXPENSES
-Examples of vice or defect in title
Grantor was not the owner REFUND/RETAIN:The possessor in good faith is entitled to a refund of
Requirements for transmission were not complied with useful expenses. The possessor in good faith may retain the thing until he is
Mistake in the identity of the person reimbursed for useful expenses.
Property was not really res nullius
REMOVE: If the useful improvements can be removed without damaging
3.Possessor is ignorant of the vice or defect and must have an honest belief that the principal thing, the possessor in good faith may remove them unless the
the thing belongs to him other party wants to keep the useful improvements in which case, the other
Otherwise, it’s bad faith. party has the option to refund the:
A. amount of expenses; or
B. increase in value which the thing may have acquired

As to ORNAMENTAL EXPENSES- PURE LUXURY (NO

REFUND/RETAIN)
AS TO PRESCRIPTION
Art. 548. Expenses for pure luxury or mere pleasure shall not be refunded to
MOVABLE 4 YEARS the possessor in good faith; but he may remove the ornaments with which he
IMMOVABLE 10 YEARS has embellished the principal thing if it suffers no injury thereby, and if his
successor in the possession does not prefer to refund the amount expended

2 KINDS OF POSSESSION
A. POSSESSION IN THE CONCEPT OF AN OWNER (EN CONCEPTO
DE DUENO)
Possession in the concept of an owner DOES NOT refer to the possessor’s inner
belief or disposition regarding the property in his possession.
Possession in the concept of an owner refers to his overt acts which tend to induce
the belief on the part of others that he is the owner.
Possession in the concept of an owner is ius possidendi.Possession in the concept
of an owner by its nature is provisional. It usually ends up as ownership.
CONSEQUENCES OF POSSESSION IN THE CONCEPT OF AN OWNER
1. Possession is converted into ownership after the required lapse of time
(Article 540)
Art. 540. Only the possession acquired and enjoyed in the
concept of owner can serve as a title for acquiring dominion.
2.Just Title (Article 541)
A possessor in the concept of owner has in his favor the legal
presumption that he possess just title and he cannot be obliged to
show or prove it.
3. Good Faith (Articles 527, 559)
Good faith is always presumed, and upon him who alleges bad faith on the
part of a possessor rests the burden of proof.The possession of movables
acquired in good faith is equivalent to title. Equivalent to title means
presumptive title sufficient to serve as a basis for prescription.
General Rule: A person who lost or has been unlawfully deprived of the
movable, may recover it from the person who has possession of the movable.
--Unlawful deprivation extends to all instances where there is no valid
transmission (i.e. theft, robbery, etc.)
Exceptions:
A.If the possessor obtained the movable in good faith at a public sale, the
owner cannot get it back unless he reimburses the possessor.
B.If the owner is estopped (Article 1505,¶1)
C.If the disposition is made under any factor’s act (Article 1505, ¶2)
-This is no longer applicable under the present law since we now have the
Law on Agency.
D.Court order
E.If purchased ay a merchant’s store (Article 1505(3))
-An example of a merchant’s store would be SM or Rustan’s. Without this
exception, commercial transactions would be destabilized.
-Article 1505, ¶3 states in accordance with the Code of Commerce and
special laws. Articles 85 and 86 was repealed
F.If title is lost by prescription (Article 1132)
G.If the possessor is the holder in due course of a negotiable instrument of
title (Article 1518)
Art. 1518. The validity of the negotiation of a negotiable document of title is
not impaired by the fact that the negotiation was a breach of duty on the part
of the person making the negotiation, or by the fact that the owner of the
document was deprived of the possession of the same by loss, theft, fraud,
accident, mistake, duress, or conversion, if the person to whom the document
was negotiated or a person to whom the document was subsequently
negotiated paid value therefor in good faith without notice of the breach of
duty, or loss, theft, fraud, accident, mistake, duress or conversion.
3
4. Continuity of Good Faith (Articles 528, 529)
-Possession acquired in good faith 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.
-It is presumed that possession continues to be enjoyed on the same character in
which it was acquired, until the contrary is proved.
