EFFECTS

OF
POSSESSION
Arts. 539-545
 ARTICLE 539
Rights of “every possessor”

(1) the right to be respected in his possession;

The phrase “every possessor’’ in Art. 539 indicates
that all kinds of possession, from that of the owner to
that of a mere holder, except that which constitutes a
crime, should be respected and protected by the means
established by law and the rules of procedure.
(Philippine Trust Co. v. CA 117 SCAD 366, 320 SCRA 719)
(2) The right to be protected in or restored to said
possession by legal means

The protection is given because the Civil Code assumes that the
possessor of a thing is the owner and also because even if the
possessor is not the owner, his situation should be protected
until it is shown that there is another person with a better right.

REASONS FOR PROTECTION:

1. As aid for criminal law
2. As part of law of tort
3. As part of the law of property
LEGAL MEANS FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION:

The available actions for the purpose of implementing the

provisions of the present article are:
of real property:
(a) Accion interdictal; (b) accion publiciana; and
(c) accion reivindicatoria

of personal property:
(a) replevin

In addition, the law also allows as an auxiliary remedy the

writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to prevent
further acts of dispossession.
(3) The Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction
FORCIBLE ENTRY UNLAWFUL DETAINER

- File within 10 days from the time
the complaint for forcible
entry is filed (not from the time the
dispossession took place). (Art. 538)
- File within 10 days from the time
the appeal is perfected
(that is, from the time the
attorneys are notified by
the Court of the perfection of the
appeal), only if:
a) the lessee’s appeal is frivolous or
dilatory; or
b) the lessor’s appeal is prima facie
meritorious.
(Art. 1674).

The effect of the mandatory injunction is rather to re-establish

and maintain a pre-existing continuing relation between the
parties than to establish a new one.
 City of Legaspi v. Mateo L. Alcasid, et al.
L-17936, Jan. 30, 1962
FACTS:
The Republic of the Philippines owned in the City of Legaspi a
parcel of land with improvements, and used as a public vocational
school, the Bicol Regional School of Arts and Trades. In Mar. 1960,
agents of the City of Legaspi forcibly took possession of the premises on
the allegation that same belonged to the City. The forcible taking over
was prompted by the refusal of the school authorities to vacate the
premises. The Republic asked for a writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction.

HELD:
The writ can properly be granted for it is evident that the
Republic was in prior physical possession before the City took over the
property forcibly.
 ARTICLE 540
Possession in the Concept of Owner

(1) It raises a disputable presumption of ownership (Art.

433, NCC).
(2) It creates a disputable presumption that the possessor
has just title and he cannot be obliged to show it. (Art.
541, NCC)
(3) It can ripen into ownership through acquisitive
prescription (Art. 540, NCC), subject to the additional
requirements under Article 1118 of the Civil Code.
Possession in the Concept of Holder
 Lessees or those merely permitted to occupy.
 Trustees. 1) parents over the properties of their
unemancipated minor children or insane children (Art.
1109); 2) husband and wife over each other’s properties, as
long as the marriage lasts, and even if there be a
separation of property which had been agreed upon in a
marriage settlement or by judicial decree. (Art. 1109).
 Antichretic creditors.

 Agents.

 Attorneys (regarding their client’s properties).

 Depositaries.

 Co-owners (unless the co-ownership is clearly repudiated

by unequivocal acts communicated to the other co-owners).

Payment of Land Taxes

 payment of the land tax is one of the most persuasive and

positive indicia, which shows the will of a person to
possess in concepto de dueno or with claim of ownership.
 Therefore, prescription may eventually be had, provided
that the other requisites for prescription are present.
 ARTICLE 541
Presumption that Possessor Has a Just Title
Two requirements under this article to raise the
disputable presumption of ownership (of a thing or a right):

(1) One must be in possession (actual or constructive).

(2) The possession must be in the concept of owner.

This presumption can be availed of by the possessor

in cases where another person claims a better right
over the property.
DIFFERENT KINDS OF TITLES
 True and Valid Title (Titulo Verdadero y Valido)
-title which by itself is sufficient to transfer ownership without
the necessity of letting the prescriptive period elapse.
 Colorable Title (Titulo Colorado)
-That title where, although there was a mode of transferring
ownership, still something is wrong, because the grantor is NOT
the owner.
 Putative Title (Titulo Putativo)
- That title where although a person believes himself to be the
owner, he nonetheless is not, because there was no mode of
acquiring ownership.
 ARTICLE 542
Possession of real property presumed to
include in movables

Applicability of the Article

(a) whether the possessor be in good faith or bad
faith
(b) whether the possession be in one’s own name or
in another’s
(c) whether the possession be in concepto de dueno
or in the concept of holder.
 ARTICLE 543
Co-possession

Co-possessors deemed to have exclusively

possessed part which may be allotted to him;
interruption in whole or in part shall be to the
prejudice of all.
EXAMPLE OF EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION BY A PREVIOUS CO-
OWNER
A and B have been co-possessors of a piece of land in
Greenhills since 2002. If in 2006, there is a partition, A is deemed to have
possessed exclusively the portion given him, not since 2002, but since 2006.

EXAMPLE OF INTERRUPTION IN POSSESSION OF THE

WHOLE
A, B, and C have been co-possessors of a piece of land since 2002. If in
2006, A, B, and C lose possession over the whole land, it can be said that
the three of them were in possession for only four years.
EXAMPLE OF INTERRUPTION IN POSSESSION OF PART
OF THE THING
A and B have been co-possessors of a piece of land since 2002 thru a
mutual agent X. In 2006, X lost possession of one-fi fth of the land. A’s and
B’s possession over the remaining four-fifth continues, the interruption
being limited only to one-fifth.
 ARTICLE 544-545
Right of Possessors to Fruits
GOOD FAITH BAD FAITH

As to fruits received

-Entitled while possession is in good -Reimburse fruits received or which

faith lawful possessor would have received
- right to recover from the legitimate
possessor the expenses (Art. 549)
- entitled to reimbursement for the
necessary expenses incurred by him
for the preservation of the land or the
thing which bore the fruit.
 GOOD FAITH
As to pending fruits
-Entitled to part of net harvest and
part of expenses of cultivation if
there are natural or industrial
fruits (proportionate to time of
possession)
a. Owner has option to require
possessor to finish cultivation and
gathering of fruits
and give net proceeds as indemnity
for his part of expenses;
b. If possessor in good faith refuses
– barred from indemnification in
other manner
BAD FAITH
-No right to such pending fruits
- Not entitled to any
reimbursement of the expenses he
incurred
in relation to the fruits
- Entitled to recover the
necessary expenses incurred by him
for the preservation of the land or
the thing w/c bore the fruit.