MIDWAY MARITIME v. MARISSA E.

CASTRO
G.R. No. 189061 August 6,2014

http://www.free-powerpoint-templates-design.com
Article 428: The owner has the right to enjoy and
dispose of a thing without other limitations than
those established by law.
The owner has also a right of action against the
holder and possessor of the thing in order to
recover it.

Topic: Accion Reivindicatoria,

Ownership Recovery of Possession
 FACTS
.

Midway Maritime and Technological Foundation is the lessee of two

parcels of land owned by Adoracion Cloma who is the registered
owner of the property under Transfer Certificate of Title. Inside of
said property stands a residential building owned by the
respondents. It was originally owned by the respondents’ father
Louis Castro, Sr. the President of Cabanatuan City Colleges. Castro
mortgaged the property for a loan. CCC’s board of directors agreed
to a 15-year lease of a portion of the property to the children.

CCC failed to pay its obligations, Bancom Development Corporation

foreclosed the mortgage and property sold at public auction.
Bancom thereafter assigned the credit to Union Bank which
consolidated its ownership over the properties due to CCC’s failure
to redeem the property. When Union Bank sought the issuance of a
writ of Possesion over the properties which included the residential
building, respondents opposed the same. Respondents allege that
they are the owners of the residential buildings before leaving to
USA and instituted their uncle Josefino Castro as the caretaker and
that through their president Manglicmot of the Midway maritime
leased the building except for a portion occupied by Josefino. And,
the petitioner failed to pay rents.
ISSUE

Who has ownership

over a residential
building?
 RULING
The Court ruled that the residential house owned by the
respondents should not have been included in the writ of
Possession since CCC has no title over it.

The law is predicated on an assumption that the ownership of

such accessions and accessories also belongs to the mortgagor as
the owner of the principal. Also, Adoracion’s subsequent acquisition
of the two parcels of land from her father does not necessarily entail
the acquisition of the residential building.

A building by itself is a real or immovable property distinct from

the land on which it is constructed on which it is constructed and
therefore can be a separate subject of contracts.
SUPREMA T. DUMO v REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 218269 June 6, 2018

http://www.free-powerpoint-templates-design.com
 FACTS
.

Marcelino Espinas died intestate leaving a parcel of land. The

subject property was purchased by Espinas from Carlos Calica
through a Deed of Absolute Sale. He then appoint a caretaker to
administer the property. Espinas had also been paying realty taxes.

However, the heirs of Trinidad executed Deed of Partition with

Absolute Sale over a parcel of land covered by the subject property.
Espinas filed a complaint for Recovery of Ownership, Possession
and Damages. To protect their interest, they also sought for TRO
enjoin with the Writ of Partial Execution and a Forcible entry. Dumo
filed an application for registration of two parcels of land alleging that
the lots belonged to her mother and that she and her siblings
inherited them upon their mother’s death.

Dumo traces her title from her mother, Trinidad, who purchased the
lots from Florencio Mabalay. Mabalay was Dumo;s maternal
grandfather which on the otherhand purchased the properties from
Carlos Calica.
ISSUE

Whether the subject

property acquired by
Dumo involved in Accion
Reivindicatoria case
 RULING
The Court ruled that the subject property was owned by the heirs of
Espinas and ordered the dismissal of Dumo’s land registration application
on the ground of lack of registerable title and to restore ownership and
possession of the lots to the heirs of Espinas.

In application for land registration, it is elementary that the applicant has

the burden of proving, by clear, positive and convincing
evidence,that her alleged possession and occupation were of the
nature and duration required by law.
 
 PANGAN v. CA
166 SCRA 375 October 17, 1988
 
http://www.free-powerpoint-templates-design.com
. Article 484: There is co-ownership whenever
the ownership of an undivided thing or right
belongs to different persons. In default of
contracts, or of special provisions, co-ownership
shall be governed by the provision of this Title

Topic: Co-ownership
 FACTS
.

A piece of land situated in Obando Bulacan which is

originally owned by Leon Hilario and his great
grandchildren. The petitioner filed an application for
the registration of the land in their names by virtue of
their continuous and exclusive possession since 1965
thereof. After proper notice and publication, the trial
court issued an order of default because there was no
opposition to the registration proceeding and the
application was approved on March 31, 1966.

However on June 8, 1966, Teodora Garcia who is

also a great granddaughter of the original owner of
the subject property filed a petition to set aside the
decision claiming that she is a co-owner. The court
dismissed the petition for the reason that whatever
rights Teadora over the subject property have been
fortified by extinctive prescription.
 
 ISSUE

Whether the court erred in ruling

that the respondent had not lost
due to extinctive prescription
 
 RULING

Yes. The established evidence clearly shows that the

land was inherited by both parties as co-heirs of their
common ancestor Leon Hilario. The original
possession was in the name of all the heirs, including
Teodora Garcia. The petitioners have not proved that
their possession excluded their co-owner and aunt or
that they derived their title from a separate
conveyance to them of the property by Leon.
Moreover such conveyance would be questionable
as it might have deprived Leon’s other children of
their legitime.
 RULING
It is only when such unequivocal notice has been given
that the period of prescription will begin to run against
the other co-owners and ultimately divest them of their
own title if they do not seasonably defend it. If the
private respondent did not immediately take legal
action to protect her rights, it was simply because of
forbearance towards her nephews and nieces, and
there was no need for her to act on it.

However, that legal provocation arose only when the

petitioners commenced the registration proceedings in
1965, and it was from that time she was required to
act, as she did, to protect her interest.
 
 CENTRAL PHILIPPINE UNIVERSITY v. CA
246 SCRA 511 G.R. No. 112127 July 17, 1995

http://www.free-powerpoint-templates-design.com
Article 1181: On conditional obligations, the
acquisition of rights as well the extinguishment
or loss of those already acquired shall depend
upon the happening of the event which
constitutes the condition.

Topic: Resolutory Condition

 FACTS
.

Don Ramon Lopez executed a deed of donation

of a parcel of land in favor of CPU, on the
condition that the land would be utilized by CPU
for establishment and medical college. Fifty years
had passed but the condition still not complied
with.

The heirs of Don Ramon want the donation

annulled and the land reconveyed to them for the
non-compliance with the condition.
 
 
ISSUE

Whether the donation can be

revoked?
 
 
 RULING

The Court held that more than a reasonable period of

50 years for CPU to comply with the conditions given
to make the donation in favor for them forever valid.
CPU was ordered to re convey the land to the heirs
of Don Lopez.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THANK YOU
Fully Editable Shapes