5. Non-Interruption (Articles 554, 561)
A present possessor who shows his possession at some previous time, is presumed
to have held possession also during the intermediate period, in the absence of
proof to the contrary.
One who recovers, according to law, possession unjustly lost, shall be deemed for
all purposes which may redound to his benefit, to have enjoyed it without
interruption.
6. Extension to the Movables Within or Inside (Articles 542, 426)
The possession of real property presumes that of the movables therein, so long as
it is not shown or proved that they should be excluded (542).
Art. 426. Whenever by provision of the law, or an individual declaration, the
expression "immovable things or property," or "movable things or property,"
is used, it shall be deemed to include, respectively, the things enumerated in
Chapter 1 and Chapter 2.
Whenever the word "muebles," or "furniture," is used alone, it shall not be
deemed to include money, credits, commercial securities, stocks and bonds,
jewelry, scientific or artistic collections, books, medals, arms, clothing,
horses or carriages and their accessories, grains, liquids and merchandise, or
other things which do not have as their principal object the furnishing or
ornamenting of a building, except where from the context of the law, or the
individual declaration, the contrary clearly appears.
Art. 558. Acts relating to possession, executed or agreed to by one who possesses
a thing belonging to another as a mere holder to enjoy or keep it, in any character,
do not bind or prejudice the owner, unless he gave said holder express authority to
do such acts, or ratifies them subsequently.
Art. 560. Wild animals are possessed only while they are under one's control;
domesticated or tamed animals are considered domestic or tame if they retain the
habit of returning to the premises of the possessor.
Art. 559. The possession of movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to
a title. Nevertheless, one who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived
thereof may recover it from the person in possession of the same.
If the possessor of a movable lost or which the owner has been unlawfully deprived,
has acquired it in good faith at a public sale, the owner cannot obtain its return
without reimbursing the price paid therefor.
DOCTRINE OF IRREVINDICABILITY OF MOVABLES:
For possession of movables to be considered equivalent to title, the following requisites
must be present:
(1) the movable property must be acquired in good faith; ( Art. 559) and
(2)the possession must be in the concept of owner.
4BLUE 95. If the foregoing requisites are present, the true owner cannot recover it as a
general rule for the title of the present possessor is valid even against him. (This is the
general rule of irrevindicability.)
EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOCTIRNE:
If the 1.) owner has lost a movable, or 2.) if he has been unlawfully deprived thereof, he
has a right to recover it, not only from the finder, thief or robber, but also from third
persons who may have acquired it in good faith from such finder, thief or robber. (Art.
559 par 1)
4BLUE 95.In these cases, the possessor cannot retain the thing as against the owner, who
may recover it without paying any indemnity, except when the possessor acquired it in a
public sale

RULE ON RECOVERY OF MOVABLES WHICH WERE LOST OR WHOSE
POSSESSION THE OWNER HAS UNLAWFULLY BEEN DEPRIVED OF:
A. RULE IN CASE OF LOSS
1) The lost movable can always be recovered from its finder and the latter is entitled to a
reward equivalent to one-tenth (1/10) of the sum or price of the thing if he complies with
the procedural requirements of Article 719 of the NCC, to wit:
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. • The finding
shall be publicly announced by the mayor for two consecutive weeks in the way he
deems best.
• If the movable cannot be kept without deterioration, or without expenses which
considerably diminish its value, it shall be sold at public auction eight days after the
publication.
• Six months from the publication having elapsed without the owner having
appeared, the thing found, or its value, shall be awarded to the finder.
• The finder and the owner shall be obliged, as the case may be, to reimburse the
expenses
Article 720. If the owner should appear in time, he shall be obliged to pay, as a
reward to the finder, one-tenth of the sum or of the price of the thing found
2) If the finder does not comply with the procedural requirements of Article 719 of the
NCC, and appropriates for himself the movable property he found, he shall be liable for
the crime of theft, (Art. 308, RPC) in which case, the owner of the movable can recover
its possession without need of paying any indemnity.
3) If the finder does not comply with the procedural requirements of Article 719 of the
NCC and subsequently transfers possession of the lost movable in favor of a third person,
the owner of said movable can still recover its possession from such third person without
need of paying any indemnity, even if the latter may have acted in good faith. ( Art. 559,
NCC)
However, if the third person has acquired the movable in good faith at a public sale,
its owner may still recover its possession from said third person but he is required
to reimburse the third person of the price paid therefor.
According to Sen. Tolentino, the ” public sale” referred to in ART. 559 of the NCC
which entitles the possessor in good faith to reimbursement, is ONE WHERE
THERE HAS BEEN PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE SALE AND IN WHICH ANY
BODY HAS A RIGHT TO BID AND OFFER TO BUY.
INSTANCES WHERE THE OWNER MAY NO LONGER RECOVER
POSSESSION OF MOVABLES WHICH WERE LOST OR WHOSE
POSSESSION HE HAS UNLAWFULLY BEEN DEPRIVED OF:
1.) If the possessor acquired the thing at a merchant's store, or in fairs, or in markets in
accordance with the Code of Commerce and special laws;
2) Where the possessor acquired the thing by sale under a statutory power of sale or
under the order of a court of competent jurisdiction
3) When the possessor is a holder in due course of a negotiable document of title to goods
or where the owner is barred by the principle of negotiable instruments
4) Where the owner is barred by reason of his own acts or neglect from denying the
seller's title
5) Where the owner can no longer recover the thing from the possessor by reason of
prescription.
4
B. RULLE IN CASE OF UNLAWFUL DEPRIVATION:
The term “unlawful deprivation” in Article 559 is not limited to cases of theft or
robbery（or unlawful taking) but includes cases where there has been abuse of
confidence. • (Aznar vs. Yapdiangco, 13 SCRA 486 (1965)
FACTS: Santos wass the owner of a motor vehicle. Certain Marella expressed
interest in buying the vehicle on the condition that the payment shall be made
only after transfer of registration in her name. Santos then executed a DOAS in
her favor to facilitate the transfer. Trusting good faith, Santos handed over the
registration papers to Marella and proceeded to the house of Marella’s sister to
secure the money to complete the payment . They alighted from the car while
one unidentified companion remained in the car. He waited for the payment
inside the house for a considerable time. He then went down to discover that
neither the car nor the unidentified companion was there anymore.
Going back to the house, he inquired from a woman he saw for L. De Dios and
he was told that no such name lived or was even known therein. • Finally, he
reported the matter to his father who promptly advised the police authorities. •
That very same day, or on the afternoon of May 29, 1959 Vicente Marella was
able to sell the car in question to the plaintiff-appellant herein, Jose B. Aznar, for
P15,000.00. • Insofar as the above incidents are concerned, we are bound by the
factual finding of the trial court that Jose B. Aznar acquired the said car from
Vicente Marella in good faith, for a valuable consideration and without notice of
the defect appertaining to the vendor's title.
While the car in question was thus in the possession of Jose B. Aznar and while
he was attending to its registration in his name, agents of the Philippine
Constabulary seized and confiscated the same in consequence of the report to
them by Teodoro Santos that the said car was unlawfully taken from him. In due
time, Aznar filed a complaint for Replevin, claiming ownership. Santos
intervened.
ISSUE: one and simple, to wit: Between Teodoro Santos and the plaintiff-
appellant, Jose B. Aznar, who has a better right to the possession of the disputed
automobile?
RULING: We find for the intervenor-appellee, Teodoro Santos. .Vicente
Marella did not have any title to the property under litigation because the same
was never delivered to him. He sought ownership or acquisition of it by virtue of
the contract. Vicente Marella could have acquired ownership or title to the
subject matter thereof only by the delivery or tradition of the car to him.
In the case on hand, the car in question was never delivered to the vendee by the
vendor as to complete or consummate the transfer of ownership by virtue of the
contract. It should be recalled that while there was indeed a contract of sale
between Vicente Marella and Teodoro Santos, the former, as vendee, took
possession of the subject matter thereof by stealing the same while it was in the
custody of the latter's son.
But the term “unlawful deprivation” may not de unduly stretched to cover situations
where there is a contract of purchase and sale between two persons and the buyer therein
fails to pay the purchase price but nonetheless alienates the thing sold in favor of the
present possessor who acted in good faith. ( EDCA Publishing vs. Santos, 184 SCRA 614
(1990)
1) In case of unlawful deprivation, the owner can always recover possession of his
movable from the present possessor without need of paying any indemnity unless
the latter has acquired the movable in good faith at a public sale •
2)The owner who recovers, according to law, possession unjustly lost, shall be
deemed for all purposes which may redound to his benefit, to have enjoyed it
without interruption

B. POSSESSION IN THE CONCEPT OF A HOLDER (EN CONCEPTO DE
TENEDOR)
Possession in the concept of a holder will never become ownership
The possessor in the concept of a holder carries with it no assertion of
ownership. There are no overt acts which would induce a belief on the part
of others that he is the owner.
The possessor in the concept of a holder acknowledges a superior right in
another person which the possessor admits is ownership.
Possession in the concept of a holder is ius possessionis. This is right to
possess is an independent right (i.e. lessee, trustee, agent, antichretic creditor,
pledgee, co-owner with respect to the entire thing, etc.)
PRESUMPTIONS APPLICABLE(SAME IN CONCEPT OF OWNER)
1. Non-Interruption
A present possessor who shows his possession at some previous time, is
presumed to have held possession also during the intermediate period, in the
absence of proof to the contrary.
One who recovers, according to law, possession unjustly lost, shall be
deemed for all purposes which may redound to his benefit, to have enjoyed it
without interruption (561).
2.Extension to Movables Within or Inside (Articles 552, 426)
Art. 552. A possessor in good faith shall not be liable for the
deterioration or loss of the thing possessed, except in cases in which it is
proved that he has acted with fraudulent intent or negligence, after the
judicial summons.
A possessor in bad faith shall be liable for deterioration or loss in every
case, even if caused by a fortuitous event.
Art. 426. Whenever by provision of the law, or an individual
declaration, the expression "immovable things or property," or
"movable things or property," is used, it shall be deemed to include,
respectively, the things enumerated in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2.
Whenever the word "muebles," or "furniture," is used alone, it shall not
be deemed to include money, credits, commercial securities, stocks and
bonds, jewelry, scientific or artistic collections, books, medals, arms,
clothing, horses or carriages and their accessories, grains, liquids and
merchandise, or other things which do not have as their principal object
the furnishing or ornamenting of a building, except where from the
context of the law, or the individual declaration, the contrary clearly
appears.
--The possession of real property presumes that of the movables therein, so
long as it is not shown or proved that they should be excluded.
--In both possession in the concept of an owner and possession in the concept
of a holder, both are protected by Article 539.
Every possessor has a right to be respected in his possession; and should he
be disturbed therein he shall be protected in or restored to said possession by
the means established by the laws and Rules of Court --a possessor deprived
of his possession through forcible entry may within 10 days from filing of
complaint present a motion to secure from the competent court, in an action
for forcible entry ,a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore him
in his possession. The court shall decide the motion w/in 30 days from filing
thereof (539)
5
Q: Pablo sold his car to Alfonso who issued a postdated check in full payment
therefor. Before the maturity of the check, Alfonso sold the car to Gregorio who
later sold it to Gabriel. When presented for payment, the check issued by Alfonso
was dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason that he, Alfonso, had already
closed his account even before he issued his check. Pablo sued to recover the car
from Gabriel alleging that he (Pablo) had been unlawfully deprived of it by reason
of Alfonso's deception. Will the suit prosper? (1990, 1991Bar)
A: No. The suit will not prosper because Pablo was not unlawfully deprived of the
car although he was unlawfully deprived of the price. The perfection of the sale
and the delivery of the car was enough to allow Alfonso to have a right of
ownership over the car, which can be lawfully transferred to Gregorio. Art. 559
applies only to a person who is in possession in good faith of the property, and not
to the owner thereof. Alfonso, in the problem, was the owner, and, hence, Gabriel
acquired the title to the car. Non- payment of the price in a contract of sale does
not render ineffective the obligation to deliver. The obligation to deliver a thing is
different from the obligation to pay its price. (EDCA Publishing Co. v. Spouses
Santos G.R. No. 80298, April 26, 1990)
Q: Jacob has owned a farmland in Ramos, Tarlac. In 2012, Liz surreptitiously
entered and cultivated the property. In 2014, Jacob discovered Liz’s presence in
and cultivation of the property. Due to his being busy attending to his business in
Cebu, he tolerated Liz’s cultivation of the property. Subsequently, in December
2016, Jacob wanted to regain possession of the property; hence, he sent a letter to
Liz demanding that she vacate the property. Liz did not vacate despite demand.
Jacob comes to enlist your legal assistance to bring an action against Liz to
recover the possession of the property. What remedies are available to Jacob to
recover possession of his property under the circumstances? Explain your answer.
(2006, 2012, 2017 Bar)
A: The remedy available to Jacob is accion publiciana, or an action for the
recovery of the better right of possession or possession as a real right. It also refers
to an ejectment suit filed after the expiration of one year from accrual of the cause
of action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty. Since the
entry made by Liz is through stealth, Jacob could have filed an action for forcible
entry. Ordinarily, the one-year period within which to bring an action for forcible
entry is generally counted from the date of actual entry on the land, except that
when the entry is through stealth, the one-year period is counted from the time the
plaintiff learned thereof. Here, since more than year had elapsed since Jacob
learned of the entry made by Liz through stealth, the action that may be filed by
Jacob is no longer forcible entry, but an accion publiciana [Canlas v. Tubil, G.R.
No. 184285 (2009); Valdez v. CA, G.R. No. 132424(2006)]. Alternative answer:
Jacob can file an action for unlawful detainer against Liz to regain possession of
the property. An action for unlawful detainer is proper when the defendant’s initial
right to possession of the property has terminated but he unlawfully withholds
possession thereof. It has to be filed within one year from the termination of his
right to possession. Although Liz surreptitiously entered in 2012, her possession
became lawful when Jacob discovered it and allowed her to continue possession
by tolerance in 2014. Liz’ right to possession terminated in December 2016 when
Jacob demanded her to vacate the property. Since today is November 2017, it is
still within one year from the termination of Liz’ right to possession. Therefore,
Jacob can file an action for unlawful detainer.
THREE KINDS OF ANIMALS:
（a) Wild animals-Those which are found in their natural freedom, such as wild
boars and horses roaming the forest.
（b) Domesticated or tamed animals-Those which were formerly wild but which
have been subdued and retained the habit of returning to
（c) Domestic or tame animals-Those which are born or reared under the control
and care of man.
WHEN POSSESSION OVER ANIMALS IS CONSIDERED LOST:
a) As to wild animals: • They are considered possessed only while they are under one's
control. Once they recover their natural freedom or once they are restored to their original
state of being free, they ceased to be under one's possession.
b) As to domesticated animals: • 1) In the case of domesticated animals, they will be
regarded as such so long as they retain the habit of returning to the premises of the
possessor. Once they lose that habit, they cease to be domesticated and revert back to
their original status of being wild. • 2) So long as they retain the habit of returning to the
premises of the possessor, the possession thereof is not immediately lost by the simple
fact that the animals are no longer under the control of the possessor.
Pursuant to the provision of Article 716 of the NCC, the possessor or owner of
domesticated animals has a period of 20 days counted from the occupation by another
person within which to reclaim them. • After the expiration of this period, the animals can
no longer be recovered from its present possessor.
c) As to domestic animals: • The rule stated in Article 716 of the NCC finds application
only to domesticated or tamed animals. It does not apply to domestic or tame animals. •
In the case of the latter, they are considered as personal property and are, therefore,
subject to the rules governing any personal property.